Seeking maintence

User21027

I have just started to take my sons father to couirt after 7 yrs of ignoring us. I've no interest in him at all, but he's my sons father. I have to raise 390 Euro to pay for half of the DNA testing. Your solicitor can request your local GP to get a kit. It's usually E210 per person and then your Doc can charge you a fee also for doing it. Me and him have to pay 50/50. I cant get back-money either even though he knew from the get-go he was his dad. I can only hope for 6 months back money at best. Think E150 is the max allowed per child per week at the minute. I have my own brand new 3 bed semi, my own car etc so it's all for his son. I dont need his money. But the least he can do is pay for his son, if he's not interested in ever seeing him/meeting him. A**hole like that is not missed from a child's life... Not all us girls are money hungry and i hate th egirls that refuse to let a guy see his kids as a weapon. Cows give u sall a bad name. Good luck lads..

John Mason

OP, get yourself a solcitor or get yourself to legal aid.

you have a lot of questions to be answered and its not straight forward.

If you and your girlfriend dont make it, good and apply for mediation, rather then dragging yourself through the irish court system.

As for the DNA testing, is it really necessary?? If so, make sure you get it done correctly and legally with everyones consent.

User21027

I found Treoir.ie very very good. Guardianship and custody all of it explained up to date...

The Corinthian

User21027 wrote: »

I dont need his money. But the least he can do is pay for his son, if he's not interested in ever seeing him/meeting him. A**hole like that is not missed from a child's life... Not all us girls are money hungry

Your motivation, from your description, appears to be either greed or revenge. Neither paints a pretty picture of you, TBH.

User21027

Donr know where your getting that from.. But yeah i believe he could at least put his hand in his pocket. I'm rearing his child, i have top see him every day in town, and he ignores our son, ignores that i gave up everything to do the right thing. If i sound bitter, maybe i am. But you dont get to judge me. I'm still open to letting them know each other. I'm being nore than fair here, TBH!! If i hit ur car on the road, i'd have to pay. But u think i'm money hungry for asking him to CONTRIBUTE to th erearing of his own child...Whatever.

The Corinthian

User21027 wrote: »

Donr know where your getting that from.. But yeah i believe he could at least put his hand in his pocket. I'm rearing his child, i have top see him every day in town, and he ignores our son, ignores that i gave up everything to do the right thing. If i sound bitter, maybe i am. But you dont get to judge me. I'm still open to letting them know each other. I'm being nore than fair here, TBH!! If i hit ur car on the road, i'd have to pay. But u think i'm money hungry for asking him to CONTRIBUTE to th erearing of his own child...Whatever.

Given your second post, I suspect it's mainly revenge.

TBH, I don't know the background between you and him, but if he didn't want to be a father from the start then I can see his point. Men are not here simply to financially facilitate a woman's choice to procreate - especially when he can be just as quickly overruled when he does want the child.

Anyhow, whatever and good luck to the OP.

User21027

Actually i hate kids. Never wanted them. we were seeing each other for few months then split. 8 months later i was diagnosed at 36 wks PG. Dont think that was me getting PG on purpose, do you.. I had no intentions to pro-create like other stupid young ones. I'm 26 now, not a kid. I just think i've got all the hard work done. Dont see how your still defending him and "seeing his point" - your obviously an absent father yourself! I was suicidal when i was diagnosed, they thought i had cancer first.. Ovarian cysts etc Then it dawned on one doctor i may be PG. This was 9 months after we broke up. I did not trap him with a baby. I didnt want it either. Now i love my son dearly, but i'm not maternal. So...
Bye.

Nevyn

Please keep this civil.
The Corinthian any more personal out bursts like that and you will face a ban from this forum.
If I could infract you I would.

Lets all stop with the presumptions about other posters.

Shelli

It's 50/50 male/female responsibilty to wear protection if children are not wanted.

What happens after that is irrelevant, if one party didn't want kids then they should have thought of that from the outset!

The Corinthian

User21027 wrote: »

I had no intentions to pro-create like other stupid young ones. I'm 26 now, not a kid.

Actually you get a lot of of 'stupid thirtysomething ones' who decide that it's "now or never" too.

I didnt want it either.

Adoption illegal in your part of the World? Sorry, your story doesn't really add up - there are far too many options for women who "don't want it either" for me to believe you.

The Corinthian

Shelli wrote: »

It's 50/50 male/female responsibilty to wear protection if children are not wanted.

What happens after that is irrelevant, if one party didn't want kids then they should have thought of that from the outset!

The moment that women can no longer unilaterally go for abortions I'll take that comment seriously.

The Corinthian

Thaedydal wrote: »

Lets all stop with the presumptions about other posters.

OK, fair enough, but some posters really should also know better than to vent about their personal issues when responding to threads, that their vents may be met with a response they may not like.

Shelli

Don't get me wrong, I think women who have abortions when the father wants the child are completely wrong in doing so.....but thats another debate for another day.

When a child is brought into this world, regardless of how or why, both parents have an equal responsibilty for that child, in every way.

User21027

Shelli - Your first point i thought was cold. Thats like saying car crash victims deserve to die if they were speeding. Just cos someone made a bad decision, or protection lets you down, is not reason enough to say people shouldnt be sexually active just in case they make babies. But your other post about "both people being responsible" is true and shows a smarter side to you. To Corinthian / Shelli: What a person does when they get that news is what seperates men from Mice. :)And when a person can stand in the face of adversity and adapt to this new life as a parent, raise the child thru hard work, not welfare, and come out the other side smiling- it says a lot about that persons character.
Corinthian:- you need a psychiatrist, you hate all women for some reason. I started by giving advice on this forum till you attacked my character. I'm not prepared to spell my full story out to you, but if you knew it you'd admire me- or should. So get bent! I'm not painting all men out as loosers who abandon pregnant girls, like your general remarks, i know plenty of lovely blokes not allowed to see their kids, i feel for them. You keep taking my point up wrong, and hadnt the eintelligence to see i was agreeing with the guys in my first post, and tried to help. Ignorance is a curse!
Jesus, you join a forum to help people and pass on advice and some nut comes out and attacks you...I'm off....:mad:

Shelli

User21027 wrote: »

Shelli - Your first point i thought was cold. Thats like saying car crash victims deserve to die if they were speeding. Just cos someone made a bad decision, or protection lets you down, is not reason enough to say people shouldnt be sexually active just in case they make babies.

Sorry, my original point was aimed at the contingent of men who balme the woman for continuing with a pregnancy, when they didn't bother to wear protection themselves, and didn't object at the time of conception.

Obviously there are many different scenarios and backgrounds and it wasn't a "one size fits all" comment, sorry if you took me up wrong, I should have made it clear.

User21027

No your fine, I'm prob still hyped up from That Corinthiam person buggin me... I'm just defensive as i was always carefull, and got snookered anyway. I just hate when people think i'm one of the many young girls who thought having a baby was great, and ya get a free house etc - cos i personally know a few of them - cos i wasnt. It changed my life so much. Friends drop you, you cant work long hrs anymore, you have to grow up quick,you become so very responsible very quickly etc In a perfect world, i wouldnt have gotten PG, But i did, and i love my boy. I was only 19. I feel for guys who are frozen out by girls, not allowed to see their kids, she's got a new bloke now, and wants him to stay away, or the girl's who want his money but not his presence. I really do.

But i'm on the other side, working two jobs for years to keep a home, a car, a lifestyle, new clothes, cool runners, toys, christmas duties, tooth-fairy duties etc And i wont be called mean for wanting to get his Bio -father into court for "re-imbursement" or to start contributions. It's only fair. I worked, i did night feeds, i put plasters on cut knees since i was 19, i did it alone.

I'll pat my own back so!! ha ha

The Corinthian

User21027 wrote: »

To Corinthian / Shelli: What a person does when they get that news is what seperates men from Mice. :)And when a person can stand in the face of adversity and adapt to this new life as a parent, raise the child thru hard work, not welfare, and come out the other side smiling- it says a lot about that persons character.

If you are willing to say the same of women who have abortions or give up their children for adoption that I might accept your point, otherwise you are simply applying one moral standard to women and higher one to men.

Corinthian:- you need a psychiatrist, you hate all women for some reason. I started by giving advice on this forum till you attacked my character.

You missed out the bit where you vented about your own personal situation. I was not in any way criticizing your advice.

Suggesting I "hate all women" is a bit of a jump in logic though. Is misogyny to be the new response to criticism of the the disparity between the rights of men and women in crisis pregnancy?

I would agree with Shelli in that there is no "one size fits all" though and in fairness I don't know your story and even if you are bitter you may be more than justified to be, so I apologise. I jumped to conclusions.

I've just seen too many "I'm knocked up so I have a divine right to get rid of it / keep it and force someone else to cover some of the costs" arguments to not see red from time to time :mad:

The Corinthian

User21027 wrote: »

I feel for guys who are frozen out by girls, not allowed to see their kids, she's got a new bloke now, and wants him to stay away, or the girl's who want his money but not his presence. I really do.

Would you feel the same for those who never wanted to be fathers?

If not, should we not apply the same moral standards to mothers, where the father wants to keep the child?

stovelid

Alany wrote: »

However, a father who is not married to the mother of his child does not have automatic guardianship rights in relation to that child. If the mother agrees for him to be legally appointed guardian, they must sign a joint statutory declaration. The statutory declaration (SI 5 of 1998) must be signed in the presence of a Peace Commissioner or a Commissioner for Oaths. If there is more than one child, a separate statutory declaration should be made for each.

If the mother does not agree for him to have guardianship, he may apply for this status to the District Court.

However, he may be removed as guardian at a future date whereas a father married to the mother of the child is normally guardian for life.

I hate this country.

Somebody who is married to the mother of the child has precedence over a biological father?

Dumb question: what happens if you are married to the mother of your child, you divorce and she remarries. You remain a legal guardian unless you relinquish guardianship, right?

@User21027. If you can afford to provide for your boy, I see little use in pursuing a father (who doesn't give a sh*t about the kid) for money just to prove a point.

User21027

Corinthian - Apology accepted. I have lots of opinions on the points you raise. Too many to type right now.
But i'll say this in Ref to women who for whatever reason need/want abortions: Dont judge anyone till you've walked a mile in their shoes and are in their situation. Abortion was not for me at all, till i ended up PG and looked at my options. I thought girls who get PG at a young age are cheap - untill i became one, and i knew i didnt sleep around. Unmarrioed parents, its a minefield! Women DO trap men with babies. Blokes DO walk away from PG girls. It's not right, either one, but it happens. That's what i meant about facing adversity. She must make the decision to rear that baby completely alone then.. Like i did.

My case is slightly unique as i didnt know (honestly), so he didnt know, and it all looked like i was stitching him up months later... I'm also unique in that at age 20, i was renting an expensive home, driving a good car, in a good job, and being a good mammy. No welfare. ( Nothing against Welfare recipients- before i get bashed for that too.) I'm just saying i worked hard to provide it all myself. My son's father was told i was PG as soon as i knew, and didnt believe me then either. My son has the best of gear, he's wanted for nothing. But i still feel his Father has a duty to pay up. I'd like to respond to more but i'm worn out typing.. Best of luck to you all whatever your situations.

The Corinthian

stovelid wrote: »

Dumb question: what happens if you are married to the mother of your child, you divorce and she remarries. You remain a legal guardian unless you relinquish guardianship, right?

Half right. The father retains guardianship, however fathers can lose guardianship in certain cases through the courts, while mothers can only lose guardianship if the child is adopted.

So, for example, a mother could abandon her child with the father and if, years later, the father wants his new partner / wife to adopt the child, then he needs the mother's permission. Reverse the genders and she can apply to have his guardianship rights revoked after a year or two. Another priceless law.

The Corinthian

User21027 wrote: »

Dont judge anyone till you've walked a mile in their shoes and are in their situation.

But isn't that what people do to fathers who have, for whatever reason, don't want to be fathers (from the start - the ones who change their minds two years later are a completely different kettle of fish)?

Nevyn

User21027 if you have an issue with someones posts please use the report post function instead of having a go, personal abuse is not tolerated here.

The Corinthian wrote: »

OK, fair enough, but some posters really should also know better than to vent about their personal issues when responding to threads, that their vents may be met with a response they may not like.

Fair enough maybe the OP should have started her own thread but part of the function of is forum is a place for parents or those invovled in parenting a child to have a place to vent.

Family law is very broken in this country, it should be child centric but it isn't and it hurts a lot of people and children.

Shelli

The Corinthian wrote: »

But isn't that what people do to fathers who have, for whatever reason, don't want to be fathers (from the start - the ones who change their minds two years later are a completely different kettle of fish)?

OK, so a woman gets preganant, either through an unfortunate accident, or through lack of precuation on both sides (i'm not talking about women who plan it).

Man wants abortion, woman feels that she cannot (for whatever reason) go through with it and wants to keep the baby.......are you saying in this case the man should not have any responsibility towards the child??

The Corinthian

Given that a woman may choose - either through abortion or adoption - to do exactly that, why on Earth should the man be legally indentured to support a child for an odd twenty years (not to mention the inheritance implications) because the mother chose, not to have the child but to raise it.

And this is the principle point - not that the mother has chosen not to have an abortion and not that she has chosen to give birth, but that she has chosen to raise the child and expects someone else to share the burden.

I'm not saying that the father should be able to walk away scot free - women who have abortions or put their children up for adoption certainly don't - but is it right to do this to another human being because you have chosen to raise a child - especially when the same rules don't apply to you?

It seems to me that if a mother does not want to be a mother she has options, even if the father does want the child, while fathers have no legal recourse other than funding someone else's lifestyle choice.

Now, no doubt this will cause indignation all round, but how can anyone even pretend to take the moral high ground against such a choice for men if they then support exactly the same for women?

Quality

The Corinthian wrote: »

Given that a woman may choose - either through abortion or adoption - to do exactly that, why on Earth should the man be legally indentured to support a child for an odd twenty years (not to mention the inheritance implications) because the mother chose, not to have the child but to raise it.

And this is the principle point - not that the mother has chosen not to have an abortion and not that she has chosen to give birth, but that she has chosen to raise the child and expects someone else to share the burden.

I'm not saying that the father should be able to walk away scot free - women who have abortions or put their children up for adoption certainly don't - but is it right to do this to another human being because you have chosen to raise a child - especially when the same rules don't apply to you?

It seems to me that if a mother does not want to be a mother she has options, even if the father does want the child, while fathers have no legal recourse other than funding someone else's lifestyle choice.

Now, no doubt this will cause indignation all round, but how can anyone even pretend to take the moral high ground against such a choice for men if they then support exactly the same for women?

So its ok if he gets his 30 seconds worth and then wants to shag off and not take the responsibility of a child... Its a baby... Its his flesh and blood.. If he doesnt want children.. He should get himself sterilised... End of story..

The Corinthian

Quality wrote: »

So its ok if he gets his 30 seconds worth and then wants to shag off and not take the responsibility of a child... Its a baby... Its his flesh and blood.. If he doesnt want children.. He should get himself sterilised... End of story..

Then perhaps women who choose to have abortions or put their children up for adoption should similarity be sterilised? After all, it's their "flesh and blood" too.

This is the problem, you can get upset and indignant and start crying "won't someone think of the children", but unless you apply the same code to women you're just looking to have your cake and eat it.

Quality

The Corinthian wrote: »

Then perhaps women who choose to have abortions or put their children up for adoption should similarity be sterilised? After all, it's their "flesh and blood" too.

This is the problem, you can get upset and indignant and start crying "won't someone think of the children", but unless you apply the same code to women you're just looking to have your cake and eat it.

Abortion would never be a choice for me... Or adoption...

I am not upset nor indignant...I would like to think of myself as being humane.

If you have sex and a child is a product of this union, then both parents have a responsibility to that child in my view.

I can read your point of view and your comments, but thankfully I dont have to agree with them.. And thankfully the Irish courts seem to agree with me also...
Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong...

stovelid

Quality wrote: »

So its ok if he gets his 30 seconds worth and then wants to shag off and not take the responsibility of a child... Its a baby... Its his flesh and blood....

Not always black and white, especially when financial support is involved.

What about a woman who deliberately gets pregnant?

A contraceptive failure on the part of the man?

A situation where the woman makes a undeclared home with another man but still expects financial support from the biological father?

I couldn't walk away from a child myself, but statements like

Quality wrote: »

If he doesnt want children.. He should get himself sterilised... End of story..

are unreasonable.

Quality

Ok, Perhaps I worded it a bit strongly...

I am only talking from my personal feelings... I just feel that if a man, knowingly has a child to a woman.. he should feel himself compelled to support that child.

I just dont understand how somebody could father a child and then want to walk away and not be part of that childs life. I was brought up with strong family values and this will obviously reflect in my feelings in this subject.



I know there are hundreds of different senarios that could be thrown forward, entrapment, seperation... I could go on..


Some of the threads on maintenance have saddened me... talking of the "maximum amount of maintenance".... "Why should I pay for creche for her to go back to work"...



But at the end of the day it boils down to the child.. (Yes "think about the children"):rolleyes:.

The Corinthian

Quality wrote: »

Abortion would never be a choice for me... Or adoption...

That's your choice, the point is that you have that choice and if you support the right of women to have that choice you cannot morally deny it of men.

Similarly if you believe that men should not have this choice then neither should women - after all, as you argued, both parents have a responsibility and you can't argue that one doesn't have to have that responsibility if they choose not too and the other one must.

I can read your point of view and your comments, but thankfully I dont have to agree with them.. And thankfully the Irish courts seem to agree with me also...
Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong...

The old "that just how it is" argument... I suppose this was a popular one a century ago when the topic of universal suffrage came up. Good thing women accepted it and still don't have the vote...

But at the end of the day it boils down to the child.. (Yes "think about the children")

Again, if you believe that women can retain the right to choose to supersede the child's 'rights' through abortion or adoption, then most would find it hard to overlook the double standard and take you seriously.

Quality

The Corinthian wrote: »

Again, if you believe that women can retain the right to choose to supersede the child's 'rights' through abortion or adoption, then most would find it hard to overlook the double standard and take you seriously.

I really find it hard to understand your detachment.
This is a child... the fathers and mothers flesh and blood..

Your argument is well presented and your points are very valid.

But in my eyes I dont see them as "The right thing to do".

Could you walk away from your child, corinthian?

Nevyn

That arguement is better suited to humanities.

The Corinthian

Quality wrote: »

I really find it hard to understand your detachment.
This is a child... the fathers and mothers flesh and blood..

Which brings us back then to the question, would you then support a woman's right to 'walk away' from their child? You've repeatedly avoided responding to this.

You can't have it both ways and keep the moral high ground.

But in my eyes I dont see them as "The right thing to do".

"The right thing to do" is a dangerous concept if you don't question and examine why it is "the right thing to do".

After all, if keeping a child (rather than putting it up for adoption) means it will grow up with only one parent and with greatly reduced income, is that "the right thing to do" for the child? If you were to coldly consider the best interests of the child, an adoptive environment would win out in many (not all) cases. So, who's interests are actually being served?

The Corinthian

Thaedydal wrote: »

That arguement is better suited to humanities.

Maybe, but given that it's populated mainly by twenty-something males, I don't think I'd get much of an argument...

Quality

The Corinthian wrote: »

Which brings us back then to the question, would you then support a woman's right to 'walk away' from their child? You've repeatedly avoided responding to this.

You can't have it both ways and keep the moral high ground.

"The right thing to do" is a dangerous concept if you don't question and examine why it is "the right thing to do".

After all, if keeping a child (rather than putting it up for adoption) means it will grow up with only one parent and with greatly reduced income, is that "the right thing to do" for the child? If you were to coldly consider the best interests of the child, an adoptive environment would win out in many (not all) cases. So, who's interests are actually being served?

I have already stated that abortion and adoption would never be an option for me.

And why are you bringing up adoption and abortion anyway.. As usual someone has asked a question on maintenance and you have dragged it off topic with your one man crusade to free fathers from there legal obligation of supporting their children?!?

Quality

The Corinthian wrote: »

Which brings us back then to the question, would you then support a woman's right to 'walk away' from their child? You've repeatedly avoided responding to this.

You can't have it both ways and keep the moral high ground.

"The right thing to do" is a dangerous concept if you don't question and examine why it is "the right thing to do".

After all, if keeping a child (rather than putting it up for adoption) means it will grow up with only one parent and with greatly reduced income, is that "the right thing to do" for the child? If you were to coldly consider the best interests of the child, an adoptive environment would win out in many (not all) cases. So, who's interests are actually being served?

I have already stated that abortion and adoption would never be an option for me.

The Corinthian

Quality wrote: »

I have already stated that abortion and adoption would never be an option for me.

I didn't ask if it's what you'd choose - I asked if you supported other women to choose.

Quality wrote: »

I have already stated that abortion and adoption would never be an option for me.

Even if adoption was in the better interests of the child? Interesting...

Bally8

Hi OP. I would be in a similar situation to you. I got pregnant at 19 and have raised my child on my own without any input from her father. In my case we did use protection but I got pregnant anyway. I was devastated - didnt have a maternal bone in my body- but knew that I would keep the baby. The father promised me the sun moon and stars but after a few weeks he disappeared off the face of the planet and hasnt been seen since.

If you are doing ok financially I cant understand why you are dragging him into the equation again if he doesnt want to be involved. I think its so sad that your childs father does not want anything to do with him/her. It upsets me so much when my daugther asks me why doesnt her daddy want to see her. And I cant understand how someone can live their lives knowing they have a child and never contacting them.

In my situtation I used to say that if my daughters dad ever came back I would firstly call my solicitor and fight him for all those years of lost maintenance and then see about him seeing her. As the years have gone on though and I have mellowed or maybe matured about it all, I think if he came back I would be delighted for my daughter as her questions about him would finally be answered. We do ok here so I dont need a penny from him.

Sorry to waffle on but my point is that if you are doing so well financially why go through the drama of chasing your childs dad for money? Is it really worth all the stress?

Nevyn

The Corinthian wrote: »

Maybe, but given that it's populated mainly by twenty-something males, I don't think I'd get much of an argument...

Well at least start another thread please.
Yes the range of responses will be different here given the community of posters but the this forum is not the place for the same style 'robust' debate and dissection of posts as in humanities due to the fact it is such an emotive topic for those who post here.

K-9

User21027 wrote: »

I have just started to take my sons father to couirt after 7 yrs of ignoring us. I've no interest in him at all, but he's my sons father. I have to raise 390 Euro to pay for half of the DNA testing. Your solicitor can request your local GP to get a kit. It's usually E210 per person and then your Doc can charge you a fee also for doing it. Me and him have to pay 50/50. I cant get back-money either even though he knew from the get-go he was his dad. I can only hope for 6 months back money at best. Think E150 is the max allowed per child per week at the minute. I have my own brand new 3 bed semi, my own car etc so it's all for his son. I dont need his money. But the least he can do is pay for his son, if he's not interested in ever seeing him/meeting him. A**hole like that is not missed from a child's life... Not all us girls are money hungry and i hate th egirls that refuse to let a guy see his kids as a weapon. Cows give u sall a bad name. Good luck lads..

Don't think anybody has asked this:

WHY, OH WHY, has it taken 7 years to ask?

Has all this resentment being building up for 7 years?

Bally8 wrote: »

Hi OP. I would be in a similar situation to you. I got pregnant at 19 and have raised my child on my own without any input from her father. In my case we did use protection but I got pregnant anyway. I was devastated - didnt have a maternal bone in my body- but knew that I would keep the baby. The father promised me the sun moon and stars but after a few weeks he disappeared off the face of the planet and hasnt been seen since.

If you are doing ok financially I cant understand why you are dragging him into the equation again if he doesnt want to be involved. I think its so sad that your childs father does not want anything to do with him/her. It upsets me so much when my daugther asks me why doesnt her daddy want to see her. And I cant understand how someone can live their lives knowing they have a child and never contacting them.

In my situtation I used to say that if my daughters dad ever came back I would firstly call my solicitor and fight him for all those years of lost maintenance and then see about him seeing her. As the years have gone on though and I have mellowed or maybe matured about it all, I think if he came back I would be delighted for my daughter as her questions about him would finally be answered. We do ok here so I dont need a penny from him.

Sorry to waffle on but my point is that if you are doing so well financially why go through the drama of chasing your childs dad for money? Is it really worth all the stress?

Bally8 has put it better than I could.

PS. I've seen the abortion debate on this and other sites. Yes, it's unfair on fathers who want one and the mother doesn't. However, we do not have the right to force a woman to have an abortion against her will and if it ever came to court I'd fight against it.

Main reason, the amount of damage it would do fathers, mothers would be scared s***less if a court gave a father the right to force a mother to have, or NOT have, a child.

Similarly, a mother can't force a Dad to be a father until he wishes to face up to it and take the responsibility.

Moral of the story: Be extra careful with contraception whether it's a one niter, casual or a serious relationship!

The Corinthian

Thaedydal wrote: »

Well at least start another thread please.
Yes the range of responses will be different here given the community of posters but the this forum is not the place for the same style 'robust' debate and dissection of posts as in humanities due to the fact it is such an emotive topic for those who post here.

Very well, although given Quality's avoidance of the point I was making I doubt if you'll get much 'robust' debate. It would raise too many awkward questions for a few single mothers I suspect.

Quality

The Corinthian wrote: »

Very well, although given Quality's avoidance of the point I was making I doubt if you'll get much 'robust' debate. It would raise too many awkward questions for a few single mothers I suspect.

I am avoiding to post because I have been in trouble in the past for posting off topic, after being warned to stay on topic...

Perhaps you should take thaeds advice and post in humanities.. I am sure I can find your post over there...

Then I may consider to take you seriously.:)