VOICES: Pregnant teens need help

Dorset Echo: Cerys Pumphrey Cerys Pumphrey

By CERYS PUMPHREY, MYP for Dorset

TEEN pregnancy. It’s a taboo subject in Britain. But it is also increasingly common.

In modern times many young women find themselves pregnant – whether by accident or deliberately.

But that doesn’t change the fact that they are still young people, who need support from those around them. Anyone who has been pregnant will know the challenges they must face, but with teenage pregnancy many mothers are not prepared for what is to come.

During the pregnancy they will constantly be judged due to their age, many looking down at them.

When they have given birth, they must provide for the child, financially and morally.

For most teenagers this will be a challenge, especially if there is no support.

Many teenage pregnancies don’t result in live births, but in miscarriages or terminations instead. These losses have an effect upon the mum-to-be for the rest of her life, especially if she wanted to keep the child.

Even though there are problems with the idea of teenage pregnancy, many people still decide to have children young. This isn’t always a bad thing, but sometimes is a blessing.

The child could bring a family together, or could symbolise a new beginning. But, no matter what the pregnancy results, one thing is for sure; all teenagers who are pregnant need the support. Not the criticisms and not the judgement.

Comments (54)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

4:24pm Sat 12 Apr 14

shy talk says...

“When they have given birth, they must provide for the child, financially and morally”

Luckily Cerys you were not around in the fifties and early sixties. Be it a teenager or single adult mother. The state would not give you any financial support or housing because you were considered unsuitable. They only option was to give up the child for adoption. How social and moral attitudes have changed some would say for the good, others not.

But at the end of the day they all need help.
“When they have given birth, they must provide for the child, financially and morally” Luckily Cerys you were not around in the fifties and early sixties. Be it a teenager or single adult mother. The state would not give you any financial support or housing because you were considered unsuitable. They only option was to give up the child for adoption. How social and moral attitudes have changed some would say for the good, others not. But at the end of the day they all need help. shy talk
  • Score: -8

4:29pm Sat 12 Apr 14

Sigurd Hoeberth says...

A lesson in keeping their legs closed and some personal responsibility without all the excuses might help.

"Her body her choice"...well HER responsibility. Not the tax payer.
A lesson in keeping their legs closed and some personal responsibility without all the excuses might help. "Her body her choice"...well HER responsibility. Not the tax payer. Sigurd Hoeberth
  • Score: 64

8:07pm Sat 12 Apr 14

woodsedge says...

And the male of the species is so responsible, not.
And the male of the species is so responsible, not. woodsedge
  • Score: -17

8:33pm Sat 12 Apr 14

Sigurd Hoeberth says...

Why should they be? They pay over 73% of the tax that subsidises the £46 billion plus all this single motherdom is costing the public purse ( not to mention the social decay of generations i t costs) and in reward they are treated like expendable sperm donors and walking incomes for the state machine, who in turn shaft them, leaving them with with no rights and broke.

Problem is my little feminist supporting lefty, the funds from the man-slave are running out and the little experiment is backfiring. More and more men are taking the Red pill and saying, "No more".

I don't blame them one bit. Women will eventually realise that feminism has duped them and used them in toto.
Why should they be? They pay over 73% of the tax that subsidises the £46 billion plus all this single motherdom is costing the public purse ( not to mention the social decay of generations i t costs) and in reward they are treated like expendable sperm donors and walking incomes for the state machine, who in turn shaft them, leaving them with with no rights and broke. Problem is my little feminist supporting lefty, the funds from the man-slave are running out and the little experiment is backfiring. More and more men are taking the Red pill and saying, "No more". I don't blame them one bit. Women will eventually realise that feminism has duped them and used them in toto. Sigurd Hoeberth
  • Score: 28

9:00pm Sat 12 Apr 14

Sigurd Hoeberth says...

Also you seemed to forget Woodsedge ( conveniently of course) that the constant ranting by feminists on behalf of women that it is, "her body her choice" and the daily widespread use of abortion as if it was popping to the shops ( app. £118 million a year to the mostly male tax payer), is as a result of women claiming the birth-rite for themselves under the subversive guidance of feminism.

Therefore given she has 100% of the say in the outcome, it is right to consider what is produced from it to be 100% her responsibility, because as with all things in life, with rights come responsibilities.

It would be fair to say men should have a duty or a responsibility to them or what is produced, when they are given full equal rights and resources to/with their children and have an equal say in outcome.

Until then, Men should be under no such expectations, why should they be?

More on this here subject here:
http://www.avoicefor
men.com/men/fathers/
male-reproductive-ri
ghts/
Also you seemed to forget Woodsedge ( conveniently of course) that the constant ranting by feminists on behalf of women that it is, "her body her choice" and the daily widespread use of abortion as if it was popping to the shops ( app. £118 million a year to the mostly male tax payer), is as a result of women claiming the birth-rite for themselves under the subversive guidance of feminism. Therefore given she has 100% of the say in the outcome, it is right to consider what is produced from it to be 100% her responsibility, because as with all things in life, with rights come responsibilities. It would be fair to say men should have a duty or a responsibility to them or what is produced, when they are given full equal rights and resources to/with their children and have an equal say in outcome. Until then, Men should be under no such expectations, why should they be? More on this here subject here: http://www.avoicefor men.com/men/fathers/ male-reproductive-ri ghts/ Sigurd Hoeberth
  • Score: 14

9:58pm Sat 12 Apr 14

navelgazer says...

Sigurd Hoeberth wrote:
Also you seemed to forget Woodsedge ( conveniently of course) that the constant ranting by feminists on behalf of women that it is, "her body her choice" and the daily widespread use of abortion as if it was popping to the shops ( app. £118 million a year to the mostly male tax payer), is as a result of women claiming the birth-rite for themselves under the subversive guidance of feminism.

Therefore given she has 100% of the say in the outcome, it is right to consider what is produced from it to be 100% her responsibility, because as with all things in life, with rights come responsibilities.

It would be fair to say men should have a duty or a responsibility to them or what is produced, when they are given full equal rights and resources to/with their children and have an equal say in outcome.

Until then, Men should be under no such expectations, why should they be?

More on this here subject here:
http://www.avoicefor

men.com/men/fathers/

male-reproductive-ri

ghts/
Perhaps the first step in your moral or misogynistic crusade should be to educate the male of the species of the need to keep their hormones under control?

You'll probably find a reason not to agree, but one of the reasons why the human race has survived for hundreds of thousands of years is the fact that nature has 'programmed' men to be mad keen on penetrating women – and getting sperm into them.

Repeat: The primary sexual objective of a human male is to get his penis inside a woman – and to discharge his sperm into her.
Though the methods may vary, it's the same for every living species.

I recall my own hormone-driven teenage predicaments such as having to disguise a rapidly growing 'stiffy' when a young lady sat on the same bus seat.
Very awkward if my stop was before hers :).

Of course women have a sex-drive too, but to suggest that a pregnancy is 100% a woman's responsibility, and somehow the fault of feminism, is to not live in the real world.
[quote][p][bold]Sigurd Hoeberth[/bold] wrote: Also you seemed to forget Woodsedge ( conveniently of course) that the constant ranting by feminists on behalf of women that it is, "her body her choice" and the daily widespread use of abortion as if it was popping to the shops ( app. £118 million a year to the mostly male tax payer), is as a result of women claiming the birth-rite for themselves under the subversive guidance of feminism. Therefore given she has 100% of the say in the outcome, it is right to consider what is produced from it to be 100% her responsibility, because as with all things in life, with rights come responsibilities. It would be fair to say men should have a duty or a responsibility to them or what is produced, when they are given full equal rights and resources to/with their children and have an equal say in outcome. Until then, Men should be under no such expectations, why should they be? More on this here subject here: http://www.avoicefor men.com/men/fathers/ male-reproductive-ri ghts/[/p][/quote]Perhaps the first step in your moral or misogynistic crusade should be to educate the male of the species of the need to keep their hormones under control? You'll probably find a reason not to agree, but one of the reasons why the human race has survived for hundreds of thousands of years is the fact that nature has 'programmed' men to be mad keen on penetrating women – and getting sperm into them. Repeat: The primary sexual objective of a human male is to get his penis inside a woman – and to discharge his sperm into her. Though the methods may vary, it's the same for every living species. I recall my own hormone-driven teenage predicaments such as having to disguise a rapidly growing 'stiffy' when a young lady sat on the same bus seat. Very awkward if my stop was before hers :). Of course women have a sex-drive too, but to suggest that a pregnancy is 100% a woman's responsibility, and somehow the fault of feminism, is to not live in the real world. navelgazer
  • Score: -7

10:25pm Sat 12 Apr 14

Sigurd Hoeberth says...

navelgazer wrote:
Sigurd Hoeberth wrote:
Also you seemed to forget Woodsedge ( conveniently of course) that the constant ranting by feminists on behalf of women that it is, "her body her choice" and the daily widespread use of abortion as if it was popping to the shops ( app. £118 million a year to the mostly male tax payer), is as a result of women claiming the birth-rite for themselves under the subversive guidance of feminism.

Therefore given she has 100% of the say in the outcome, it is right to consider what is produced from it to be 100% her responsibility, because as with all things in life, with rights come responsibilities.

It would be fair to say men should have a duty or a responsibility to them or what is produced, when they are given full equal rights and resources to/with their children and have an equal say in outcome.

Until then, Men should be under no such expectations, why should they be?

More on this here subject here:
http://www.avoicefor


men.com/men/fathers/


male-reproductive-ri


ghts/
Perhaps the first step in your moral or misogynistic crusade should be to educate the male of the species of the need to keep their hormones under control?

You'll probably find a reason not to agree, but one of the reasons why the human race has survived for hundreds of thousands of years is the fact that nature has 'programmed' men to be mad keen on penetrating women – and getting sperm into them.

Repeat: The primary sexual objective of a human male is to get his penis inside a woman – and to discharge his sperm into her.
Though the methods may vary, it's the same for every living species.

I recall my own hormone-driven teenage predicaments such as having to disguise a rapidly growing 'stiffy' when a young lady sat on the same bus seat.
Very awkward if my stop was before hers :).

Of course women have a sex-drive too, but to suggest that a pregnancy is 100% a woman's responsibility, and somehow the fault of feminism, is to not live in the real world.
Aside from your usual accusations , you have side-stepped addressing the point being made, instead preferring to try and duck-shove it all back onto men. How asking for, "equality" in the reproductive mechanism for men and acknowledging women have their own agency is, "misogynistic", can only be known to your peculiar mind. Perhaps you could answer that, will you?

Pregnancy IS 100% a woman's responsibility by way of her choices and rights, the law says it is. It is perfectly reasonable that all the while women have 100% of the rights and choices of reproduction, then it is entirely up to them to proceed with either the pregnancy or the birth, including the act that initiates the this. This is before we even mention the fact she also has dozens of methods available to her, mostly free from tax payer, to prevent the pregnancy before it even starts ( the rare genuine accident aside).

Trying to duck-shove responsibility back onto men again by citing their natural urges, is forgetting that once again, women have their own agency and choices and can simply keep their legs shut.

Again it is not unreasonable to say that when men have equal rights and equal resources over the pregnancy and what comes from it, THEN and only then should they be, "expected" to have any responsibility.

The linked article says it best, as you chose to conveniently ignore it's wisdom, i'll post it again for you:

http://www.avoicefor
men.com/men/fathers/
male-reproductive-ri
ghts/
[quote][p][bold]navelgazer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sigurd Hoeberth[/bold] wrote: Also you seemed to forget Woodsedge ( conveniently of course) that the constant ranting by feminists on behalf of women that it is, "her body her choice" and the daily widespread use of abortion as if it was popping to the shops ( app. £118 million a year to the mostly male tax payer), is as a result of women claiming the birth-rite for themselves under the subversive guidance of feminism. Therefore given she has 100% of the say in the outcome, it is right to consider what is produced from it to be 100% her responsibility, because as with all things in life, with rights come responsibilities. It would be fair to say men should have a duty or a responsibility to them or what is produced, when they are given full equal rights and resources to/with their children and have an equal say in outcome. Until then, Men should be under no such expectations, why should they be? More on this here subject here: http://www.avoicefor men.com/men/fathers/ male-reproductive-ri ghts/[/p][/quote]Perhaps the first step in your moral or misogynistic crusade should be to educate the male of the species of the need to keep their hormones under control? You'll probably find a reason not to agree, but one of the reasons why the human race has survived for hundreds of thousands of years is the fact that nature has 'programmed' men to be mad keen on penetrating women – and getting sperm into them. Repeat: The primary sexual objective of a human male is to get his penis inside a woman – and to discharge his sperm into her. Though the methods may vary, it's the same for every living species. I recall my own hormone-driven teenage predicaments such as having to disguise a rapidly growing 'stiffy' when a young lady sat on the same bus seat. Very awkward if my stop was before hers :). Of course women have a sex-drive too, but to suggest that a pregnancy is 100% a woman's responsibility, and somehow the fault of feminism, is to not live in the real world.[/p][/quote]Aside from your usual accusations , you have side-stepped addressing the point being made, instead preferring to try and duck-shove it all back onto men. How asking for, "equality" in the reproductive mechanism for men and acknowledging women have their own agency is, "misogynistic", can only be known to your peculiar mind. Perhaps you could answer that, will you? Pregnancy IS 100% a woman's responsibility by way of her choices and rights, the law says it is. It is perfectly reasonable that all the while women have 100% of the rights and choices of reproduction, then it is entirely up to them to proceed with either the pregnancy or the birth, including the act that initiates the this. This is before we even mention the fact she also has dozens of methods available to her, mostly free from tax payer, to prevent the pregnancy before it even starts ( the rare genuine accident aside). Trying to duck-shove responsibility back onto men again by citing their natural urges, is forgetting that once again, women have their own agency and choices and can simply keep their legs shut. Again it is not unreasonable to say that when men have equal rights and equal resources over the pregnancy and what comes from it, THEN and only then should they be, "expected" to have any responsibility. The linked article says it best, as you chose to conveniently ignore it's wisdom, i'll post it again for you: http://www.avoicefor men.com/men/fathers/ male-reproductive-ri ghts/ Sigurd Hoeberth
  • Score: 15

11:03pm Sat 12 Apr 14

woodsedge says...

navelgazer wrote:
Sigurd Hoeberth wrote:
Also you seemed to forget Woodsedge ( conveniently of course) that the constant ranting by feminists on behalf of women that it is, "her body her choice" and the daily widespread use of abortion as if it was popping to the shops ( app. £118 million a year to the mostly male tax payer), is as a result of women claiming the birth-rite for themselves under the subversive guidance of feminism.

Therefore given she has 100% of the say in the outcome, it is right to consider what is produced from it to be 100% her responsibility, because as with all things in life, with rights come responsibilities.

It would be fair to say men should have a duty or a responsibility to them or what is produced, when they are given full equal rights and resources to/with their children and have an equal say in outcome.

Until then, Men should be under no such expectations, why should they be?

More on this here subject here:
http://www.avoicefor


men.com/men/fathers/


male-reproductive-ri


ghts/
Perhaps the first step in your moral or misogynistic crusade should be to educate the male of the species of the need to keep their hormones under control?

You'll probably find a reason not to agree, but one of the reasons why the human race has survived for hundreds of thousands of years is the fact that nature has 'programmed' men to be mad keen on penetrating women – and getting sperm into them.

Repeat: The primary sexual objective of a human male is to get his penis inside a woman – and to discharge his sperm into her.
Though the methods may vary, it's the same for every living species.

I recall my own hormone-driven teenage predicaments such as having to disguise a rapidly growing 'stiffy' when a young lady sat on the same bus seat.
Very awkward if my stop was before hers :).

Of course women have a sex-drive too, but to suggest that a pregnancy is 100% a woman's responsibility, and somehow the fault of feminism, is to not live in the real world.
Your wasting your time trying to debate with someone who clearly as issues. Maybe he wasn't breast fed or his first love saw him for what he really is or perhaps he was just dropped on his head, who knows. I think the truth is the links he continues to post from like minded twisted misogynist web sites is old Sigturds ****!!
[quote][p][bold]navelgazer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sigurd Hoeberth[/bold] wrote: Also you seemed to forget Woodsedge ( conveniently of course) that the constant ranting by feminists on behalf of women that it is, "her body her choice" and the daily widespread use of abortion as if it was popping to the shops ( app. £118 million a year to the mostly male tax payer), is as a result of women claiming the birth-rite for themselves under the subversive guidance of feminism. Therefore given she has 100% of the say in the outcome, it is right to consider what is produced from it to be 100% her responsibility, because as with all things in life, with rights come responsibilities. It would be fair to say men should have a duty or a responsibility to them or what is produced, when they are given full equal rights and resources to/with their children and have an equal say in outcome. Until then, Men should be under no such expectations, why should they be? More on this here subject here: http://www.avoicefor men.com/men/fathers/ male-reproductive-ri ghts/[/p][/quote]Perhaps the first step in your moral or misogynistic crusade should be to educate the male of the species of the need to keep their hormones under control? You'll probably find a reason not to agree, but one of the reasons why the human race has survived for hundreds of thousands of years is the fact that nature has 'programmed' men to be mad keen on penetrating women – and getting sperm into them. Repeat: The primary sexual objective of a human male is to get his penis inside a woman – and to discharge his sperm into her. Though the methods may vary, it's the same for every living species. I recall my own hormone-driven teenage predicaments such as having to disguise a rapidly growing 'stiffy' when a young lady sat on the same bus seat. Very awkward if my stop was before hers :). Of course women have a sex-drive too, but to suggest that a pregnancy is 100% a woman's responsibility, and somehow the fault of feminism, is to not live in the real world.[/p][/quote]Your wasting your time trying to debate with someone who clearly as issues. Maybe he wasn't breast fed or his first love saw him for what he really is or perhaps he was just dropped on his head, who knows. I think the truth is the links he continues to post from like minded twisted misogynist web sites is old Sigturds ****!! woodsedge
  • Score: -22

11:13pm Sat 12 Apr 14

Sigurd Hoeberth says...

woodsedge wrote:
navelgazer wrote:
Sigurd Hoeberth wrote:
Also you seemed to forget Woodsedge ( conveniently of course) that the constant ranting by feminists on behalf of women that it is, "her body her choice" and the daily widespread use of abortion as if it was popping to the shops ( app. £118 million a year to the mostly male tax payer), is as a result of women claiming the birth-rite for themselves under the subversive guidance of feminism.

Therefore given she has 100% of the say in the outcome, it is right to consider what is produced from it to be 100% her responsibility, because as with all things in life, with rights come responsibilities.

It would be fair to say men should have a duty or a responsibility to them or what is produced, when they are given full equal rights and resources to/with their children and have an equal say in outcome.

Until then, Men should be under no such expectations, why should they be?

More on this here subject here:
http://www.avoicefor



men.com/men/fathers/



male-reproductive-ri



ghts/
Perhaps the first step in your moral or misogynistic crusade should be to educate the male of the species of the need to keep their hormones under control?

You'll probably find a reason not to agree, but one of the reasons why the human race has survived for hundreds of thousands of years is the fact that nature has 'programmed' men to be mad keen on penetrating women – and getting sperm into them.

Repeat: The primary sexual objective of a human male is to get his penis inside a woman – and to discharge his sperm into her.
Though the methods may vary, it's the same for every living species.

I recall my own hormone-driven teenage predicaments such as having to disguise a rapidly growing 'stiffy' when a young lady sat on the same bus seat.
Very awkward if my stop was before hers :).

Of course women have a sex-drive too, but to suggest that a pregnancy is 100% a woman's responsibility, and somehow the fault of feminism, is to not live in the real world.
Your wasting your time trying to debate with someone who clearly as issues. Maybe he wasn't breast fed or his first love saw him for what he really is or perhaps he was just dropped on his head, who knows. I think the truth is the links he continues to post from like minded twisted misogynist web sites is old Sigturds ****!!
As always any attempts at serious adult debate is intersected by Woodsedge and their typical femi-tactics of vitriol, shaming language and attempted conversational shut-downs.

Funny how that always happens when one is touching on some linear facts their ideology does not want to be faced with. Yes the truth is in the links Woodsedge, that's why you work so hard to avoid and discredit them. Your actions validate them.

Oh well, an adult debate almost happened then....
[quote][p][bold]woodsedge[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]navelgazer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sigurd Hoeberth[/bold] wrote: Also you seemed to forget Woodsedge ( conveniently of course) that the constant ranting by feminists on behalf of women that it is, "her body her choice" and the daily widespread use of abortion as if it was popping to the shops ( app. £118 million a year to the mostly male tax payer), is as a result of women claiming the birth-rite for themselves under the subversive guidance of feminism. Therefore given she has 100% of the say in the outcome, it is right to consider what is produced from it to be 100% her responsibility, because as with all things in life, with rights come responsibilities. It would be fair to say men should have a duty or a responsibility to them or what is produced, when they are given full equal rights and resources to/with their children and have an equal say in outcome. Until then, Men should be under no such expectations, why should they be? More on this here subject here: http://www.avoicefor men.com/men/fathers/ male-reproductive-ri ghts/[/p][/quote]Perhaps the first step in your moral or misogynistic crusade should be to educate the male of the species of the need to keep their hormones under control? You'll probably find a reason not to agree, but one of the reasons why the human race has survived for hundreds of thousands of years is the fact that nature has 'programmed' men to be mad keen on penetrating women – and getting sperm into them. Repeat: The primary sexual objective of a human male is to get his penis inside a woman – and to discharge his sperm into her. Though the methods may vary, it's the same for every living species. I recall my own hormone-driven teenage predicaments such as having to disguise a rapidly growing 'stiffy' when a young lady sat on the same bus seat. Very awkward if my stop was before hers :). Of course women have a sex-drive too, but to suggest that a pregnancy is 100% a woman's responsibility, and somehow the fault of feminism, is to not live in the real world.[/p][/quote]Your wasting your time trying to debate with someone who clearly as issues. Maybe he wasn't breast fed or his first love saw him for what he really is or perhaps he was just dropped on his head, who knows. I think the truth is the links he continues to post from like minded twisted misogynist web sites is old Sigturds ****!![/p][/quote]As always any attempts at serious adult debate is intersected by Woodsedge and their typical femi-tactics of vitriol, shaming language and attempted conversational shut-downs. Funny how that always happens when one is touching on some linear facts their ideology does not want to be faced with. Yes the truth is in the links Woodsedge, that's why you work so hard to avoid and discredit them. Your actions validate them. Oh well, an adult debate almost happened then.... Sigurd Hoeberth
  • Score: 16

11:20pm Sat 12 Apr 14

woodsedge says...

Sigurd Hoeberth wrote:
woodsedge wrote:
navelgazer wrote:
Sigurd Hoeberth wrote:
Also you seemed to forget Woodsedge ( conveniently of course) that the constant ranting by feminists on behalf of women that it is, "her body her choice" and the daily widespread use of abortion as if it was popping to the shops ( app. £118 million a year to the mostly male tax payer), is as a result of women claiming the birth-rite for themselves under the subversive guidance of feminism.

Therefore given she has 100% of the say in the outcome, it is right to consider what is produced from it to be 100% her responsibility, because as with all things in life, with rights come responsibilities.

It would be fair to say men should have a duty or a responsibility to them or what is produced, when they are given full equal rights and resources to/with their children and have an equal say in outcome.

Until then, Men should be under no such expectations, why should they be?

More on this here subject here:
http://www.avoicefor




men.com/men/fathers/




male-reproductive-ri




ghts/
Perhaps the first step in your moral or misogynistic crusade should be to educate the male of the species of the need to keep their hormones under control?

You'll probably find a reason not to agree, but one of the reasons why the human race has survived for hundreds of thousands of years is the fact that nature has 'programmed' men to be mad keen on penetrating women – and getting sperm into them.

Repeat: The primary sexual objective of a human male is to get his penis inside a woman – and to discharge his sperm into her.
Though the methods may vary, it's the same for every living species.

I recall my own hormone-driven teenage predicaments such as having to disguise a rapidly growing 'stiffy' when a young lady sat on the same bus seat.
Very awkward if my stop was before hers :).

Of course women have a sex-drive too, but to suggest that a pregnancy is 100% a woman's responsibility, and somehow the fault of feminism, is to not live in the real world.
Your wasting your time trying to debate with someone who clearly as issues. Maybe he wasn't breast fed or his first love saw him for what he really is or perhaps he was just dropped on his head, who knows. I think the truth is the links he continues to post from like minded twisted misogynist web sites is old Sigturds ****!!
As always any attempts at serious adult debate is intersected by Woodsedge and their typical femi-tactics of vitriol, shaming language and attempted conversational shut-downs.

Funny how that always happens when one is touching on some linear facts their ideology does not want to be faced with. Yes the truth is in the links Woodsedge, that's why you work so hard to avoid and discredit them. Your actions validate them.

Oh well, an adult debate almost happened then....
'Adult debate' not when your around! And stop stalking me!
[quote][p][bold]Sigurd Hoeberth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]woodsedge[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]navelgazer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sigurd Hoeberth[/bold] wrote: Also you seemed to forget Woodsedge ( conveniently of course) that the constant ranting by feminists on behalf of women that it is, "her body her choice" and the daily widespread use of abortion as if it was popping to the shops ( app. £118 million a year to the mostly male tax payer), is as a result of women claiming the birth-rite for themselves under the subversive guidance of feminism. Therefore given she has 100% of the say in the outcome, it is right to consider what is produced from it to be 100% her responsibility, because as with all things in life, with rights come responsibilities. It would be fair to say men should have a duty or a responsibility to them or what is produced, when they are given full equal rights and resources to/with their children and have an equal say in outcome. Until then, Men should be under no such expectations, why should they be? More on this here subject here: http://www.avoicefor men.com/men/fathers/ male-reproductive-ri ghts/[/p][/quote]Perhaps the first step in your moral or misogynistic crusade should be to educate the male of the species of the need to keep their hormones under control? You'll probably find a reason not to agree, but one of the reasons why the human race has survived for hundreds of thousands of years is the fact that nature has 'programmed' men to be mad keen on penetrating women – and getting sperm into them. Repeat: The primary sexual objective of a human male is to get his penis inside a woman – and to discharge his sperm into her. Though the methods may vary, it's the same for every living species. I recall my own hormone-driven teenage predicaments such as having to disguise a rapidly growing 'stiffy' when a young lady sat on the same bus seat. Very awkward if my stop was before hers :). Of course women have a sex-drive too, but to suggest that a pregnancy is 100% a woman's responsibility, and somehow the fault of feminism, is to not live in the real world.[/p][/quote]Your wasting your time trying to debate with someone who clearly as issues. Maybe he wasn't breast fed or his first love saw him for what he really is or perhaps he was just dropped on his head, who knows. I think the truth is the links he continues to post from like minded twisted misogynist web sites is old Sigturds ****!![/p][/quote]As always any attempts at serious adult debate is intersected by Woodsedge and their typical femi-tactics of vitriol, shaming language and attempted conversational shut-downs. Funny how that always happens when one is touching on some linear facts their ideology does not want to be faced with. Yes the truth is in the links Woodsedge, that's why you work so hard to avoid and discredit them. Your actions validate them. Oh well, an adult debate almost happened then....[/p][/quote]'Adult debate' not when your around! And stop stalking me! woodsedge
  • Score: -23

2:09am Sun 13 Apr 14

westbaywonder says...

navelgazer wrote:
Sigurd Hoeberth wrote:
Also you seemed to forget Woodsedge ( conveniently of course) that the constant ranting by feminists on behalf of women that it is, "her body her choice" and the daily widespread use of abortion as if it was popping to the shops ( app. £118 million a year to the mostly male tax payer), is as a result of women claiming the birth-rite for themselves under the subversive guidance of feminism.

Therefore given she has 100% of the say in the outcome, it is right to consider what is produced from it to be 100% her responsibility, because as with all things in life, with rights come responsibilities.

It would be fair to say men should have a duty or a responsibility to them or what is produced, when they are given full equal rights and resources to/with their children and have an equal say in outcome.

Until then, Men should be under no such expectations, why should they be?

More on this here subject here:
http://www.avoicefor


men.com/men/fathers/


male-reproductive-ri


ghts/
Perhaps the first step in your moral or misogynistic crusade should be to educate the male of the species of the need to keep their hormones under control?

You'll probably find a reason not to agree, but one of the reasons why the human race has survived for hundreds of thousands of years is the fact that nature has 'programmed' men to be mad keen on penetrating women – and getting sperm into them.

Repeat: The primary sexual objective of a human male is to get his penis inside a woman – and to discharge his sperm into her.
Though the methods may vary, it's the same for every living species.

I recall my own hormone-driven teenage predicaments such as having to disguise a rapidly growing 'stiffy' when a young lady sat on the same bus seat.
Very awkward if my stop was before hers :).

Of course women have a sex-drive too, but to suggest that a pregnancy is 100% a woman's responsibility, and somehow the fault of feminism, is to not live in the real world.
The primary sexual objective .........
Are you for real?
WTF do you think men are, some kind of cave men going around raping females . Shut up you twit.!!!
[quote][p][bold]navelgazer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sigurd Hoeberth[/bold] wrote: Also you seemed to forget Woodsedge ( conveniently of course) that the constant ranting by feminists on behalf of women that it is, "her body her choice" and the daily widespread use of abortion as if it was popping to the shops ( app. £118 million a year to the mostly male tax payer), is as a result of women claiming the birth-rite for themselves under the subversive guidance of feminism. Therefore given she has 100% of the say in the outcome, it is right to consider what is produced from it to be 100% her responsibility, because as with all things in life, with rights come responsibilities. It would be fair to say men should have a duty or a responsibility to them or what is produced, when they are given full equal rights and resources to/with their children and have an equal say in outcome. Until then, Men should be under no such expectations, why should they be? More on this here subject here: http://www.avoicefor men.com/men/fathers/ male-reproductive-ri ghts/[/p][/quote]Perhaps the first step in your moral or misogynistic crusade should be to educate the male of the species of the need to keep their hormones under control? You'll probably find a reason not to agree, but one of the reasons why the human race has survived for hundreds of thousands of years is the fact that nature has 'programmed' men to be mad keen on penetrating women – and getting sperm into them. Repeat: The primary sexual objective of a human male is to get his penis inside a woman – and to discharge his sperm into her. Though the methods may vary, it's the same for every living species. I recall my own hormone-driven teenage predicaments such as having to disguise a rapidly growing 'stiffy' when a young lady sat on the same bus seat. Very awkward if my stop was before hers :). Of course women have a sex-drive too, but to suggest that a pregnancy is 100% a woman's responsibility, and somehow the fault of feminism, is to not live in the real world.[/p][/quote]The primary sexual objective ......... Are you for real? WTF do you think men are, some kind of cave men going around raping females . Shut up you twit.!!! westbaywonder
  • Score: 24

2:22am Sun 13 Apr 14

westbaywonder says...

Simple, You dont have a car if you can not afford to keep it.

You dont have children if you can not afford to keep them.

Oh yes, hang on, is this not the fastest route to get housed and some kind of income.Yes i thought it was, but these innocent teenage girls could never be that cunning and devious now could they.
Simple, You dont have a car if you can not afford to keep it. You dont have children if you can not afford to keep them. Oh yes, hang on, is this not the fastest route to get housed and some kind of income.Yes i thought it was, but these innocent teenage girls could never be that cunning and devious now could they. westbaywonder
  • Score: 44

9:36am Sun 13 Apr 14

navelgazer says...

woodsedge wrote:
navelgazer wrote:
Sigurd Hoeberth wrote:
Also you seemed to forget Woodsedge ( conveniently of course) that the constant ranting by feminists on behalf of women that it is, "her body her choice" and the daily widespread use of abortion as if it was popping to the shops ( app. £118 million a year to the mostly male tax payer), is as a result of women claiming the birth-rite for themselves under the subversive guidance of feminism.

Therefore given she has 100% of the say in the outcome, it is right to consider what is produced from it to be 100% her responsibility, because as with all things in life, with rights come responsibilities.

It would be fair to say men should have a duty or a responsibility to them or what is produced, when they are given full equal rights and resources to/with their children and have an equal say in outcome.

Until then, Men should be under no such expectations, why should they be?

More on this here subject here:
http://www.avoicefor



men.com/men/fathers/



male-reproductive-ri



ghts/
Perhaps the first step in your moral or misogynistic crusade should be to educate the male of the species of the need to keep their hormones under control?

You'll probably find a reason not to agree, but one of the reasons why the human race has survived for hundreds of thousands of years is the fact that nature has 'programmed' men to be mad keen on penetrating women – and getting sperm into them.

Repeat: The primary sexual objective of a human male is to get his penis inside a woman – and to discharge his sperm into her.
Though the methods may vary, it's the same for every living species.

I recall my own hormone-driven teenage predicaments such as having to disguise a rapidly growing 'stiffy' when a young lady sat on the same bus seat.
Very awkward if my stop was before hers :).

Of course women have a sex-drive too, but to suggest that a pregnancy is 100% a woman's responsibility, and somehow the fault of feminism, is to not live in the real world.
Your wasting your time trying to debate with someone who clearly as issues. Maybe he wasn't breast fed or his first love saw him for what he really is or perhaps he was just dropped on his head, who knows. I think the truth is the links he continues to post from like minded twisted misogynist web sites is old Sigturds ****!!
Indeed.. Funny how he refers to my "usual accusations", when I very rarely find anything worth commenting upon.

In this instance I made an exception... but only because his comment was so outrageously deluded.

I share your thought that he may have issues based upon a bad experience... I've just followed the link he posted... Oh Dear!
[quote][p][bold]woodsedge[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]navelgazer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sigurd Hoeberth[/bold] wrote: Also you seemed to forget Woodsedge ( conveniently of course) that the constant ranting by feminists on behalf of women that it is, "her body her choice" and the daily widespread use of abortion as if it was popping to the shops ( app. £118 million a year to the mostly male tax payer), is as a result of women claiming the birth-rite for themselves under the subversive guidance of feminism. Therefore given she has 100% of the say in the outcome, it is right to consider what is produced from it to be 100% her responsibility, because as with all things in life, with rights come responsibilities. It would be fair to say men should have a duty or a responsibility to them or what is produced, when they are given full equal rights and resources to/with their children and have an equal say in outcome. Until then, Men should be under no such expectations, why should they be? More on this here subject here: http://www.avoicefor men.com/men/fathers/ male-reproductive-ri ghts/[/p][/quote]Perhaps the first step in your moral or misogynistic crusade should be to educate the male of the species of the need to keep their hormones under control? You'll probably find a reason not to agree, but one of the reasons why the human race has survived for hundreds of thousands of years is the fact that nature has 'programmed' men to be mad keen on penetrating women – and getting sperm into them. Repeat: The primary sexual objective of a human male is to get his penis inside a woman – and to discharge his sperm into her. Though the methods may vary, it's the same for every living species. I recall my own hormone-driven teenage predicaments such as having to disguise a rapidly growing 'stiffy' when a young lady sat on the same bus seat. Very awkward if my stop was before hers :). Of course women have a sex-drive too, but to suggest that a pregnancy is 100% a woman's responsibility, and somehow the fault of feminism, is to not live in the real world.[/p][/quote]Your wasting your time trying to debate with someone who clearly as issues. Maybe he wasn't breast fed or his first love saw him for what he really is or perhaps he was just dropped on his head, who knows. I think the truth is the links he continues to post from like minded twisted misogynist web sites is old Sigturds ****!![/p][/quote]Indeed.. Funny how he refers to my "usual accusations", when I very rarely find anything worth commenting upon. In this instance I made an exception... but only because his comment was so outrageously deluded. I share your thought that he may have issues based upon a bad experience... I've just followed the link he posted... Oh Dear! navelgazer
  • Score: -17

10:06am Sun 13 Apr 14

navelgazer says...

westbaywonder wrote:
navelgazer wrote:
Sigurd Hoeberth wrote:
Also you seemed to forget Woodsedge ( conveniently of course) that the constant ranting by feminists on behalf of women that it is, "her body her choice" and the daily widespread use of abortion as if it was popping to the shops ( app. £118 million a year to the mostly male tax payer), is as a result of women claiming the birth-rite for themselves under the subversive guidance of feminism.

Therefore given she has 100% of the say in the outcome, it is right to consider what is produced from it to be 100% her responsibility, because as with all things in life, with rights come responsibilities.

It would be fair to say men should have a duty or a responsibility to them or what is produced, when they are given full equal rights and resources to/with their children and have an equal say in outcome.

Until then, Men should be under no such expectations, why should they be?

More on this here subject here:
http://www.avoicefor



men.com/men/fathers/



male-reproductive-ri



ghts/
Perhaps the first step in your moral or misogynistic crusade should be to educate the male of the species of the need to keep their hormones under control?

You'll probably find a reason not to agree, but one of the reasons why the human race has survived for hundreds of thousands of years is the fact that nature has 'programmed' men to be mad keen on penetrating women – and getting sperm into them.

Repeat: The primary sexual objective of a human male is to get his penis inside a woman – and to discharge his sperm into her.
Though the methods may vary, it's the same for every living species.

I recall my own hormone-driven teenage predicaments such as having to disguise a rapidly growing 'stiffy' when a young lady sat on the same bus seat.
Very awkward if my stop was before hers :).

Of course women have a sex-drive too, but to suggest that a pregnancy is 100% a woman's responsibility, and somehow the fault of feminism, is to not live in the real world.
The primary sexual objective .........
Are you for real?
WTF do you think men are, some kind of cave men going around raping females . Shut up you twit.!!!
1. I didn't mention cave-men or rape.... and no, I don't think that's what normal men are.
2. I did mention the natural instinct that ensures the continuation of all species...... i

You might not care to believe or admit to the nature and span of of sexuality - procreation, contraception, celibacy, marriage, adultery, casual sex, flirting, prostitution, homosexuality, masturbation, seduction, rape, sexual harassment, sadomasochism, ****, ****, and pedophilia.

All are related to the human desires and activities that involve the search for and attainment of sexual pleasure or satisfaction. Not all are acceptable, of course, so are quite rightly deemed criminal.
Some are related to the human desires and activities that involve the creation of new human beings.

It's a natural feature of human beings that certain sorts of behaviour and certain bodily organs are and can be employed either for pleasure or for reproduction, or for both. If some men were not driven by an unfulfilled urge to pay for what they could not otherwise have, then the oldest profession would not exist. The upside of the oldest profession is that - were it not on offer - unfulfilled men might become rapists.

To blame only one of two consenting parties for a resulting unwanted pregnancy is rather foolish. One might blame both for not taking adequate proportions - but it isn't right to castigate only the single mother who is literally "left holding the baby".

What's your thought upon the WW2 war-babies born in the wake of, and along the corridors of the liberating allied armies? The casualties were the women and their bastards.... I'll stop there, I think.
[quote][p][bold]westbaywonder[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]navelgazer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sigurd Hoeberth[/bold] wrote: Also you seemed to forget Woodsedge ( conveniently of course) that the constant ranting by feminists on behalf of women that it is, "her body her choice" and the daily widespread use of abortion as if it was popping to the shops ( app. £118 million a year to the mostly male tax payer), is as a result of women claiming the birth-rite for themselves under the subversive guidance of feminism. Therefore given she has 100% of the say in the outcome, it is right to consider what is produced from it to be 100% her responsibility, because as with all things in life, with rights come responsibilities. It would be fair to say men should have a duty or a responsibility to them or what is produced, when they are given full equal rights and resources to/with their children and have an equal say in outcome. Until then, Men should be under no such expectations, why should they be? More on this here subject here: http://www.avoicefor men.com/men/fathers/ male-reproductive-ri ghts/[/p][/quote]Perhaps the first step in your moral or misogynistic crusade should be to educate the male of the species of the need to keep their hormones under control? You'll probably find a reason not to agree, but one of the reasons why the human race has survived for hundreds of thousands of years is the fact that nature has 'programmed' men to be mad keen on penetrating women – and getting sperm into them. Repeat: The primary sexual objective of a human male is to get his penis inside a woman – and to discharge his sperm into her. Though the methods may vary, it's the same for every living species. I recall my own hormone-driven teenage predicaments such as having to disguise a rapidly growing 'stiffy' when a young lady sat on the same bus seat. Very awkward if my stop was before hers :). Of course women have a sex-drive too, but to suggest that a pregnancy is 100% a woman's responsibility, and somehow the fault of feminism, is to not live in the real world.[/p][/quote]The primary sexual objective ......... Are you for real? WTF do you think men are, some kind of cave men going around raping females . Shut up you twit.!!![/p][/quote]1. I didn't mention cave-men or rape.... and no, I don't think that's what normal men are. 2. I did mention the natural instinct that ensures the continuation of all species...... i You might not care to believe or admit to the nature and span of of sexuality - procreation, contraception, celibacy, marriage, adultery, casual sex, flirting, prostitution, homosexuality, masturbation, seduction, rape, sexual harassment, sadomasochism, ****, ****, and pedophilia. All are related to the human desires and activities that involve the search for and attainment of sexual pleasure or satisfaction. Not all are acceptable, of course, so are quite rightly deemed criminal. Some are related to the human desires and activities that involve the creation of new human beings. It's a natural feature of human beings that certain sorts of behaviour and certain bodily organs are and can be employed either for pleasure or for reproduction, or for both. If some men were not driven by an unfulfilled urge to pay for what they could not otherwise have, then the oldest profession would not exist. The upside of the oldest profession is that - were it not on offer - unfulfilled men might become rapists. To blame only one of two consenting parties for a resulting unwanted pregnancy is rather foolish. One might blame both for not taking adequate proportions - but it isn't right to castigate only the single mother who is literally "left holding the baby". What's your thought upon the WW2 war-babies born in the wake of, and along the corridors of the liberating allied armies? The casualties were the women and their bastards.... I'll stop there, I think. navelgazer
  • Score: -19

11:52am Sun 13 Apr 14

D.shoreditch says...

Actually after thinking about it and reading that article, there is a genuine point to what Sigurd says. I don't think it applies to those women who had a child in full agreement with a partner who then left for no good reson though. The issue raised that why should men be expected to have any responsibility when they have no rights or say in the time after conception is valid, As is the suggestion that women do indeed have complete control and rights over it and as such it really is the responsibility of their own choices.
Actually after thinking about it and reading that article, there is a genuine point to what Sigurd says. I don't think it applies to those women who had a child in full agreement with a partner who then left for no good reson though. The issue raised that why should men be expected to have any responsibility when they have no rights or say in the time after conception is valid, As is the suggestion that women do indeed have complete control and rights over it and as such it really is the responsibility of their own choices. D.shoreditch
  • Score: 21

1:21pm Sun 13 Apr 14

woodsedge says...

D.shoreditch wrote:
Actually after thinking about it and reading that article, there is a genuine point to what Sigurd says. I don't think it applies to those women who had a child in full agreement with a partner who then left for no good reson though. The issue raised that why should men be expected to have any responsibility when they have no rights or say in the time after conception is valid, As is the suggestion that women do indeed have complete control and rights over it and as such it really is the responsibility of their own choices.
Cedric!!!!
[quote][p][bold]D.shoreditch[/bold] wrote: Actually after thinking about it and reading that article, there is a genuine point to what Sigurd says. I don't think it applies to those women who had a child in full agreement with a partner who then left for no good reson though. The issue raised that why should men be expected to have any responsibility when they have no rights or say in the time after conception is valid, As is the suggestion that women do indeed have complete control and rights over it and as such it really is the responsibility of their own choices.[/p][/quote]Cedric!!!! woodsedge
  • Score: -17

2:44pm Sun 13 Apr 14

D.shoreditch says...

woodsedge wrote:
D.shoreditch wrote:
Actually after thinking about it and reading that article, there is a genuine point to what Sigurd says. I don't think it applies to those women who had a child in full agreement with a partner who then left for no good reson though. The issue raised that why should men be expected to have any responsibility when they have no rights or say in the time after conception is valid, As is the suggestion that women do indeed have complete control and rights over it and as such it really is the responsibility of their own choices.
Cedric!!!!
Excuse me ?
[quote][p][bold]woodsedge[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]D.shoreditch[/bold] wrote: Actually after thinking about it and reading that article, there is a genuine point to what Sigurd says. I don't think it applies to those women who had a child in full agreement with a partner who then left for no good reson though. The issue raised that why should men be expected to have any responsibility when they have no rights or say in the time after conception is valid, As is the suggestion that women do indeed have complete control and rights over it and as such it really is the responsibility of their own choices.[/p][/quote]Cedric!!!![/p][/quote]Excuse me ? D.shoreditch
  • Score: 12

6:07pm Sun 13 Apr 14

7drawers says...

I seem to have missed the point of this artical...there is the statement, but no suggested solution. No explaination of why this was written..what is the context?
But she is right I got some looks while pregnant and I was 22!! But looked younger.
I seem to have missed the point of this artical...there is the statement, but no suggested solution. No explaination of why this was written..what is the context? But she is right I got some looks while pregnant and I was 22!! But looked younger. 7drawers
  • Score: -4

4:08pm Mon 14 Apr 14

Rocksalt says...

Several comments here seem to make the assumption that getting pregnant in order to obtain housing is something only done by young women. That isn't true. And the reality is that young women -with or without children- are far more adept at finding accommodation than young men of the same age. Make of that what you will.

In response to the original article the author raises important points. We know that we need to do something to help young and/or poor parents. It's purely pragmatic given that improving the life chances of the child or children helps all of us in the long run. Doubtless this was in the minds of the government in the late 70s when it first guaranteed housing for single parents. Unfortunately , the number of single parents has risen exponentially since and there must be some correlation. Wish I knew the answer.

Incidentally, god knows what the young woman thinks if she has read some of the comments made here.
Several comments here seem to make the assumption that getting pregnant in order to obtain housing is something only done by young women. That isn't true. And the reality is that young women -with or without children- are far more adept at finding accommodation than young men of the same age. Make of that what you will. In response to the original article the author raises important points. We know that we need to do something to help young and/or poor parents. It's purely pragmatic given that improving the life chances of the child or children helps all of us in the long run. Doubtless this was in the minds of the government in the late 70s when it first guaranteed housing for single parents. Unfortunately , the number of single parents has risen exponentially since and there must be some correlation. Wish I knew the answer. Incidentally, god knows what the young woman thinks if she has read some of the comments made here. Rocksalt
  • Score: -13

4:55pm Tue 15 Apr 14

Sigurd Hoeberth says...

Rocksalt wrote:
Several comments here seem to make the assumption that getting pregnant in order to obtain housing is something only done by young women. That isn't true. And the reality is that young women -with or without children- are far more adept at finding accommodation than young men of the same age. Make of that what you will.

In response to the original article the author raises important points. We know that we need to do something to help young and/or poor parents. It's purely pragmatic given that improving the life chances of the child or children helps all of us in the long run. Doubtless this was in the minds of the government in the late 70s when it first guaranteed housing for single parents. Unfortunately , the number of single parents has risen exponentially since and there must be some correlation. Wish I knew the answer.

Incidentally, god knows what the young woman thinks if she has read some of the comments made here.
" Incidentally, god knows what the young woman thinks if she has read some of the comments made here."


Maybe she will think with more wisdom and that some made-up letters a manipulative mechanism placed on you, do not make you important or experienced to say anything in any way, yet.

She may also think , "I better not be like the rest and act like a tart to get popular, or use her natural ability to give birth as a means of financial/social resource or as a tool of manipulation ( child abuse). Not to follow the stupidity of others or what immoral garbage is fed to me in the popular mainstream, instead exercise some personal responsibility, claim her individual agency by her own merits. Learn to shake off the new-age culture of excuses and mediocrity that has worn down our society into the dirt.
[quote][p][bold]Rocksalt[/bold] wrote: Several comments here seem to make the assumption that getting pregnant in order to obtain housing is something only done by young women. That isn't true. And the reality is that young women -with or without children- are far more adept at finding accommodation than young men of the same age. Make of that what you will. In response to the original article the author raises important points. We know that we need to do something to help young and/or poor parents. It's purely pragmatic given that improving the life chances of the child or children helps all of us in the long run. Doubtless this was in the minds of the government in the late 70s when it first guaranteed housing for single parents. Unfortunately , the number of single parents has risen exponentially since and there must be some correlation. Wish I knew the answer. Incidentally, god knows what the young woman thinks if she has read some of the comments made here.[/p][/quote]" Incidentally, god knows what the young woman thinks if she has read some of the comments made here." Maybe she will think with more wisdom and that some made-up letters a manipulative mechanism placed on you, do not make you important or experienced to say anything in any way, yet. She may also think , "I better not be like the rest and act like a tart to get popular, or use her natural ability to give birth as a means of financial/social resource or as a tool of manipulation ( child abuse). Not to follow the stupidity of others or what immoral garbage is fed to me in the popular mainstream, instead exercise some personal responsibility, claim her individual agency by her own merits. Learn to shake off the new-age culture of excuses and mediocrity that has worn down our society into the dirt. Sigurd Hoeberth
  • Score: 21

6:45pm Tue 15 Apr 14

Parkstreetshufle says...

woodsedge wrote:
And the male of the species is so responsible, not.
Men or boys in this case should be named and shamed. It's unfair, and it's also costing us a lot of money. They should be shouldering some of the responsibility. No name, no benefit. I think that would solve it.
[quote][p][bold]woodsedge[/bold] wrote: And the male of the species is so responsible, not.[/p][/quote]Men or boys in this case should be named and shamed. It's unfair, and it's also costing us a lot of money. They should be shouldering some of the responsibility. No name, no benefit. I think that would solve it. Parkstreetshufle
  • Score: -10

8:59pm Tue 15 Apr 14

Sigurd Hoeberth says...

Parkstreetshufle wrote:
woodsedge wrote:
And the male of the species is so responsible, not.
Men or boys in this case should be named and shamed. It's unfair, and it's also costing us a lot of money. They should be shouldering some of the responsibility. No name, no benefit. I think that would solve it.
No rights for Fathers, no responsibility either.

Solve that , then you will help solve it.
[quote][p][bold]Parkstreetshufle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]woodsedge[/bold] wrote: And the male of the species is so responsible, not.[/p][/quote]Men or boys in this case should be named and shamed. It's unfair, and it's also costing us a lot of money. They should be shouldering some of the responsibility. No name, no benefit. I think that would solve it.[/p][/quote]No rights for Fathers, no responsibility either. Solve that , then you will help solve it. Sigurd Hoeberth
  • Score: 19

9:27am Wed 16 Apr 14

woodsedge says...

Sigurd Hoeberth wrote:
Parkstreetshufle wrote:
woodsedge wrote:
And the male of the species is so responsible, not.
Men or boys in this case should be named and shamed. It's unfair, and it's also costing us a lot of money. They should be shouldering some of the responsibility. No name, no benefit. I think that would solve it.
No rights for Fathers, no responsibility either.

Solve that , then you will help solve it.
Firstly, the vast majority of absent 'fathers' do not want to be present as they are to quick to father a child but slow to fulfil the parenting aspect of being a parent and a responsible partner. To solve the problem is quite simple, take responsibility regardless of whether your relationship has broken down or not. Put your children's interests before your own and if a relationship breaks fiend and the mother is not a fit parent then go to court. I speak from experience because when my marriage broke down and my now ex wife decided she wanted to relive her clubbing days, my two children wanted to live with me. I moved back in with my mother with my children against my ex's wishes, went to court and I got sole custody of my children. It's easy to wallow in self pity and blame the world because of relationship issues, but if you are man enough to father a child then be man a enough to put their interests before your own. And no I do not want any links to fathers fir sympathy.
[quote][p][bold]Sigurd Hoeberth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parkstreetshufle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]woodsedge[/bold] wrote: And the male of the species is so responsible, not.[/p][/quote]Men or boys in this case should be named and shamed. It's unfair, and it's also costing us a lot of money. They should be shouldering some of the responsibility. No name, no benefit. I think that would solve it.[/p][/quote]No rights for Fathers, no responsibility either. Solve that , then you will help solve it.[/p][/quote]Firstly, the vast majority of absent 'fathers' do not want to be present as they are to quick to father a child but slow to fulfil the parenting aspect of being a parent and a responsible partner. To solve the problem is quite simple, take responsibility regardless of whether your relationship has broken down or not. Put your children's interests before your own and if a relationship breaks fiend and the mother is not a fit parent then go to court. I speak from experience because when my marriage broke down and my now ex wife decided she wanted to relive her clubbing days, my two children wanted to live with me. I moved back in with my mother with my children against my ex's wishes, went to court and I got sole custody of my children. It's easy to wallow in self pity and blame the world because of relationship issues, but if you are man enough to father a child then be man a enough to put their interests before your own. And no I do not want any links to fathers fir sympathy. woodsedge
  • Score: -8

11:16am Wed 16 Apr 14

Sigurd Hoeberth says...

As always Woodsedge you talk from your agenda and ignorance of the facts. You don't want any links because it would go against your ideology and facts and truth are ignored by you as we have seen time and time again on these comments. So I will not waste my time. Anyone can Google the information on parental alienation, false allegation or about the politics and industry of the family court system to see what is what and how wrong your last statement is.
As always Woodsedge you talk from your agenda and ignorance of the facts. You don't want any links because it would go against your ideology and facts and truth are ignored by you as we have seen time and time again on these comments. So I will not waste my time. Anyone can Google the information on parental alienation, false allegation or about the politics and industry of the family court system to see what is what and how wrong your last statement is. Sigurd Hoeberth
  • Score: 10

11:32am Wed 16 Apr 14

Sigurd Hoeberth says...

P.S not long ago you said you was married to a social worker ( which would explain a few things) , sorry, it's just that your story keeps changing depending on the theme?
P.S not long ago you said you was married to a social worker ( which would explain a few things) , sorry, it's just that your story keeps changing depending on the theme? Sigurd Hoeberth
  • Score: 3

12:54pm Wed 16 Apr 14

woodsedge says...

Sigurd, I was divorced over 10 years ago and remarried my current wife who is indeed a Social worker, who is by the way a strong, vibrant, my equal, well educated, independent wife for some 7 years ago. My children have grown up to be sound adults and I though my personal experiences reflect the responsible male role model you continue to promote? Mine is a factual story where I did the right thing by my children, unfortunately the majority of 'boy' sperm donors cannot accept responsibility and just continue producing offspring. So what's your 'story' or is it to dark to share?
Sigurd, I was divorced over 10 years ago and remarried my current wife who is indeed a Social worker, who is by the way a strong, vibrant, my equal, well educated, independent wife for some 7 years ago. My children have grown up to be sound adults and I though my personal experiences reflect the responsible male role model you continue to promote? Mine is a factual story where I did the right thing by my children, unfortunately the majority of 'boy' sperm donors cannot accept responsibility and just continue producing offspring. So what's your 'story' or is it to dark to share? woodsedge
  • Score: -6

1:21pm Wed 16 Apr 14

Sigurd Hoeberth says...

woodsedge wrote:
Sigurd, I was divorced over 10 years ago and remarried my current wife who is indeed a Social worker, who is by the way a strong, vibrant, my equal, well educated, independent wife for some 7 years ago. My children have grown up to be sound adults and I though my personal experiences reflect the responsible male role model you continue to promote? Mine is a factual story where I did the right thing by my children, unfortunately the majority of 'boy' sperm donors cannot accept responsibility and just continue producing offspring. So what's your 'story' or is it to dark to share?
In your opinion.
[quote][p][bold]woodsedge[/bold] wrote: Sigurd, I was divorced over 10 years ago and remarried my current wife who is indeed a Social worker, who is by the way a strong, vibrant, my equal, well educated, independent wife for some 7 years ago. My children have grown up to be sound adults and I though my personal experiences reflect the responsible male role model you continue to promote? Mine is a factual story where I did the right thing by my children, unfortunately the majority of 'boy' sperm donors cannot accept responsibility and just continue producing offspring. So what's your 'story' or is it to dark to share?[/p][/quote]In your opinion. Sigurd Hoeberth
  • Score: 8

1:22pm Wed 16 Apr 14

Sigurd Hoeberth says...

Sigurd Hoeberth wrote:
woodsedge wrote:
Sigurd, I was divorced over 10 years ago and remarried my current wife who is indeed a Social worker, who is by the way a strong, vibrant, my equal, well educated, independent wife for some 7 years ago. My children have grown up to be sound adults and I though my personal experiences reflect the responsible male role model you continue to promote? Mine is a factual story where I did the right thing by my children, unfortunately the majority of 'boy' sperm donors cannot accept responsibility and just continue producing offspring. So what's your 'story' or is it to dark to share?
In your opinion.
P.S boy's don't "produce" the offspring, girls do and they have 100% of control and rights over it, something you refuse to accept.
[quote][p][bold]Sigurd Hoeberth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]woodsedge[/bold] wrote: Sigurd, I was divorced over 10 years ago and remarried my current wife who is indeed a Social worker, who is by the way a strong, vibrant, my equal, well educated, independent wife for some 7 years ago. My children have grown up to be sound adults and I though my personal experiences reflect the responsible male role model you continue to promote? Mine is a factual story where I did the right thing by my children, unfortunately the majority of 'boy' sperm donors cannot accept responsibility and just continue producing offspring. So what's your 'story' or is it to dark to share?[/p][/quote]In your opinion.[/p][/quote]P.S boy's don't "produce" the offspring, girls do and they have 100% of control and rights over it, something you refuse to accept. Sigurd Hoeberth
  • Score: 12

9:49pm Wed 16 Apr 14

cj07589 says...

woodsedge wrote:
navelgazer wrote:
Sigurd Hoeberth wrote:
Also you seemed to forget Woodsedge ( conveniently of course) that the constant ranting by feminists on behalf of women that it is, "her body her choice" and the daily widespread use of abortion as if it was popping to the shops ( app. £118 million a year to the mostly male tax payer), is as a result of women claiming the birth-rite for themselves under the subversive guidance of feminism.

Therefore given she has 100% of the say in the outcome, it is right to consider what is produced from it to be 100% her responsibility, because as with all things in life, with rights come responsibilities.

It would be fair to say men should have a duty or a responsibility to them or what is produced, when they are given full equal rights and resources to/with their children and have an equal say in outcome.

Until then, Men should be under no such expectations, why should they be?

More on this here subject here:
http://www.avoicefor



men.com/men/fathers/



male-reproductive-ri



ghts/
Perhaps the first step in your moral or misogynistic crusade should be to educate the male of the species of the need to keep their hormones under control?

You'll probably find a reason not to agree, but one of the reasons why the human race has survived for hundreds of thousands of years is the fact that nature has 'programmed' men to be mad keen on penetrating women – and getting sperm into them.

Repeat: The primary sexual objective of a human male is to get his penis inside a woman – and to discharge his sperm into her.
Though the methods may vary, it's the same for every living species.

I recall my own hormone-driven teenage predicaments such as having to disguise a rapidly growing 'stiffy' when a young lady sat on the same bus seat.
Very awkward if my stop was before hers :).

Of course women have a sex-drive too, but to suggest that a pregnancy is 100% a woman's responsibility, and somehow the fault of feminism, is to not live in the real world.
Your wasting your time trying to debate with someone who clearly as issues. Maybe he wasn't breast fed or his first love saw him for what he really is or perhaps he was just dropped on his head, who knows. I think the truth is the links he continues to post from like minded twisted misogynist web sites is old Sigturds ****!!
You're so out of touch, time to wake up, smell the coffee and open your eyes.
[quote][p][bold]woodsedge[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]navelgazer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sigurd Hoeberth[/bold] wrote: Also you seemed to forget Woodsedge ( conveniently of course) that the constant ranting by feminists on behalf of women that it is, "her body her choice" and the daily widespread use of abortion as if it was popping to the shops ( app. £118 million a year to the mostly male tax payer), is as a result of women claiming the birth-rite for themselves under the subversive guidance of feminism. Therefore given she has 100% of the say in the outcome, it is right to consider what is produced from it to be 100% her responsibility, because as with all things in life, with rights come responsibilities. It would be fair to say men should have a duty or a responsibility to them or what is produced, when they are given full equal rights and resources to/with their children and have an equal say in outcome. Until then, Men should be under no such expectations, why should they be? More on this here subject here: http://www.avoicefor men.com/men/fathers/ male-reproductive-ri ghts/[/p][/quote]Perhaps the first step in your moral or misogynistic crusade should be to educate the male of the species of the need to keep their hormones under control? You'll probably find a reason not to agree, but one of the reasons why the human race has survived for hundreds of thousands of years is the fact that nature has 'programmed' men to be mad keen on penetrating women – and getting sperm into them. Repeat: The primary sexual objective of a human male is to get his penis inside a woman – and to discharge his sperm into her. Though the methods may vary, it's the same for every living species. I recall my own hormone-driven teenage predicaments such as having to disguise a rapidly growing 'stiffy' when a young lady sat on the same bus seat. Very awkward if my stop was before hers :). Of course women have a sex-drive too, but to suggest that a pregnancy is 100% a woman's responsibility, and somehow the fault of feminism, is to not live in the real world.[/p][/quote]Your wasting your time trying to debate with someone who clearly as issues. Maybe he wasn't breast fed or his first love saw him for what he really is or perhaps he was just dropped on his head, who knows. I think the truth is the links he continues to post from like minded twisted misogynist web sites is old Sigturds ****!![/p][/quote]You're so out of touch, time to wake up, smell the coffee and open your eyes. cj07589
  • Score: 17

9:54pm Wed 16 Apr 14

cj07589 says...

westbaywonder wrote:
Simple, You dont have a car if you can not afford to keep it.

You dont have children if you can not afford to keep them.

Oh yes, hang on, is this not the fastest route to get housed and some kind of income.Yes i thought it was, but these innocent teenage girls could never be that cunning and devious now could they.
Bingo! welcome to liebour's Britain!
[quote][p][bold]westbaywonder[/bold] wrote: Simple, You dont have a car if you can not afford to keep it. You dont have children if you can not afford to keep them. Oh yes, hang on, is this not the fastest route to get housed and some kind of income.Yes i thought it was, but these innocent teenage girls could never be that cunning and devious now could they.[/p][/quote]Bingo! welcome to liebour's Britain! cj07589
  • Score: 12

11:59pm Wed 16 Apr 14

GMax says...

You know, reading these comments made me happy with the decision I made when I was a teenager, NOT to have children.
And yes, I am a male.
.
GMax.
You know, reading these comments made me happy with the decision I made when I was a teenager, NOT to have children. And yes, I am a male. . GMax. GMax
  • Score: 17

11:53am Thu 17 Apr 14

JackJohnson says...

Sigurd Hoeberth wrote:
Sigurd Hoeberth wrote:
woodsedge wrote:
Sigurd, I was divorced over 10 years ago and remarried my current wife who is indeed a Social worker, who is by the way a strong, vibrant, my equal, well educated, independent wife for some 7 years ago. My children have grown up to be sound adults and I though my personal experiences reflect the responsible male role model you continue to promote? Mine is a factual story where I did the right thing by my children, unfortunately the majority of 'boy' sperm donors cannot accept responsibility and just continue producing offspring. So what's your 'story' or is it to dark to share?
In your opinion.
P.S boy's don't "produce" the offspring, girls do and they have 100% of control and rights over it, something you refuse to accept.
Since when did girls have 100% of control?

In case you'd forgotten, the male of the species is involved too. Given the right education and strength of character can say "no"', or at least wear a condom.
[quote][p][bold]Sigurd Hoeberth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sigurd Hoeberth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]woodsedge[/bold] wrote: Sigurd, I was divorced over 10 years ago and remarried my current wife who is indeed a Social worker, who is by the way a strong, vibrant, my equal, well educated, independent wife for some 7 years ago. My children have grown up to be sound adults and I though my personal experiences reflect the responsible male role model you continue to promote? Mine is a factual story where I did the right thing by my children, unfortunately the majority of 'boy' sperm donors cannot accept responsibility and just continue producing offspring. So what's your 'story' or is it to dark to share?[/p][/quote]In your opinion.[/p][/quote]P.S boy's don't "produce" the offspring, girls do and they have 100% of control and rights over it, something you refuse to accept.[/p][/quote]Since when did girls have 100% of control? In case you'd forgotten, the male of the species is involved too. Given the right education and strength of character can say "no"', or at least wear a condom. JackJohnson
  • Score: -8

12:58pm Thu 17 Apr 14

D.shoreditch says...

What! So now we are to beleive girls have no control as to whether someone enters them or not.
What! So now we are to beleive girls have no control as to whether someone enters them or not. D.shoreditch
  • Score: 7

1:08pm Thu 17 Apr 14

Parkstreetshufle says...

woodsedge wrote:
Sigurd Hoeberth wrote:
Parkstreetshufle wrote:
woodsedge wrote:
And the male of the species is so responsible, not.
Men or boys in this case should be named and shamed. It's unfair, and it's also costing us a lot of money. They should be shouldering some of the responsibility. No name, no benefit. I think that would solve it.
No rights for Fathers, no responsibility either.

Solve that , then you will help solve it.
Firstly, the vast majority of absent 'fathers' do not want to be present as they are to quick to father a child but slow to fulfil the parenting aspect of being a parent and a responsible partner. To solve the problem is quite simple, take responsibility regardless of whether your relationship has broken down or not. Put your children's interests before your own and if a relationship breaks fiend and the mother is not a fit parent then go to court. I speak from experience because when my marriage broke down and my now ex wife decided she wanted to relive her clubbing days, my two children wanted to live with me. I moved back in with my mother with my children against my ex's wishes, went to court and I got sole custody of my children. It's easy to wallow in self pity and blame the world because of relationship issues, but if you are man enough to father a child then be man a enough to put their interests before your own. And no I do not want any links to fathers fir sympathy.
There are a very small minority of fathers that do not get access to the child because the mother is basically underhanded and manipulative.
For the vast majority of cases the mother is the best carer.
There is no way we should be encouraging pre eighteen year olds to have sex and conceive anyway. In my mothers generation you wouldn't have got a penny. Its wrong. We should be making life very difficult for anyone that 'decides' to have a child at that age because getting a job and earning enough money and running a stable home is hard. Nobody should get it handed to them on a plate.
[quote][p][bold]woodsedge[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sigurd Hoeberth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parkstreetshufle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]woodsedge[/bold] wrote: And the male of the species is so responsible, not.[/p][/quote]Men or boys in this case should be named and shamed. It's unfair, and it's also costing us a lot of money. They should be shouldering some of the responsibility. No name, no benefit. I think that would solve it.[/p][/quote]No rights for Fathers, no responsibility either. Solve that , then you will help solve it.[/p][/quote]Firstly, the vast majority of absent 'fathers' do not want to be present as they are to quick to father a child but slow to fulfil the parenting aspect of being a parent and a responsible partner. To solve the problem is quite simple, take responsibility regardless of whether your relationship has broken down or not. Put your children's interests before your own and if a relationship breaks fiend and the mother is not a fit parent then go to court. I speak from experience because when my marriage broke down and my now ex wife decided she wanted to relive her clubbing days, my two children wanted to live with me. I moved back in with my mother with my children against my ex's wishes, went to court and I got sole custody of my children. It's easy to wallow in self pity and blame the world because of relationship issues, but if you are man enough to father a child then be man a enough to put their interests before your own. And no I do not want any links to fathers fir sympathy.[/p][/quote]There are a very small minority of fathers that do not get access to the child because the mother is basically underhanded and manipulative. For the vast majority of cases the mother is the best carer. There is no way we should be encouraging pre eighteen year olds to have sex and conceive anyway. In my mothers generation you wouldn't have got a penny. Its wrong. We should be making life very difficult for anyone that 'decides' to have a child at that age because getting a job and earning enough money and running a stable home is hard. Nobody should get it handed to them on a plate. Parkstreetshufle
  • Score: -4

1:32pm Thu 17 Apr 14

woodsedge says...

D.shoreditch wrote:
What! So now we are to beleive girls have no control as to whether someone enters them or not.
Cedric!!
[quote][p][bold]D.shoreditch[/bold] wrote: What! So now we are to beleive girls have no control as to whether someone enters them or not.[/p][/quote]Cedric!! woodsedge
  • Score: -7

1:33pm Thu 17 Apr 14

woodsedge says...

Parkstreetshufle wrote:
woodsedge wrote:
Sigurd Hoeberth wrote:
Parkstreetshufle wrote:
woodsedge wrote:
And the male of the species is so responsible, not.
Men or boys in this case should be named and shamed. It's unfair, and it's also costing us a lot of money. They should be shouldering some of the responsibility. No name, no benefit. I think that would solve it.
No rights for Fathers, no responsibility either.

Solve that , then you will help solve it.
Firstly, the vast majority of absent 'fathers' do not want to be present as they are to quick to father a child but slow to fulfil the parenting aspect of being a parent and a responsible partner. To solve the problem is quite simple, take responsibility regardless of whether your relationship has broken down or not. Put your children's interests before your own and if a relationship breaks fiend and the mother is not a fit parent then go to court. I speak from experience because when my marriage broke down and my now ex wife decided she wanted to relive her clubbing days, my two children wanted to live with me. I moved back in with my mother with my children against my ex's wishes, went to court and I got sole custody of my children. It's easy to wallow in self pity and blame the world because of relationship issues, but if you are man enough to father a child then be man a enough to put their interests before your own. And no I do not want any links to fathers fir sympathy.
There are a very small minority of fathers that do not get access to the child because the mother is basically underhanded and manipulative.
For the vast majority of cases the mother is the best carer.
There is no way we should be encouraging pre eighteen year olds to have sex and conceive anyway. In my mothers generation you wouldn't have got a penny. Its wrong. We should be making life very difficult for anyone that 'decides' to have a child at that age because getting a job and earning enough money and running a stable home is hard. Nobody should get it handed to them on a plate.
Agreed.
[quote][p][bold]Parkstreetshufle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]woodsedge[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sigurd Hoeberth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parkstreetshufle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]woodsedge[/bold] wrote: And the male of the species is so responsible, not.[/p][/quote]Men or boys in this case should be named and shamed. It's unfair, and it's also costing us a lot of money. They should be shouldering some of the responsibility. No name, no benefit. I think that would solve it.[/p][/quote]No rights for Fathers, no responsibility either. Solve that , then you will help solve it.[/p][/quote]Firstly, the vast majority of absent 'fathers' do not want to be present as they are to quick to father a child but slow to fulfil the parenting aspect of being a parent and a responsible partner. To solve the problem is quite simple, take responsibility regardless of whether your relationship has broken down or not. Put your children's interests before your own and if a relationship breaks fiend and the mother is not a fit parent then go to court. I speak from experience because when my marriage broke down and my now ex wife decided she wanted to relive her clubbing days, my two children wanted to live with me. I moved back in with my mother with my children against my ex's wishes, went to court and I got sole custody of my children. It's easy to wallow in self pity and blame the world because of relationship issues, but if you are man enough to father a child then be man a enough to put their interests before your own. And no I do not want any links to fathers fir sympathy.[/p][/quote]There are a very small minority of fathers that do not get access to the child because the mother is basically underhanded and manipulative. For the vast majority of cases the mother is the best carer. There is no way we should be encouraging pre eighteen year olds to have sex and conceive anyway. In my mothers generation you wouldn't have got a penny. Its wrong. We should be making life very difficult for anyone that 'decides' to have a child at that age because getting a job and earning enough money and running a stable home is hard. Nobody should get it handed to them on a plate.[/p][/quote]Agreed. woodsedge
  • Score: -3

2:13pm Thu 17 Apr 14

JackJohnson says...

D.shoreditch wrote:
What! So now we are to beleive girls have no control as to whether someone enters them or not.
I think maybe there's a lot of mixed messages in this thread.

There'll be situations where the girl wants to get pregnant, but the boy needs to take control and say "no". If she won't take no for an answer, maybe she's not the right one for him. He should probably let someone else take the wheel and be responsible for the ensuing car crash.

There'll be situations where the boy wants to do it, but the girl doesn't. Obviously it's up to her to say "no". If he won't take no for an answer, she needs to walk away - far, far away.

There'll be situations where they both want to do it and nothing's going to stop them. Hopefully one or both are educated enough to, at least, insist on a condom.

The worst situation is where they both have poor education and no hope of a decent future before starting a family. There's a good chance they'll think their future is best served by having a baby so they'll get benefits and, maybe, even somewhere to live. The key to solving this problem must be to offer young children a decent education and give them some hope of jobs/career and a decent income. The decent education is, in theory, available to all of them. Hope for their future isn't.

Rewarding them, when they become sexually active, with benefits and housing, is not the answer.
[quote][p][bold]D.shoreditch[/bold] wrote: What! So now we are to beleive girls have no control as to whether someone enters them or not.[/p][/quote]I think maybe there's a lot of mixed messages in this thread. There'll be situations where the girl wants to get pregnant, but the boy needs to take control and say "no". If she won't take no for an answer, maybe she's not the right one for him. He should probably let someone else take the wheel and be responsible for the ensuing car crash. There'll be situations where the boy wants to do it, but the girl doesn't. Obviously it's up to her to say "no". If he won't take no for an answer, she needs to walk away - far, far away. There'll be situations where they both want to do it and nothing's going to stop them. Hopefully one or both are educated enough to, at least, insist on a condom. The worst situation is where they both have poor education and no hope of a decent future before starting a family. There's a good chance they'll think their future is best served by having a baby so they'll get benefits and, maybe, even somewhere to live. The key to solving this problem must be to offer young children a decent education and give them some hope of jobs/career and a decent income. The decent education is, in theory, available to all of them. Hope for their future isn't. Rewarding them, when they become sexually active, with benefits and housing, is not the answer. JackJohnson
  • Score: -3

2:45pm Thu 17 Apr 14

Sigurd Hoberth says...

Parkstreetshufle wrote:
woodsedge wrote:
Sigurd Hoeberth wrote:
Parkstreetshufle wrote:
woodsedge wrote:
And the male of the species is so responsible, not.
Men or boys in this case should be named and shamed. It's unfair, and it's also costing us a lot of money. They should be shouldering some of the responsibility. No name, no benefit. I think that would solve it.
No rights for Fathers, no responsibility either.

Solve that , then you will help solve it.
Firstly, the vast majority of absent 'fathers' do not want to be present as they are to quick to father a child but slow to fulfil the parenting aspect of being a parent and a responsible partner. To solve the problem is quite simple, take responsibility regardless of whether your relationship has broken down or not. Put your children's interests before your own and if a relationship breaks fiend and the mother is not a fit parent then go to court. I speak from experience because when my marriage broke down and my now ex wife decided she wanted to relive her clubbing days, my two children wanted to live with me. I moved back in with my mother with my children against my ex's wishes, went to court and I got sole custody of my children. It's easy to wallow in self pity and blame the world because of relationship issues, but if you are man enough to father a child then be man a enough to put their interests before your own. And no I do not want any links to fathers fir sympathy.
There are a very small minority of fathers that do not get access to the child because the mother is basically underhanded and manipulative.
For the vast majority of cases the mother is the best carer.
There is no way we should be encouraging pre eighteen year olds to have sex and conceive anyway. In my mothers generation you wouldn't have got a penny. Its wrong. We should be making life very difficult for anyone that 'decides' to have a child at that age because getting a job and earning enough money and running a stable home is hard. Nobody should get it handed to them on a plate.
While I agree with some of what you say, I cannot agree "best with mother" as an absolute basis. This is not only outdated in concept , but given the number of studies which show abuse and neglect is more likely by mothers and that the biological Father is the least likely to harm, I cannot agree. Maybe in the old days I might have been more inclined to agreed, but not today.


You are also incorrect in your belief that the numbers of Fathers denied contact by spiteful mothers and bias courts is few, It is many. Various false allegation are now the most prolific tactic used in family court to deny contact to Fathers. Spend any time around one and you will soon find this to be the case. Contact orders are routinely ignored by mothers and the court rarely, if ever, punishes them. These facts are beyond denial, they have been spoken of by people from rights groups, judges, lawyers and M.P's, but nothing is ever done about it. Do not forget mainstream media also resists publishing the truth about this, partly because it is done in a secretive and closed court system and they cannot, but also because it would effect the Multi-million pound industry's, state employment and third sector groups that parasite from the breakdown of traditional family.

http://www.telegraph
.co.uk/women/sex/div
orce/6575997/Third-o
f-family-break-up-ch
ildren-lose-contact-
with-fathers-in-fail
ing-court-system-pol
l.html

That is before you even take into consideration the following " enablers" that effectively promote such behavior by bad mothers and show how the state holds men in contempt denying them even the most basic rights.

The 1989 Children Act abolished “The rule of law that a father is the natural guardian of his legitimate child” and replaced the “archaic” concept of guardianship with a loosely defined collection of rights under “parental responsibility”. PR was awarded automatically to mothers, but fathers only acquired it dependent on their relationship with the mother.
Fathers have no legal right in law to see their children. The Government states that ‘it does not believe that a legal presumption to contact would be helpful’.

This position was reiterated again in 2001 by the Chairman of the Family Justice Review whose conclusion was that fathers have no rights and should have no rights. Family Justice Review, 2011.
Fathers only have a right to apply to a court to see their children after separation.

Fathers have been denied a legal presumption to ‘shared’ or ‘equal’ parenting which would ensure they had the same rights as mothers.
A father’s only legal responsibility is to provide financial support for their children, not emotional.

In 2008 The Labour Government introduced the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act which removed the ‘need for a father’ and changed it to the need for ‘supportive parenting’.
There is more legislation protecting animals, than there is protecting fathers.

No rights, No responsibility. To expect a man to have all the legal, financial and moral responsibilities, in something he has no legal rights over and no franchise in, is absurd and nothing short of slavery.


The following may also be useful to digest:

Britain has the highest proportion of fatherless families (2+ million) of any major European country. (Office of National Statistics)
1 in 3 children – nearly 4 million in total – live without their father. (Office of National Statistics)
In 2007, 27.6% of children lived with their mother in the UK, while just 2.4% lived only with their father. (OECD Survey, 2007)
50% of children will have seen their parents divorce by the time they are 16 (Benson, 2010).
1 in 3 children will lose contact with their father permanently. (Centre for Social Justice)
One child in four doesn't consider his father to be part of his family (Childwise, 2007).
3.8 million are living ‘at the mercy of family courts’. (Sir Paul Coleridge, Daily Mail, 14/7/11).
50% of children go through trauma of seeing parents divorce by the age of 16. (Centre for Social Justice)
In many parts of the UK, the majority of children are fatherless. In London, Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham and Leeds, over 50% of children live in fatherless families. (Office of National Statistics)
70% of young offenders come from lone-parent families (Youth Justice Board, 2002).
Half of all secondary school pupils have broken the law (Beinart, Anderson, Lee, & Utting, 2002).
One in four secondary school pupils now has a criminal record (Donnellan, 2004).
Britain has the highest level of self-harming in Europe (McLoughlin, 2006).
The UK has the highest proportion of children living in workless households in Europe (G., J., & P., 2005).
The teenage pregnancy rate in the UK is the highest in the developed world and 4 times higher than the West European average (Allen, Dowling, & Rolfe, 1998).
Half of these pregnancies end in abortion; in 2010 in England and Wales there were 34,633 conceptions amongst girls under the age of 18, of which 49.9% ended in abortion (Office for National Statistics, 2012).
The other half results in by far the highest rate of single motherhood in Europe.
93.1% of broken families are headed by a single mother (Office for National Statistics, 2012).
40% of mothers admit to obstructing contact (Department for Social Security, 1998).
At Christmas 2012, the 10th most requested gift by children from Father Christmas was a “a dad”. (Westfield Survey, December 2012)
[quote][p][bold]Parkstreetshufle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]woodsedge[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sigurd Hoeberth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parkstreetshufle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]woodsedge[/bold] wrote: And the male of the species is so responsible, not.[/p][/quote]Men or boys in this case should be named and shamed. It's unfair, and it's also costing us a lot of money. They should be shouldering some of the responsibility. No name, no benefit. I think that would solve it.[/p][/quote]No rights for Fathers, no responsibility either. Solve that , then you will help solve it.[/p][/quote]Firstly, the vast majority of absent 'fathers' do not want to be present as they are to quick to father a child but slow to fulfil the parenting aspect of being a parent and a responsible partner. To solve the problem is quite simple, take responsibility regardless of whether your relationship has broken down or not. Put your children's interests before your own and if a relationship breaks fiend and the mother is not a fit parent then go to court. I speak from experience because when my marriage broke down and my now ex wife decided she wanted to relive her clubbing days, my two children wanted to live with me. I moved back in with my mother with my children against my ex's wishes, went to court and I got sole custody of my children. It's easy to wallow in self pity and blame the world because of relationship issues, but if you are man enough to father a child then be man a enough to put their interests before your own. And no I do not want any links to fathers fir sympathy.[/p][/quote]There are a very small minority of fathers that do not get access to the child because the mother is basically underhanded and manipulative. For the vast majority of cases the mother is the best carer. There is no way we should be encouraging pre eighteen year olds to have sex and conceive anyway. In my mothers generation you wouldn't have got a penny. Its wrong. We should be making life very difficult for anyone that 'decides' to have a child at that age because getting a job and earning enough money and running a stable home is hard. Nobody should get it handed to them on a plate.[/p][/quote]While I agree with some of what you say, I cannot agree "best with mother" as an absolute basis. This is not only outdated in concept , but given the number of studies which show abuse and neglect is more likely by mothers and that the biological Father is the least likely to harm, I cannot agree. Maybe in the old days I might have been more inclined to agreed, but not today. You are also incorrect in your belief that the numbers of Fathers denied contact by spiteful mothers and bias courts is few, It is many. Various false allegation are now the most prolific tactic used in family court to deny contact to Fathers. Spend any time around one and you will soon find this to be the case. Contact orders are routinely ignored by mothers and the court rarely, if ever, punishes them. These facts are beyond denial, they have been spoken of by people from rights groups, judges, lawyers and M.P's, but nothing is ever done about it. Do not forget mainstream media also resists publishing the truth about this, partly because it is done in a secretive and closed court system and they cannot, but also because it would effect the Multi-million pound industry's, state employment and third sector groups that parasite from the breakdown of traditional family. http://www.telegraph .co.uk/women/sex/div orce/6575997/Third-o f-family-break-up-ch ildren-lose-contact- with-fathers-in-fail ing-court-system-pol l.html That is before you even take into consideration the following " enablers" that effectively promote such behavior by bad mothers and show how the state holds men in contempt denying them even the most basic rights. The 1989 Children Act abolished “The rule of law that a father is the natural guardian of his legitimate child” and replaced the “archaic” concept of guardianship with a loosely defined collection of rights under “parental responsibility”. PR was awarded automatically to mothers, but fathers only acquired it dependent on their relationship with the mother. Fathers have no legal right in law to see their children. The Government states that ‘it does not believe that a legal presumption to contact would be helpful’. This position was reiterated again in 2001 by the Chairman of the Family Justice Review whose conclusion was that fathers have no rights and should have no rights. Family Justice Review, 2011. Fathers only have a right to apply to a court to see their children after separation. Fathers have been denied a legal presumption to ‘shared’ or ‘equal’ parenting which would ensure they had the same rights as mothers. A father’s only legal responsibility is to provide financial support for their children, not emotional. In 2008 The Labour Government introduced the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act which removed the ‘need for a father’ and changed it to the need for ‘supportive parenting’. There is more legislation protecting animals, than there is protecting fathers. No rights, No responsibility. To expect a man to have all the legal, financial and moral responsibilities, in something he has no legal rights over and no franchise in, is absurd and nothing short of slavery. The following may also be useful to digest: Britain has the highest proportion of fatherless families (2+ million) of any major European country. (Office of National Statistics) 1 in 3 children – nearly 4 million in total – live without their father. (Office of National Statistics) In 2007, 27.6% of children lived with their mother in the UK, while just 2.4% lived only with their father. (OECD Survey, 2007) 50% of children will have seen their parents divorce by the time they are 16 (Benson, 2010). 1 in 3 children will lose contact with their father permanently. (Centre for Social Justice) One child in four doesn't consider his father to be part of his family (Childwise, 2007). 3.8 million are living ‘at the mercy of family courts’. (Sir Paul Coleridge, Daily Mail, 14/7/11). 50% of children go through trauma of seeing parents divorce by the age of 16. (Centre for Social Justice) In many parts of the UK, the majority of children are fatherless. In London, Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham and Leeds, over 50% of children live in fatherless families. (Office of National Statistics) 70% of young offenders come from lone-parent families (Youth Justice Board, 2002). Half of all secondary school pupils have broken the law (Beinart, Anderson, Lee, & Utting, 2002). One in four secondary school pupils now has a criminal record (Donnellan, 2004). Britain has the highest level of self-harming in Europe (McLoughlin, 2006). The UK has the highest proportion of children living in workless households in Europe (G., J., & P., 2005). The teenage pregnancy rate in the UK is the highest in the developed world and 4 times higher than the West European average (Allen, Dowling, & Rolfe, 1998). Half of these pregnancies end in abortion; in 2010 in England and Wales there were 34,633 conceptions amongst girls under the age of 18, of which 49.9% ended in abortion (Office for National Statistics, 2012). The other half results in by far the highest rate of single motherhood in Europe. 93.1% of broken families are headed by a single mother (Office for National Statistics, 2012). 40% of mothers admit to obstructing contact (Department for Social Security, 1998). At Christmas 2012, the 10th most requested gift by children from Father Christmas was a “a dad”. (Westfield Survey, December 2012) Sigurd Hoberth
  • Score: 15

3:07pm Thu 17 Apr 14

DarvitDE says...

Cerys,
Congratulations on your article about teen pregnancy.
Please ignore the vitriol of those who have posted with their own issues.
You are doing a great thing writing articles for the press and trying to make us oldies better understand how younger people in Dorset feel and think.
We should be celebrating young contributors to the political debate, not ranting.
The comments say more about the posters here than they do about you.
Cerys, Congratulations on your article about teen pregnancy. Please ignore the vitriol of those who have posted with their own issues. You are doing a great thing writing articles for the press and trying to make us oldies better understand how younger people in Dorset feel and think. We should be celebrating young contributors to the political debate, not ranting. The comments say more about the posters here than they do about you. DarvitDE
  • Score: -7

4:08pm Thu 17 Apr 14

Parkstreetshufle says...

cj07589 wrote:
westbaywonder wrote:
Simple, You dont have a car if you can not afford to keep it.

You dont have children if you can not afford to keep them.

Oh yes, hang on, is this not the fastest route to get housed and some kind of income.Yes i thought it was, but these innocent teenage girls could never be that cunning and devious now could they.
Bingo! welcome to liebour's Britain!
I think that this is a very stupid comment. We can look at the logical conclusion of a no safety net society, called the USA. What we see is not pretty. I don't think anybody wants rampant gun crime or swathes of people on meth or living on the streets here in the uk. If you do perhaps you can get yourself to the US.
This country developed a NHS because it was what everybody wanted, not just the Labour Party - not in exclusion of the conservatives but everyone.
The Conservative party have been equally to blame for a decline in morale conduct and wanton wastage of public money so don't start singing that old lie.
We do not want teenagers running around getting pregnant because they don't really understand what society requires of them, but nor will we entertain some kind of Australian style fascist child removal during the night. Kids will make mistakes, it's what they do. It's our job to educate them so they don't.
[quote][p][bold]cj07589[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]westbaywonder[/bold] wrote: Simple, You dont have a car if you can not afford to keep it. You dont have children if you can not afford to keep them. Oh yes, hang on, is this not the fastest route to get housed and some kind of income.Yes i thought it was, but these innocent teenage girls could never be that cunning and devious now could they.[/p][/quote]Bingo! welcome to liebour's Britain![/p][/quote]I think that this is a very stupid comment. We can look at the logical conclusion of a no safety net society, called the USA. What we see is not pretty. I don't think anybody wants rampant gun crime or swathes of people on meth or living on the streets here in the uk. If you do perhaps you can get yourself to the US. This country developed a NHS because it was what everybody wanted, not just the Labour Party - not in exclusion of the conservatives but everyone. The Conservative party have been equally to blame for a decline in morale conduct and wanton wastage of public money so don't start singing that old lie. We do not want teenagers running around getting pregnant because they don't really understand what society requires of them, but nor will we entertain some kind of Australian style fascist child removal during the night. Kids will make mistakes, it's what they do. It's our job to educate them so they don't. Parkstreetshufle
  • Score: -6

4:32pm Thu 17 Apr 14

woodsedge says...

DarvitDE wrote:
Cerys,
Congratulations on your article about teen pregnancy.
Please ignore the vitriol of those who have posted with their own issues.
You are doing a great thing writing articles for the press and trying to make us oldies better understand how younger people in Dorset feel and think.
We should be celebrating young contributors to the political debate, not ranting.
The comments say more about the posters here than they do about you.
Agreed.
[quote][p][bold]DarvitDE[/bold] wrote: Cerys, Congratulations on your article about teen pregnancy. Please ignore the vitriol of those who have posted with their own issues. You are doing a great thing writing articles for the press and trying to make us oldies better understand how younger people in Dorset feel and think. We should be celebrating young contributors to the political debate, not ranting. The comments say more about the posters here than they do about you.[/p][/quote]Agreed. woodsedge
  • Score: -7

7:12pm Thu 17 Apr 14

westbaywonder says...

woodsedge wrote:
DarvitDE wrote:
Cerys,
Congratulations on your article about teen pregnancy.
Please ignore the vitriol of those who have posted with their own issues.
You are doing a great thing writing articles for the press and trying to make us oldies better understand how younger people in Dorset feel and think.
We should be celebrating young contributors to the political debate, not ranting.
The comments say more about the posters here than they do about you.
Agreed.
Well if this is something to be proud of and celebrated, then,Bring the father on here,lets see what he has to say as he has been silent so far.

Woodsedge, your a nob of the highest order sir and Sigurd rules!!
[quote][p][bold]woodsedge[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DarvitDE[/bold] wrote: Cerys, Congratulations on your article about teen pregnancy. Please ignore the vitriol of those who have posted with their own issues. You are doing a great thing writing articles for the press and trying to make us oldies better understand how younger people in Dorset feel and think. We should be celebrating young contributors to the political debate, not ranting. The comments say more about the posters here than they do about you.[/p][/quote]Agreed.[/p][/quote]Well if this is something to be proud of and celebrated, then,Bring the father on here,lets see what he has to say as he has been silent so far. Woodsedge, your a nob of the highest order sir and Sigurd rules!! westbaywonder
  • Score: 11

7:52pm Thu 17 Apr 14

woodsedge says...

westbaywonder wrote:
woodsedge wrote:
DarvitDE wrote:
Cerys,
Congratulations on your article about teen pregnancy.
Please ignore the vitriol of those who have posted with their own issues.
You are doing a great thing writing articles for the press and trying to make us oldies better understand how younger people in Dorset feel and think.
We should be celebrating young contributors to the political debate, not ranting.
The comments say more about the posters here than they do about you.
Agreed.
Well if this is something to be proud of and celebrated, then,Bring the father on here,lets see what he has to say as he has been silent so far.

Woodsedge, your a nob of the highest order sir and Sigurd rules!!
And if we are stooping to name calling you should be Westbayw**ker of is it Sigturd!
[quote][p][bold]westbaywonder[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]woodsedge[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DarvitDE[/bold] wrote: Cerys, Congratulations on your article about teen pregnancy. Please ignore the vitriol of those who have posted with their own issues. You are doing a great thing writing articles for the press and trying to make us oldies better understand how younger people in Dorset feel and think. We should be celebrating young contributors to the political debate, not ranting. The comments say more about the posters here than they do about you.[/p][/quote]Agreed.[/p][/quote]Well if this is something to be proud of and celebrated, then,Bring the father on here,lets see what he has to say as he has been silent so far. Woodsedge, your a nob of the highest order sir and Sigurd rules!![/p][/quote]And if we are stooping to name calling you should be Westbayw**ker of is it Sigturd! woodsedge
  • Score: -9

7:56pm Thu 17 Apr 14

cj07589 says...

Parkstreetshufle wrote:
cj07589 wrote:
westbaywonder wrote:
Simple, You dont have a car if you can not afford to keep it.

You dont have children if you can not afford to keep them.

Oh yes, hang on, is this not the fastest route to get housed and some kind of income.Yes i thought it was, but these innocent teenage girls could never be that cunning and devious now could they.
Bingo! welcome to liebour's Britain!
I think that this is a very stupid comment. We can look at the logical conclusion of a no safety net society, called the USA. What we see is not pretty. I don't think anybody wants rampant gun crime or swathes of people on meth or living on the streets here in the uk. If you do perhaps you can get yourself to the US.
This country developed a NHS because it was what everybody wanted, not just the Labour Party - not in exclusion of the conservatives but everyone.
The Conservative party have been equally to blame for a decline in morale conduct and wanton wastage of public money so don't start singing that old lie.
We do not want teenagers running around getting pregnant because they don't really understand what society requires of them, but nor will we entertain some kind of Australian style fascist child removal during the night. Kids will make mistakes, it's what they do. It's our job to educate them so they don't.
Granted humans do make mistakes however I like many don't expect other people to pay for them. The subtle difference being, is choosing to be responsible and take accountability for your actions. That is the point I make, it's called protection available at many retail outlets and free at sexual health clinics nationwide.
[quote][p][bold]Parkstreetshufle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cj07589[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]westbaywonder[/bold] wrote: Simple, You dont have a car if you can not afford to keep it. You dont have children if you can not afford to keep them. Oh yes, hang on, is this not the fastest route to get housed and some kind of income.Yes i thought it was, but these innocent teenage girls could never be that cunning and devious now could they.[/p][/quote]Bingo! welcome to liebour's Britain![/p][/quote]I think that this is a very stupid comment. We can look at the logical conclusion of a no safety net society, called the USA. What we see is not pretty. I don't think anybody wants rampant gun crime or swathes of people on meth or living on the streets here in the uk. If you do perhaps you can get yourself to the US. This country developed a NHS because it was what everybody wanted, not just the Labour Party - not in exclusion of the conservatives but everyone. The Conservative party have been equally to blame for a decline in morale conduct and wanton wastage of public money so don't start singing that old lie. We do not want teenagers running around getting pregnant because they don't really understand what society requires of them, but nor will we entertain some kind of Australian style fascist child removal during the night. Kids will make mistakes, it's what they do. It's our job to educate them so they don't.[/p][/quote]Granted humans do make mistakes however I like many don't expect other people to pay for them. The subtle difference being, is choosing to be responsible and take accountability for your actions. That is the point I make, it's called protection available at many retail outlets and free at sexual health clinics nationwide. cj07589
  • Score: 10

8:11pm Thu 17 Apr 14

Sigurd Hoberth says...

woodsedge wrote:
westbaywonder wrote:
woodsedge wrote:
DarvitDE wrote:
Cerys,
Congratulations on your article about teen pregnancy.
Please ignore the vitriol of those who have posted with their own issues.
You are doing a great thing writing articles for the press and trying to make us oldies better understand how younger people in Dorset feel and think.
We should be celebrating young contributors to the political debate, not ranting.
The comments say more about the posters here than they do about you.
Agreed.
Well if this is something to be proud of and celebrated, then,Bring the father on here,lets see what he has to say as he has been silent so far.

Woodsedge, your a nob of the highest order sir and Sigurd rules!!
And if we are stooping to name calling you should be Westbayw**ker of is it Sigturd!
Oh Woodsedge....honestl
y. You're embarrassing your feminist and liberal fwends....better go prostrate yourself at the altar of self-loathing and commence your Beta male flagellation punishments at once.
[quote][p][bold]woodsedge[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]westbaywonder[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]woodsedge[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DarvitDE[/bold] wrote: Cerys, Congratulations on your article about teen pregnancy. Please ignore the vitriol of those who have posted with their own issues. You are doing a great thing writing articles for the press and trying to make us oldies better understand how younger people in Dorset feel and think. We should be celebrating young contributors to the political debate, not ranting. The comments say more about the posters here than they do about you.[/p][/quote]Agreed.[/p][/quote]Well if this is something to be proud of and celebrated, then,Bring the father on here,lets see what he has to say as he has been silent so far. Woodsedge, your a nob of the highest order sir and Sigurd rules!![/p][/quote]And if we are stooping to name calling you should be Westbayw**ker of is it Sigturd![/p][/quote]Oh Woodsedge....honestl y. You're embarrassing your feminist and liberal fwends....better go prostrate yourself at the altar of self-loathing and commence your Beta male flagellation punishments at once. Sigurd Hoberth
  • Score: 11

8:52pm Thu 17 Apr 14

woodsedge says...

Sigurd Hoberth wrote:
woodsedge wrote:
westbaywonder wrote:
woodsedge wrote:
DarvitDE wrote:
Cerys,
Congratulations on your article about teen pregnancy.
Please ignore the vitriol of those who have posted with their own issues.
You are doing a great thing writing articles for the press and trying to make us oldies better understand how younger people in Dorset feel and think.
We should be celebrating young contributors to the political debate, not ranting.
The comments say more about the posters here than they do about you.
Agreed.
Well if this is something to be proud of and celebrated, then,Bring the father on here,lets see what he has to say as he has been silent so far.

Woodsedge, your a nob of the highest order sir and Sigurd rules!!
And if we are stooping to name calling you should be Westbayw**ker of is it Sigturd!
Oh Woodsedge....honestl

y. You're embarrassing your feminist and liberal fwends....better go prostrate yourself at the altar of self-loathing and commence your Beta male flagellation punishments at once.
wow, looks like the medication is wrong again tonight old chap, ring the buzzer!!
[quote][p][bold]Sigurd Hoberth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]woodsedge[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]westbaywonder[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]woodsedge[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DarvitDE[/bold] wrote: Cerys, Congratulations on your article about teen pregnancy. Please ignore the vitriol of those who have posted with their own issues. You are doing a great thing writing articles for the press and trying to make us oldies better understand how younger people in Dorset feel and think. We should be celebrating young contributors to the political debate, not ranting. The comments say more about the posters here than they do about you.[/p][/quote]Agreed.[/p][/quote]Well if this is something to be proud of and celebrated, then,Bring the father on here,lets see what he has to say as he has been silent so far. Woodsedge, your a nob of the highest order sir and Sigurd rules!![/p][/quote]And if we are stooping to name calling you should be Westbayw**ker of is it Sigturd![/p][/quote]Oh Woodsedge....honestl y. You're embarrassing your feminist and liberal fwends....better go prostrate yourself at the altar of self-loathing and commence your Beta male flagellation punishments at once.[/p][/quote]wow, looks like the medication is wrong again tonight old chap, ring the buzzer!! woodsedge
  • Score: -7

8:57pm Thu 17 Apr 14

Sigurd Hoberth says...

woodsedge wrote:
Sigurd Hoberth wrote:
woodsedge wrote:
westbaywonder wrote:
woodsedge wrote:
DarvitDE wrote:
Cerys,
Congratulations on your article about teen pregnancy.
Please ignore the vitriol of those who have posted with their own issues.
You are doing a great thing writing articles for the press and trying to make us oldies better understand how younger people in Dorset feel and think.
We should be celebrating young contributors to the political debate, not ranting.
The comments say more about the posters here than they do about you.
Agreed.
Well if this is something to be proud of and celebrated, then,Bring the father on here,lets see what he has to say as he has been silent so far.

Woodsedge, your a nob of the highest order sir and Sigurd rules!!
And if we are stooping to name calling you should be Westbayw**ker of is it Sigturd!
Oh Woodsedge....honestl


y. You're embarrassing your feminist and liberal fwends....better go prostrate yourself at the altar of self-loathing and commence your Beta male flagellation punishments at once.
wow, looks like the medication is wrong again tonight old chap, ring the buzzer!!
Night-Night Troll.
[quote][p][bold]woodsedge[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sigurd Hoberth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]woodsedge[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]westbaywonder[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]woodsedge[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DarvitDE[/bold] wrote: Cerys, Congratulations on your article about teen pregnancy. Please ignore the vitriol of those who have posted with their own issues. You are doing a great thing writing articles for the press and trying to make us oldies better understand how younger people in Dorset feel and think. We should be celebrating young contributors to the political debate, not ranting. The comments say more about the posters here than they do about you.[/p][/quote]Agreed.[/p][/quote]Well if this is something to be proud of and celebrated, then,Bring the father on here,lets see what he has to say as he has been silent so far. Woodsedge, your a nob of the highest order sir and Sigurd rules!![/p][/quote]And if we are stooping to name calling you should be Westbayw**ker of is it Sigturd![/p][/quote]Oh Woodsedge....honestl y. You're embarrassing your feminist and liberal fwends....better go prostrate yourself at the altar of self-loathing and commence your Beta male flagellation punishments at once.[/p][/quote]wow, looks like the medication is wrong again tonight old chap, ring the buzzer!![/p][/quote]Night-Night Troll. Sigurd Hoberth
  • Score: 9

9:47pm Thu 17 Apr 14

woodsedge says...

Sigurd Hoberth wrote:
woodsedge wrote:
Sigurd Hoberth wrote:
woodsedge wrote:
westbaywonder wrote:
woodsedge wrote:
DarvitDE wrote:
Cerys,
Congratulations on your article about teen pregnancy.
Please ignore the vitriol of those who have posted with their own issues.
You are doing a great thing writing articles for the press and trying to make us oldies better understand how younger people in Dorset feel and think.
We should be celebrating young contributors to the political debate, not ranting.
The comments say more about the posters here than they do about you.
Agreed.
Well if this is something to be proud of and celebrated, then,Bring the father on here,lets see what he has to say as he has been silent so far.

Woodsedge, your a nob of the highest order sir and Sigurd rules!!
And if we are stooping to name calling you should be Westbayw**ker of is it Sigturd!
Oh Woodsedge....honestl



y. You're embarrassing your feminist and liberal fwends....better go prostrate yourself at the altar of self-loathing and commence your Beta male flagellation punishments at once.
wow, looks like the medication is wrong again tonight old chap, ring the buzzer!!
Night-Night Troll.
Last word!
[quote][p][bold]Sigurd Hoberth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]woodsedge[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sigurd Hoberth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]woodsedge[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]westbaywonder[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]woodsedge[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DarvitDE[/bold] wrote: Cerys, Congratulations on your article about teen pregnancy. Please ignore the vitriol of those who have posted with their own issues. You are doing a great thing writing articles for the press and trying to make us oldies better understand how younger people in Dorset feel and think. We should be celebrating young contributors to the political debate, not ranting. The comments say more about the posters here than they do about you.[/p][/quote]Agreed.[/p][/quote]Well if this is something to be proud of and celebrated, then,Bring the father on here,lets see what he has to say as he has been silent so far. Woodsedge, your a nob of the highest order sir and Sigurd rules!![/p][/quote]And if we are stooping to name calling you should be Westbayw**ker of is it Sigturd![/p][/quote]Oh Woodsedge....honestl y. You're embarrassing your feminist and liberal fwends....better go prostrate yourself at the altar of self-loathing and commence your Beta male flagellation punishments at once.[/p][/quote]wow, looks like the medication is wrong again tonight old chap, ring the buzzer!![/p][/quote]Night-Night Troll.[/p][/quote]Last word! woodsedge
  • Score: -7

11:42pm Thu 17 Apr 14

JamesYoung says...

I'd be interested to see whether there is a correlation between the age at which sex education commences and the number of teenage mothers. Could it be that teaching younger and younger kids about sex is having a negative impact?
I'd be interested to see whether there is a correlation between the age at which sex education commences and the number of teenage mothers. Could it be that teaching younger and younger kids about sex is having a negative impact? JamesYoung
  • Score: 3

12:05am Fri 18 Apr 14

Micke12 says...

Whilst I accept what Cerys is trying to put across, and am disgusted that some people on here are just behaving like spoiled children throwing their dummies out of their prams, I think it is time to stop all the bitchiness and name calling and deal with the story itself..

In most cases it takes two people to do the tango, just as it takes two people to normally conceive a child through those two people having sex. There are, as has been pointed out, many ways to prevent conception, condoms, the pill, the rod, the 12 weekly Depo-Provera, the cap and probably 10 or more another contraception practices that couple can use.

There are other ways to prevent conception, the most suitable being to either keep the legs closed or keep it in your trousers. I am 51 years old, male, and made a conscience decision when I was 16, due to lack of finances, not to have any children as I could not afford it. To ensure that that would happen, I elected to control my male hormones and control my desires. There were other reasons for that choice, but they are not applicable to this comment or story.

It does not matter what we tell our children these days. We can tell them to avoid sex until they are ready to start a family, but they see sex every day on our televisions and DVD videos and they take this on board and say to themselves that, if it is alright on TV or DVDs and the internet, then it is okay for us. The moral fibre of this country is torn to shreds, mainly by American influences seen by our children.

Now, on to the subject of people paying to keep the children financially supported. Yes, if two people bring a life into this world, then they should share the burden of financial responsibility together, but we cannot expect men to pay for the upkeep of their child if they are not given rights of access, on the assumption that they are not considered a danger to the children, when obviously, other protections have to be put in place such as family centres.

We all here about the Child Support Agency (CSA) going after the man for maintenance when the woman gets custody, but guess what - when the man does get full custody, there has not been one woman hounded by the CSA for maintenance - FACT.

If mothers want the man to pay, then they to must pay if the boot is on the other foot. But neither side should have to pay unless they are given fair access to see the children, either on agreement of weekend stays or contact at family centres in a controlled environment.

If one reads and understands both family law and family court decisions, then one would agree that in the main, the mother is usually the best person to have full custody, but there should be no law that states that mothers are automatically given the right to custody as that is single-sided justice and bad law.

The most important thing to come out of these discussions, on the back of what Cerys has said, is the fact that parents need to stop using the child as a weapon against each other. It is not about the parents, it is about the child or children stuck in the middle of something they have no control over, but something that has a massive influence on their logical and emotional development.

Please, please, can we stop all the trolling - yes, 51 and well up on modern terms - can we leave trolling behind and treat each other with the respect we all deserve - trolling detracts from the debate. Manners cost nothing, and that applies to the older generation as well as to today's generation.

One thing that has not been spoken about on this comments page is that 60 to 65 of the pregnancies these days occur after boys and girls have been out drinking, either in the pub, club or even at home. People's natural inhibitions are reduced by alcohol when states of arousal can get the better of even the most prudish and virginal girl, and she ends up up the duff.

They go on about smoking being the biggest scourge in our society, but if one links up all the things related to alcohol that costs the taxpayer money, emergency services, hospitals and police are inundated more by alcohol related matters than that of smoking.
Whilst I accept what Cerys is trying to put across, and am disgusted that some people on here are just behaving like spoiled children throwing their dummies out of their prams, I think it is time to stop all the bitchiness and name calling and deal with the story itself.. In most cases it takes two people to do the tango, just as it takes two people to normally conceive a child through those two people having sex. There are, as has been pointed out, many ways to prevent conception, condoms, the pill, the rod, the 12 weekly Depo-Provera, the cap and probably 10 or more another contraception practices that couple can use. There are other ways to prevent conception, the most suitable being to either keep the legs closed or keep it in your trousers. I am 51 years old, male, and made a conscience decision when I was 16, due to lack of finances, not to have any children as I could not afford it. To ensure that that would happen, I elected to control my male hormones and control my desires. There were other reasons for that choice, but they are not applicable to this comment or story. It does not matter what we tell our children these days. We can tell them to avoid sex until they are ready to start a family, but they see sex every day on our televisions and DVD videos and they take this on board and say to themselves that, if it is alright on TV or DVDs and the internet, then it is okay for us. The moral fibre of this country is torn to shreds, mainly by American influences seen by our children. Now, on to the subject of people paying to keep the children financially supported. Yes, if two people bring a life into this world, then they should share the burden of financial responsibility together, but we cannot expect men to pay for the upkeep of their child if they are not given rights of access, on the assumption that they are not considered a danger to the children, when obviously, other protections have to be put in place such as family centres. We all here about the Child Support Agency (CSA) going after the man for maintenance when the woman gets custody, but guess what - when the man does get full custody, there has not been one woman hounded by the CSA for maintenance - FACT. If mothers want the man to pay, then they to must pay if the boot is on the other foot. But neither side should have to pay unless they are given fair access to see the children, either on agreement of weekend stays or contact at family centres in a controlled environment. If one reads and understands both family law and family court decisions, then one would agree that in the main, the mother is usually the best person to have full custody, but there should be no law that states that mothers are automatically given the right to custody as that is single-sided justice and bad law. The most important thing to come out of these discussions, on the back of what Cerys has said, is the fact that parents need to stop using the child as a weapon against each other. It is not about the parents, it is about the child or children stuck in the middle of something they have no control over, but something that has a massive influence on their logical and emotional development. Please, please, can we stop all the trolling - yes, 51 and well up on modern terms - can we leave trolling behind and treat each other with the respect we all deserve - trolling detracts from the debate. Manners cost nothing, and that applies to the older generation as well as to today's generation. One thing that has not been spoken about on this comments page is that 60 to 65 of the pregnancies these days occur after boys and girls have been out drinking, either in the pub, club or even at home. People's natural inhibitions are reduced by alcohol when states of arousal can get the better of even the most prudish and virginal girl, and she ends up up the duff. They go on about smoking being the biggest scourge in our society, but if one links up all the things related to alcohol that costs the taxpayer money, emergency services, hospitals and police are inundated more by alcohol related matters than that of smoking. Micke12
  • Score: 4

7:06am Fri 18 Apr 14

cj07589 says...

JamesYoung wrote:
I'd be interested to see whether there is a correlation between the age at which sex education commences and the number of teenage mothers. Could it be that teaching younger and younger kids about sex is having a negative impact?
Or more the direct correlation that getting knocked up accelerates you to the top of the council housing list and first steps to a benefits for life take all you can and give nothing back culture.
[quote][p][bold]JamesYoung[/bold] wrote: I'd be interested to see whether there is a correlation between the age at which sex education commences and the number of teenage mothers. Could it be that teaching younger and younger kids about sex is having a negative impact?[/p][/quote]Or more the direct correlation that getting knocked up accelerates you to the top of the council housing list and first steps to a benefits for life take all you can and give nothing back culture. cj07589
  • Score: 9

8:29am Fri 18 Apr 14

woodsedge says...

Micke12 wrote:
Whilst I accept what Cerys is trying to put across, and am disgusted that some people on here are just behaving like spoiled children throwing their dummies out of their prams, I think it is time to stop all the bitchiness and name calling and deal with the story itself..

In most cases it takes two people to do the tango, just as it takes two people to normally conceive a child through those two people having sex. There are, as has been pointed out, many ways to prevent conception, condoms, the pill, the rod, the 12 weekly Depo-Provera, the cap and probably 10 or more another contraception practices that couple can use.

There are other ways to prevent conception, the most suitable being to either keep the legs closed or keep it in your trousers. I am 51 years old, male, and made a conscience decision when I was 16, due to lack of finances, not to have any children as I could not afford it. To ensure that that would happen, I elected to control my male hormones and control my desires. There were other reasons for that choice, but they are not applicable to this comment or story.

It does not matter what we tell our children these days. We can tell them to avoid sex until they are ready to start a family, but they see sex every day on our televisions and DVD videos and they take this on board and say to themselves that, if it is alright on TV or DVDs and the internet, then it is okay for us. The moral fibre of this country is torn to shreds, mainly by American influences seen by our children.

Now, on to the subject of people paying to keep the children financially supported. Yes, if two people bring a life into this world, then they should share the burden of financial responsibility together, but we cannot expect men to pay for the upkeep of their child if they are not given rights of access, on the assumption that they are not considered a danger to the children, when obviously, other protections have to be put in place such as family centres.

We all here about the Child Support Agency (CSA) going after the man for maintenance when the woman gets custody, but guess what - when the man does get full custody, there has not been one woman hounded by the CSA for maintenance - FACT.

If mothers want the man to pay, then they to must pay if the boot is on the other foot. But neither side should have to pay unless they are given fair access to see the children, either on agreement of weekend stays or contact at family centres in a controlled environment.

If one reads and understands both family law and family court decisions, then one would agree that in the main, the mother is usually the best person to have full custody, but there should be no law that states that mothers are automatically given the right to custody as that is single-sided justice and bad law.

The most important thing to come out of these discussions, on the back of what Cerys has said, is the fact that parents need to stop using the child as a weapon against each other. It is not about the parents, it is about the child or children stuck in the middle of something they have no control over, but something that has a massive influence on their logical and emotional development.

Please, please, can we stop all the trolling - yes, 51 and well up on modern terms - can we leave trolling behind and treat each other with the respect we all deserve - trolling detracts from the debate. Manners cost nothing, and that applies to the older generation as well as to today's generation.

One thing that has not been spoken about on this comments page is that 60 to 65 of the pregnancies these days occur after boys and girls have been out drinking, either in the pub, club or even at home. People's natural inhibitions are reduced by alcohol when states of arousal can get the better of even the most prudish and virginal girl, and she ends up up the duff.

They go on about smoking being the biggest scourge in our society, but if one links up all the things related to alcohol that costs the taxpayer money, emergency services, hospitals and police are inundated more by alcohol related matters than that of smoking.
Micke 12, a good and thoughtful post and I must admit that I am guilty of perhaps taking the bait of some very extremist 'troll' views on women. That said it is difficult to have a debate when people use terms like 'mangina' and 'knocked up' and revert to name calling. To many people are out of touch and have their own agendas that the majority of the UK would find offensive.
[quote][p][bold]Micke12[/bold] wrote: Whilst I accept what Cerys is trying to put across, and am disgusted that some people on here are just behaving like spoiled children throwing their dummies out of their prams, I think it is time to stop all the bitchiness and name calling and deal with the story itself.. In most cases it takes two people to do the tango, just as it takes two people to normally conceive a child through those two people having sex. There are, as has been pointed out, many ways to prevent conception, condoms, the pill, the rod, the 12 weekly Depo-Provera, the cap and probably 10 or more another contraception practices that couple can use. There are other ways to prevent conception, the most suitable being to either keep the legs closed or keep it in your trousers. I am 51 years old, male, and made a conscience decision when I was 16, due to lack of finances, not to have any children as I could not afford it. To ensure that that would happen, I elected to control my male hormones and control my desires. There were other reasons for that choice, but they are not applicable to this comment or story. It does not matter what we tell our children these days. We can tell them to avoid sex until they are ready to start a family, but they see sex every day on our televisions and DVD videos and they take this on board and say to themselves that, if it is alright on TV or DVDs and the internet, then it is okay for us. The moral fibre of this country is torn to shreds, mainly by American influences seen by our children. Now, on to the subject of people paying to keep the children financially supported. Yes, if two people bring a life into this world, then they should share the burden of financial responsibility together, but we cannot expect men to pay for the upkeep of their child if they are not given rights of access, on the assumption that they are not considered a danger to the children, when obviously, other protections have to be put in place such as family centres. We all here about the Child Support Agency (CSA) going after the man for maintenance when the woman gets custody, but guess what - when the man does get full custody, there has not been one woman hounded by the CSA for maintenance - FACT. If mothers want the man to pay, then they to must pay if the boot is on the other foot. But neither side should have to pay unless they are given fair access to see the children, either on agreement of weekend stays or contact at family centres in a controlled environment. If one reads and understands both family law and family court decisions, then one would agree that in the main, the mother is usually the best person to have full custody, but there should be no law that states that mothers are automatically given the right to custody as that is single-sided justice and bad law. The most important thing to come out of these discussions, on the back of what Cerys has said, is the fact that parents need to stop using the child as a weapon against each other. It is not about the parents, it is about the child or children stuck in the middle of something they have no control over, but something that has a massive influence on their logical and emotional development. Please, please, can we stop all the trolling - yes, 51 and well up on modern terms - can we leave trolling behind and treat each other with the respect we all deserve - trolling detracts from the debate. Manners cost nothing, and that applies to the older generation as well as to today's generation. One thing that has not been spoken about on this comments page is that 60 to 65 of the pregnancies these days occur after boys and girls have been out drinking, either in the pub, club or even at home. People's natural inhibitions are reduced by alcohol when states of arousal can get the better of even the most prudish and virginal girl, and she ends up up the duff. They go on about smoking being the biggest scourge in our society, but if one links up all the things related to alcohol that costs the taxpayer money, emergency services, hospitals and police are inundated more by alcohol related matters than that of smoking.[/p][/quote]Micke 12, a good and thoughtful post and I must admit that I am guilty of perhaps taking the bait of some very extremist 'troll' views on women. That said it is difficult to have a debate when people use terms like 'mangina' and 'knocked up' and revert to name calling. To many people are out of touch and have their own agendas that the majority of the UK would find offensive. woodsedge
  • Score: -9

8:59am Fri 18 Apr 14

JamesYoung says...

Micke12 wrote:
Whilst I accept what Cerys is trying to put across, and am disgusted that some people on here are just behaving like spoiled children throwing their dummies out of their prams, I think it is time to stop all the bitchiness and name calling and deal with the story itself..

In most cases it takes two people to do the tango, just as it takes two people to normally conceive a child through those two people having sex. There are, as has been pointed out, many ways to prevent conception, condoms, the pill, the rod, the 12 weekly Depo-Provera, the cap and probably 10 or more another contraception practices that couple can use.

There are other ways to prevent conception, the most suitable being to either keep the legs closed or keep it in your trousers. I am 51 years old, male, and made a conscience decision when I was 16, due to lack of finances, not to have any children as I could not afford it. To ensure that that would happen, I elected to control my male hormones and control my desires. There were other reasons for that choice, but they are not applicable to this comment or story.

It does not matter what we tell our children these days. We can tell them to avoid sex until they are ready to start a family, but they see sex every day on our televisions and DVD videos and they take this on board and say to themselves that, if it is alright on TV or DVDs and the internet, then it is okay for us. The moral fibre of this country is torn to shreds, mainly by American influences seen by our children.

Now, on to the subject of people paying to keep the children financially supported. Yes, if two people bring a life into this world, then they should share the burden of financial responsibility together, but we cannot expect men to pay for the upkeep of their child if they are not given rights of access, on the assumption that they are not considered a danger to the children, when obviously, other protections have to be put in place such as family centres.

We all here about the Child Support Agency (CSA) going after the man for maintenance when the woman gets custody, but guess what - when the man does get full custody, there has not been one woman hounded by the CSA for maintenance - FACT.

If mothers want the man to pay, then they to must pay if the boot is on the other foot. But neither side should have to pay unless they are given fair access to see the children, either on agreement of weekend stays or contact at family centres in a controlled environment.

If one reads and understands both family law and family court decisions, then one would agree that in the main, the mother is usually the best person to have full custody, but there should be no law that states that mothers are automatically given the right to custody as that is single-sided justice and bad law.

The most important thing to come out of these discussions, on the back of what Cerys has said, is the fact that parents need to stop using the child as a weapon against each other. It is not about the parents, it is about the child or children stuck in the middle of something they have no control over, but something that has a massive influence on their logical and emotional development.

Please, please, can we stop all the trolling - yes, 51 and well up on modern terms - can we leave trolling behind and treat each other with the respect we all deserve - trolling detracts from the debate. Manners cost nothing, and that applies to the older generation as well as to today's generation.

One thing that has not been spoken about on this comments page is that 60 to 65 of the pregnancies these days occur after boys and girls have been out drinking, either in the pub, club or even at home. People's natural inhibitions are reduced by alcohol when states of arousal can get the better of even the most prudish and virginal girl, and she ends up up the duff.

They go on about smoking being the biggest scourge in our society, but if one links up all the things related to alcohol that costs the taxpayer money, emergency services, hospitals and police are inundated more by alcohol related matters than that of smoking.
A well balanced post, well done.
The challenge for government is that there are so many causes of teen pregnancy, as there are so many causes for poverty. Undoubtedly some girls see having kids as a career choice and we should ask why that is. Some families are on their 3rd or 4th generation of teen mother now and it is time the cycle was broken, because, to be frank, and without any inference on the girl mentioned above, the vast majority (not all) of kids born into these situations go on to fail in some way themselves. My pet suggestion for all of this is that we acknowledge that the cost of benefits for a young family is not dissimilar to the cost of lower grade public servants: why not make all of these people public sector employees, give them some hope and aspiration and a route out of the situation.
As for some of the "sexist" comments on here, i have to say i agree with the sentiment in some cases. There is a strong anti-male bias in the family courts / CSA system and the maintenance system rewards mothers for denying access. I know of one father who was refused access time after time after time, despite there being a court order in place and the only action the court took was to find him in contempt when he eventually told the judge exactly what he thought. The CSA are very good at extracting every last penny from the man, with some grossly unfair calculations. In my case, i am forced to work in London because i cannot find work down here. This means that each week i pay over £100 for a tiny room, plus another £110 for train fares. That is nearly £1000 a month in unavoidable expense which would not magically reappear in my pocket if i still lived with the mother. The CSA claims that this is entirely my cost to bear. It is not obvious to me how the £1000 a month i pay in maintenance is spent on my kids and the CSA has no interest in ensuring that it is. It is enormously frustrating to hear the kids tell me that their mum says i am not paying enough, while she and her jobless boyfriend appear to contribute nothing. I'm resigned to the fact that nothing is going to change, but i do feel that the government is letting down kids in the position of my own.
[quote][p][bold]Micke12[/bold] wrote: Whilst I accept what Cerys is trying to put across, and am disgusted that some people on here are just behaving like spoiled children throwing their dummies out of their prams, I think it is time to stop all the bitchiness and name calling and deal with the story itself.. In most cases it takes two people to do the tango, just as it takes two people to normally conceive a child through those two people having sex. There are, as has been pointed out, many ways to prevent conception, condoms, the pill, the rod, the 12 weekly Depo-Provera, the cap and probably 10 or more another contraception practices that couple can use. There are other ways to prevent conception, the most suitable being to either keep the legs closed or keep it in your trousers. I am 51 years old, male, and made a conscience decision when I was 16, due to lack of finances, not to have any children as I could not afford it. To ensure that that would happen, I elected to control my male hormones and control my desires. There were other reasons for that choice, but they are not applicable to this comment or story. It does not matter what we tell our children these days. We can tell them to avoid sex until they are ready to start a family, but they see sex every day on our televisions and DVD videos and they take this on board and say to themselves that, if it is alright on TV or DVDs and the internet, then it is okay for us. The moral fibre of this country is torn to shreds, mainly by American influences seen by our children. Now, on to the subject of people paying to keep the children financially supported. Yes, if two people bring a life into this world, then they should share the burden of financial responsibility together, but we cannot expect men to pay for the upkeep of their child if they are not given rights of access, on the assumption that they are not considered a danger to the children, when obviously, other protections have to be put in place such as family centres. We all here about the Child Support Agency (CSA) going after the man for maintenance when the woman gets custody, but guess what - when the man does get full custody, there has not been one woman hounded by the CSA for maintenance - FACT. If mothers want the man to pay, then they to must pay if the boot is on the other foot. But neither side should have to pay unless they are given fair access to see the children, either on agreement of weekend stays or contact at family centres in a controlled environment. If one reads and understands both family law and family court decisions, then one would agree that in the main, the mother is usually the best person to have full custody, but there should be no law that states that mothers are automatically given the right to custody as that is single-sided justice and bad law. The most important thing to come out of these discussions, on the back of what Cerys has said, is the fact that parents need to stop using the child as a weapon against each other. It is not about the parents, it is about the child or children stuck in the middle of something they have no control over, but something that has a massive influence on their logical and emotional development. Please, please, can we stop all the trolling - yes, 51 and well up on modern terms - can we leave trolling behind and treat each other with the respect we all deserve - trolling detracts from the debate. Manners cost nothing, and that applies to the older generation as well as to today's generation. One thing that has not been spoken about on this comments page is that 60 to 65 of the pregnancies these days occur after boys and girls have been out drinking, either in the pub, club or even at home. People's natural inhibitions are reduced by alcohol when states of arousal can get the better of even the most prudish and virginal girl, and she ends up up the duff. They go on about smoking being the biggest scourge in our society, but if one links up all the things related to alcohol that costs the taxpayer money, emergency services, hospitals and police are inundated more by alcohol related matters than that of smoking.[/p][/quote]A well balanced post, well done. The challenge for government is that there are so many causes of teen pregnancy, as there are so many causes for poverty. Undoubtedly some girls see having kids as a career choice and we should ask why that is. Some families are on their 3rd or 4th generation of teen mother now and it is time the cycle was broken, because, to be frank, and without any inference on the girl mentioned above, the vast majority (not all) of kids born into these situations go on to fail in some way themselves. My pet suggestion for all of this is that we acknowledge that the cost of benefits for a young family is not dissimilar to the cost of lower grade public servants: why not make all of these people public sector employees, give them some hope and aspiration and a route out of the situation. As for some of the "sexist" comments on here, i have to say i agree with the sentiment in some cases. There is a strong anti-male bias in the family courts / CSA system and the maintenance system rewards mothers for denying access. I know of one father who was refused access time after time after time, despite there being a court order in place and the only action the court took was to find him in contempt when he eventually told the judge exactly what he thought. The CSA are very good at extracting every last penny from the man, with some grossly unfair calculations. In my case, i am forced to work in London because i cannot find work down here. This means that each week i pay over £100 for a tiny room, plus another £110 for train fares. That is nearly £1000 a month in unavoidable expense which would not magically reappear in my pocket if i still lived with the mother. The CSA claims that this is entirely my cost to bear. It is not obvious to me how the £1000 a month i pay in maintenance is spent on my kids and the CSA has no interest in ensuring that it is. It is enormously frustrating to hear the kids tell me that their mum says i am not paying enough, while she and her jobless boyfriend appear to contribute nothing. I'm resigned to the fact that nothing is going to change, but i do feel that the government is letting down kids in the position of my own. JamesYoung
  • Score: 4

4:43pm Fri 18 Apr 14

westbaywonder says...

Either way,The law should be this,no matter what your circumstances or age.
You Pump,You Pay!!
Either way,The law should be this,no matter what your circumstances or age. You Pump,You Pay!! westbaywonder
  • Score: 2

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree