Limerick mum and five children told ‘go to hostel’

Electric Sheep · 06-11-2014 10:49pm

masculinist wrote: »

Women can choose to abort, adopt, give away the baby etc. They can choose to have a baby or not have a baby but a man has zero choice. It's not fair could be the point being made. Why cant a man give up his rights and responsibilities towards a child if a woman wants to have that child on her own ? I couldn't do it but I can see the logic of it. Why can women choose to put the child up for adoption but not the man ? many men are lied to by women who got pregnant on purpose and against agreement. I can link to hundreds of articles about it. Some women have poked holes in condoms. And even worse stories abound about used condoms being retrieved and emptied... but in each case the man cannot give up his rights and legal responsibilities ... even under age boys who got raped by older women are forced into paying child support in some places...

None of this can happen if he keeps it in his pants.

Gatling · 06-11-2014 10:50pm

sup_dude wrote: »

Not sure how it does when it falls on deaf ears. It's more like people just want to have a go at spreading crap that the media created in the first place, and don't want to let reality get in the way of that

What crap exactly .

Everything posted have been backed up by fact .

Care to counter an argument

KERSPLAT! · 06-11-2014 10:51pm

sup_dude wrote: »

Not sure how it does when it falls on deaf ears. It's more like people just want to have a go at spreading crap that the media created in the first place, and don't want to let reality get in the way of that

MOD

You've made your point regarding the thread, discuss the topic or don't, it's up to you.

Back on topic please

Rightwing · 06-11-2014 10:53pm

G2ECE wrote: »

For me the most galling aspect of the story is that she expects not only to have a house handed to her but she is trying to dictate where the house should be.

Beggars belief!

I don't think it's an unreasonable request looking to move to Garryowen.

LK Council have a lot to answer for.

RDM_83 again · 06-11-2014 10:54pm

waffleman wrote: »

337 per week for single parent family??

That seems crazy

How is that payment broken down? Per child per week?

Is it that crazy though? I've no kids but I can imagine they are bloody expensive.
I just find it pretty hard to get that outraged about single parents receiving decent financial support if the money is actually spent on the kids having a decent upbringing.
You don't even have to argue it from the moral stand of a child not suffering because of a parents choices, even with a cynical unemotional purely financial viewpoint, looking at long term costs, if the kids go onto become productive members of society it is most likely a worthwhile investment.

That said its just stupid that the state penalises you for being in a relationship, the payments should be equalised so that there isn't the current disincentive for the father to live with his kids.
Also should be happy enough to receive housing where-ever it is as long as its fit for purpose (kids can share rooms!).

masculinist · 06-11-2014 10:56pm

a house where and when you want it is taking the pi**

However ... as great as free money sounds , its still not a lot to raise 5 kids on. Some are great moms but I fear some just have kids so they can drink and smoke the extra money so the poor mites get even less. Thats why some infamous nightclubs have been allegedly packed on ''pay day'' for single moms.

Streetwalker · 06-11-2014 10:58pm

Poor woman. Must be a terrible situation to be in. I wish her all the best.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i · 06-11-2014 11:00pm

Plenty of humans in this thread I see...

masculinist · 06-11-2014 11:11pm

Electric Sheep wrote: »

None of this can happen if he keeps it in his pants.

None of this can happen if she keeps her knickers on. You have an extremely one dimensional view of life.

diograis · 06-11-2014 11:14pm

My mentally ill uncle who has easily a few hundred grand in savings had the HSE pay to paint his kitchen for some reason, they also paid for the taxis to visit his mother in the nursing home. Bizarre country we live in sometimes...

Electric Sheep · 06-11-2014 11:21pm

masculinist wrote: »

None of this can happen if she keeps her knickers on. You have an extremely one dimensional view of life.

But according to you it is the men who are being victimised. They could prevent this by not having sex with random women.

Stheno · 06-11-2014 11:28pm

Streetwalker wrote: »

Poor woman. Must be a terrible situation to be in. I wish her all the best.

regardless of this womans circumstances, there is a growing issue for those who rent when their landlords end up with receivers being appointed.

The tenants then lose all rights regardless of whether or not they have been paying their rent, and are in a dreadful situation. I heard a show on this with Matt Cooper a few months ago and estimates for Dublin alone were 2,000 households renting houses in receivership, and powerless to prevent themselves being evicted.

masculinist · 06-11-2014 11:40pm

Electric Sheep wrote: »

But according to you it is the men who are being victimised. They could prevent this by not having sex with random women.

Listen to yourself. You came to this thread with a closed mind. Unlike me. I do not engage in stereotypes but you apparently do.
Are you seriously saying that no men are victimised ? And that the only victims are women ?

Frank O. Pinion · 07-11-2014 12:02am

Autonomous wrote: »

Hard to feel sorry for someone who decides to bring 5 kids into world

Yeah, what is with women in Ireland not getting abortions for children they can't afford to raise. Right?

YFlyer · 07-11-2014 12:06am

She is on Badoo. I clicked the love heart, so will let yee know if she responds

mrsbyrne · 07-11-2014 12:07am

Frank O. Pinion wrote: »

Yeah, what is with women in Ireland not getting abortions for children they can't afford to raise. Right?

How about an adult woman taking responsibility to ensure she doesn'tget pregnant in the first place?

Bipolar Joe · 07-11-2014 12:08am

Frank O. Pinion wrote: »

Yeah, what is with women in Ireland not getting abortions for children they can't afford to raise. Right?

Or, y'know, keep their fanny shut.

Frank O. Pinion · 07-11-2014 12:10am

mrsbyrne wrote: »

How about an adult woman taking responsibility to ensure she doesn'tget pregnant in the first place?

Unless she can travel through time, that advice isn't worth much to her now, with five children born and alive, is it?

"Hey love, you have a few kids and you have money issues? Maybe try not getting pregnant!?" Gee, thanks lady.

eviltwin · 07-11-2014 12:12am

Let's just bring back laundries and forced adoption :rolleyes:

lukesmom · 07-11-2014 12:15am

Cannot imagine being faced with having to move my kids into a hostel. You are all so smart up on your Ivory towers, just thank your lucky stars it's not you in that situation.

Ave Sodalis · 07-11-2014 12:16am

mrsbyrne wrote: »

How about an adult woman taking responsibility to ensure she doesn'tget pregnant in the first place?

Were you not giving out about Medical Cards a few posts back?

YFlyer · 07-11-2014 12:16am

Bipolar Joe wrote: »

Or, y'know, keep their fanny shut.

But but but she is allowed to spread her legs or not. Its the man that takes sole responsibility if she gets pregnant.

masculinist · 07-11-2014 12:16am

Frank O. Pinion wrote: »

Unless she can travel through time, that advice isn't worth much to her now, with five children born and alive, is it?

"Hey love, you have a few kids and you have money issues? Maybe try not getting pregnant!?" Gee, thanks lady.

These types of conversations are not so much for her benefit [as that bird has already flown its coop] but for the education of those who might follow in her footsteps - and the future outcomes of the future kids of those who follow in her footsteps. And who is to say she wont have any more kids ?

ceadaoin. · 07-11-2014 12:24am

She's already on rent allowance, why can't she just find somewhere else to rent? How come a hostel or homelessness are her only options? This happens all time and people don't demand the council provides a house. They find somewhere else to live within their budget and move. Am I missing something? Why does she think that somehow she is special and should have a house bought for her?!

P. Breathnach · 07-11-2014 12:26am

It is remarkable how much the average AH poster knows about the relationship history of strangers.

Stheno · 07-11-2014 12:27am

lukesmom wrote: »

Cannot imagine being faced with having to move my kids into a hostel. You are all so smart up on your Ivory towers, just thank your lucky stars it's not you in that situation.

This womans story is a bit like your friends story that you posted about, she is not willing to move anywhere to settle her kids, but instead expects somewhere she wants.

ceadaoin. wrote: »

She's already on rent allowance, why can't she just find somewhere else to rent? How come a hostel or homelessness are her only options? This happens all time and people don't demand the council provides a house. They find somewhere else to live within their budget and move. Am I missing something? Why does she think that somehow she is special and should have a house bought for her?!

She appears to be suffering from address snobbery, will only live where she deems suitable.

ahnowbrowncow · 07-11-2014 12:51am

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Last time I checked it took two parties to make babies.

I know a girl who got pregnant at just one party

Frank O. Pinion · 07-11-2014 12:52am

masculinist wrote: »

These types of conversations are not so much for her benefit [as that bird has already flown its coop] but for the education of those who might follow in her footsteps - and the future outcomes of the future kids of those who follow in her footsteps. And who is to say she wont have any more kids ?

Every time a story like this comes up, there's a bunch of people saying things like, "...she should have kept her fanny shut", talking about the woman in question. Maybe "she" should have, but saying that after the fact isn't great advice and isn't going to help her in the present, or magically stop her from (possibly) having children in the future.

"Keep your fanny shut!" Why didn't I think of that?

One eyed Jack · 07-11-2014 12:57am

ceadaoin. wrote: »

She's already on rent allowance, why can't she just find somewhere else to rent?

Private landlords now are very reluctant to take welfare tenants (those on RA and other schemes in the pipeline that have been passed recently into legislation - HAP scheme), so a welfare tenant with children, five children? The odds of her being able to find somewhere else to rent, let alone somewhere suitable for her five children, ignoring all the other logistics such as available school places and so on, are nigh on impossible.

How come a hostel or homelessness are her only options?

See above, as well as the fact that the Housing Authority waiting lists are measured in years at this stage, as opposed to weeks! Temporary accommodation may be the only viable solution as council housing just isn't available.

This happens all time and people don't demand the council provides a house. They find somewhere else to live within their budget and move. Am I missing something?

Tbh you're missing an awful lot more than could be explained simply in one post. That's not trying to be smart or anything, but there does seem to be a huge amount of misinformation and lack of understanding in this thread, ill informed opinions and so on. I neither have the time, nor the inclination to address them all.

Why does she think that somehow she is special and should have a house bought for her?!

Do you believe everything you read in the media, or do you believe only what suits you? Rhetorical question by way of pointing out that the media spin and twist stories all the time to make better copy, and with certain organisations involved looking to raise their public profile, perception is everything, so none of us here would be privy to the full facts of this specific case. There are cases similar to this, and some in more direct need of housing provision, but for many reasons, their cases aren't highlighted, one of the main reasons being that they're reluctant to have their personal lives shredded apart and subjected to speculation and derision in, ahem, Ireland's biggest online "community".

As far as Ireland thinks it's come in terms of social progression and learning from the mistakes of the past in the last 20 years, it only takes a story like this to be reminded that Irish society really hasn't changed that much at all.

Stheno · 07-11-2014 12:58am

Frank O. Pinion wrote: »

Every time a story like this comes up, there's a bunch of people saying things like, "...she should have kept her fanny shut", talking about the woman in question. Maybe "she" should have, but saying that after the fact isn't great advice and isn't going to help her in the present, or magically stop her from (possibly) having children in the future.

"Keep your fanny shut!" Why didn't I think of that?

You have to wonder why a woman ends up alone and with five kids, and no support from the father, and I'm posting that as a woman who had to pay her ex husband maintenance for years;

Is it lack of education?
Is it the welfare state?
Is it a culture of living off the welfare state that breeds a generation who feel they are entitled?

ceadaoin. · 07-11-2014 1:00am

Stheno wrote: »

This womans story is a bit like your friends story that you posted about, she is not willing to move anywhere to settle her kids, but instead expects somewhere she wants.

She appears to be suffering from address snobbery, will only live where she deems suitable.

Oh ffs. If there is perfectly adequate accommodation in another area then she can move there. Just like everyone else has to when a situation like this arises. That's life.

masculinist · 07-11-2014 1:09am

Frank O. Pinion wrote: »

Every time a story like this comes up, there's a bunch of people saying things like, "...she should have kept her fanny shut", talking about the woman in question. Maybe "she" should have, but saying that after the fact isn't great advice and isn't going to help her in the present, or magically stop her from (possibly) having children in the future.

"Keep your fanny shut!" Why didn't I think of that?

mostly what I saw on the thread was along the lines of ''keep it in your pants'' - which is great advice for any man relating with a serial single mother by the way. However I think its not about ''keeping the fanny shut'' . Most of us would enjoy sex and see it as something not to be repressed so long as nobody is cheated. And being cheated is the point about where women have an unfair advantage over men. Women have the best control and most choices over contraception. Men don't have coils or pills etc. They basically only have a condom or surgery to choose from. For a woman it is infinitely less risky that things will not go her way. She can choose to have her baby and make him pay for it. She can cheat him- even if he and her agreed explicitly beforehand to have no babies. He has no right to adopt away his legal obligations to pay her vaginamony. She however has the right to put the baby up for adoption , to leave the country for an abortion or - the really simple choice to take her contraceptive pill like she agreed to with him.
There are a lot of fathers walking around who did not choose that position in life. Thats why it is unfair.
Now as for the money she receives, I dont think it is enough. And I know the country cant afford to give her any more. It saddens me that her children will not have enough compared to a family which had taken reasonable precautions to plan pregnancy until career or education goals had been met. Now if someone thinks its as simple as keeping it in your pants or your knickers on I think they are wrong. Thats totalitarian nonsense in the style of Charles McQuaid. There are hundreds of contraceptive options. And women control most of them. I long for the day when a reliable and safe male pill arrives.

eviltwin · 07-11-2014 1:12am

masculinist wrote: »

mostly what I saw on the thread was along the lines of ''keep it in your pants'' - which is great advice for any man relating with a serial single mother by the way. However I think its not about ''keeping the fanny shut'' . Most of us would enjoy sex and see it as something not to be repressed so long as nobody is cheated. And being cheated is the point about where women have an unfair advantage over men. Women have the best control and most choices over contraception. Men don't have coils or pills etc. They basically only have a condom or surgery to choose from. For a woman it is infinitely less risky that things will not go her way. She can choose to have her baby and make him pay for it. She can cheat him- even if he and her agreed explicitly beforehand to have no babies. He has no right to adopt away his legal obligations to pay her vaginamony. She however has the right to put the baby up for adoption , to leave the country for an abortion or - the really simple choice to take her contraceptive pill like she agreed to with him.
There are a lot of fathers walking around who did not choose that position in life. Thats why it is unfair.
Now as for the money she receives, I dont think it is enough. And I know the country cant afford to give her any more. It saddens me that her children will not have enough compared to a family which had taken reasonable precautions to plan pregnancy until career or education goals had been met. Now if someone thinks its as simple as keeping it in your pants or your knickers on I think they are wrong. Thats totalitarian nonsense in the style of Charles McQuaid. There are hundreds of contraceptive options. And women control most of them. I long for the day when a reliable and safe male pill arrives.

The fathers have some choice in the matter. They choose to have sex. We the taxpayers, the ones you seem to think should pick up the tab, have none. I have my own children to support, let these men look after theirs.

iguana · 07-11-2014 1:12am

Rightwing wrote: »

She's right about 1 thing:

Currently unemployed, Grace is furious at the local authority, especially after she identified a council house to live in Fairview Crescent, Garryowen, near her mother, which has now been boarded up.
“I don’t think the housing office should be there. If they can’t help people, I don’t know why it is open at all.”

Why are the council boarding up houses and moving undesirables out to other areas? Is this what we are paying tax for ?

Who says the council own the house? A huge amount of houses in Garryowen are privately owned as there was enormous uptake of the tenant purchase scheme there. Even if the council does own it, it could be earmarked for another family, higher up the housing list, following renovation. Just because she wants to live there doesn't mean the council can just give it to her.

masculinist · 07-11-2014 1:13am

eviltwin wrote: »

The fathers have some choice in the matter. They choose to have sex. We the taxpayers, the ones you seem to think should pick up the tab, have none. I have my own children to support, let these men look after theirs.

you are missing the point. you cant tell people not to have sex. you can however tell them to use contraceptives. And I never said anything about taxpayers paying anything. I just dont see a way out of avoiding a duty to ensure the welfare of the kids.
In one sense it was the states own fault until maybe 15 years ago - make condoms , contraceptives and abortion illegal until recent times and then turn around and judge people for having an unlimited number of kids. state enforced celibacy, how does that work when even priests, the moral guardians or any section of society has proven itself unable to keep its own pants up ? Who is leading from the front ?

eviltwin · 07-11-2014 1:16am

masculinist wrote: »

you are missing the point. you cant tell people not to have sex. you can however tell them to use contraceptives. And I never said anything about taxpayers paying anything. I just dont see a way out of avoiding a duty to ensure the welfare of the kids.

If the dad's don't pay it falls to the taxpayers. Why should our income suffer when the people responsible for these offspring pay nothing?

masculinist · 07-11-2014 1:18am

eviltwin wrote: »

If the dad's don't pay it falls to the taxpayers. Why should our income suffer when the people responsible for these offspring pay nothing?

A change of culture is required. If a man doesnt agree to father a child then the woman must know 100% that she is on her own if she spermjacks him. She must be given all possible options to prevent pregnancy. I actually believe there should be legal contracts for parenthood. An unwilling father is as much a victim as the state.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k · 07-11-2014 1:22am

Accidents happen, and just because its the woman who has to act like an incubator for 9 months doesn't mean a man has the right to be like "my bad babes, you're solo for this, I don't want kids".

Frank O. Pinion · 07-11-2014 1:22am

Stheno wrote: »

You have to wonder why a woman ends up alone and with five kids, and no support from the father, and I'm posting that as a woman who had to pay her ex husband maintenance for years;

Is it lack of education?
Is it the welfare state?
Is it a culture of living off the welfare state that breeds a generation who feel they are entitled?

Possibly a mix of all three, among others, like the lack of abortion in Ireland. I would imagine all women in these situations aren't there because of one problem.

eviltwin · 07-11-2014 1:24am

masculinist wrote: »

A change of culture is required. If a man doesnt agree to father a child then the woman must know 100% that she is on her own if she spermjacks him. She must be given all possible options to prevent pregnancy. I actually believe there should be legal contracts for parenthood. An unwilling father is as much a victim as the state.

Never going to happen. People make mistakes, no woman should be trapped in welfare because she got pregnant. It would be better to have systems in place to provide childcare so women like this could go to college and get a job so she can support her own children. Not all single mothers started out that way, a lot were in relationships that broke down. Marriages breakdown all the time. Telling men they can walk away and not have to be responsible for their children sends out a terrible message.

masculinist · 07-11-2014 1:25am

LexieOnRale wrote: »

Accidents happen, and just because its the woman who has to act like an incubator for 9 months doesn't mean a man has the right to be like "my bad babes, you're solo for this, I don't want kids".

The only thing which saves your argument just a tiny bit is the lack of legal abortion in this country. However, there is always the possibility of adoption or she can go it alone with the man waiving his rights and obligations towards the child. He can adopt them away. Why should a woman get to choose to offer her baby up for adoption but a man have no choice about it ? There are so many options in contraception that the number of 'accidents' should be negligible. There are also morning after pills and various pills which can be used for a long time after conception.
There have been cases where women have poked holes in condoms , recovered and emptied used condoms, in fact done everything possible to get pregnant. There have been cases where older women have raped younger underage boys, gotten pregnant and then turned around and sued the boys for child support once they became adults. To blame the man in these cases is actually victim blaming. Why victim blame the man and ruin his life by forcing him to have a child with someone he does not love ? So that he will not be able to afford a child with someone he does love.

Ave Sodalis · 07-11-2014 1:26am

Stheno wrote: »

You have to wonder why a woman ends up alone and with five kids, and no support from the father, and I'm posting that as a woman who had to pay her ex husband maintenance for years;

Is it lack of education?
Is it the welfare state?
Is it a culture of living off the welfare state that breeds a generation who feel they are entitled?

Series of bad mistakes?
Controlling partner?
Failed contraception?
All from the same father who left/died?

Plenty of reasons, none of them have to be about the mother being a scrounger.

masculinist · 07-11-2014 1:30am

eviltwin wrote: »

Never going to happen. People make mistakes, no woman should be trapped in welfare because she got pregnant..

I am speaking about a situation where an agreement was made in advance not to or never to have kids, yet the woman goes ahead and does it anyway. She cheats him and he is forever after victim blamed by the system. Nobody just ''gets pregnant'' miraculously in this day and age.

eviltwin · 07-11-2014 1:31am

masculinist wrote: »

The only thing which saves your argument just a tiny bit is the lack of legal abortion in this country. However, there is always the possibility of adoption or she can go it alone with the man waiving his rights and obligations towards the child. He can adopt them away. Why should a woman get to choose to offer her baby up for adoption but a man have no choice about it ? There are so many options in contraception that the number of 'accidents' should be negligible. There are also morning after pills and various pills which can be used for a long time after conception.
There have been cases where women have poked holes in condoms , recovered and emptied used condoms, in fact done everything possible to get pregnant. There have been cases where older women have raped younger underage boys, gotten pregnant and then turned around and sued the boys for child support once they became adults. To blame the man in these cases is actually victim blaming. Why victim blame the man and ruin his life by forcing him to have a child with someone he does not love ? So that he will not be able to afford a child with someone he does love.

A father can contest an adoption if he wishes. You make it sound like an unplanned pregnancy is just a minor inconvenience. Whatever option a woman goes with she will probably be dealing with the emotional fallout for years to come. Just ask any woman who chose adoption or abortion. It's not as easy for a woman to emotionally detach herself.

eviltwin · 07-11-2014 1:32am

masculinist wrote: »

I am speaking about a situation where an agreement was made in advance not to or never to have kids, yet the woman goes ahead and does it anyway. She cheats him and he is forever after victim blamed by the system. Nobody just ''gets pregnant'' miraculously in this day and age.

How do you prove such an agreement exists?

Chucken · 07-11-2014 1:33am

masculinist wrote: »

I am speaking about a situation where an agreement was made in advance not to or never to have kids, yet the woman goes ahead and does it anyway. She cheats him and he is forever after victim blamed by the system. Nobody just ''gets pregnant'' miraculously in this day and age.

This has your mantra since you started posting in this thread.
Maybe start a different thread about the hard done by men?

This is about a woman and her children being told to go live in a hostel......in this day and age.

masculinist · 07-11-2014 1:35am

eviltwin wrote: »

A father can contest an adoption if he wishes. You make it sound like an unplanned pregnancy is just a minor inconvenience. Whatever option a woman goes with she will probably be dealing with the emotional fallout for years to come. Just ask any woman who chose adoption or abortion. It's not as easy for a woman to emotionally detach herself.

and you think it is easy for a man to emotionally detach himself when he is spermjacked and cheated out of his future ? it is nonsense to claim women are emotional wrecks from taking a contraceptive pill or a morning after pill.

Women are cold as ice when they choose to be. they will have their abortions , use their contraception etc when they want to and a man has to sit back and suffer the emotional consequences if he doesnt want this to happen. If they know they cant control a mans life legally it might make them more responsible. And I am not talking about removing their freedom to choose. I am referring to their unfair power to use their choice to control a mans life, the life of a man who they cheated by breaking an agreement with not to have kids. This is victim blaming at the end of the day. Men and women should be free to go their own way but they dont need to control each other. She can have her baby, control her own life so long as she does not control his life.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k · 07-11-2014 1:36am

Chucken wrote: »

This has your mantra since you started posting in this thread.
Maybe start a different thread about the hard done by men?

This is about a woman and her children being told to go live in a hostel......in this day and age.

Well then it's up to her to provide a home for her children , just like most parents do for their kids

OwaynOTT · 07-11-2014 1:37am

Gatling wrote: »

And most of her kids are of school going age leaving plenty of scope for part time employment.

Okay, I'm not offering any comments on the article in question but I do want to consider single mothers and working part-time.
All single mothers, not just that the media representation that lady in the article represents - undeserving poor, lazy and living off benefits and just popping out kids with the father in the background but not officially there so they can claim more benefits.

Get your child ready for school and get them to school whether driving or walking (public transport not walkways an option).
Do their homework with them.
Collect them from school.
Look after them after school.
Having them full time on weekends and holidays.

Some people can get help with friends and family. Some can afford to use some sort of child care. Some can't get any help.

Part time work that can fit around the demands of raising a child on your own is hard to get. Part time work is difficult to get at the best of times even without these added difficulties.
A lot of part time work requires major flexibility on your part - covering for illness and holidays, which is difficult when you have a kid dependant on you.
You can't really work nights.

You really only have between 10-4 while the child is in school or even less available hours to work. What if the child gets sick? Kids get sick, it's what they do.

A lot of threads on boards that deal with single mothers and those that rely on some sort of state aid, blindly throw out 'she should be working'.
In a lot of cases it's difficult to this and when it can be worked out surely the child will be affected negatively and the mother will be under a lot of pressure.

I really wish people would consider how hard life can be for single mothers.

eviltwin · 07-11-2014 1:37am

masculinist wrote: »

and you think it is easy for a man to emotionally detach himself when he is spermjacked and cheated out of his future ?

Women are cold as ice when they choose to be. they will have their abortions , use their contraception etc when they want to and a man has to sit back and suffer the emotional consequences if he doesnt want this to happen. If they know they cant control a mans life legally it might make them more responsible. And I am not talking about removing their freedom to choose. I am referring to their unfair power to use their choice to control a mans life, the life of a man who they cheated by breaking an agreement.

If he is making the choice to walk away without any financial aid to his offspring then yes, it must not be that big a deal. You seem to have a real problem with women. You should get help for that.

Limerick mum and five children told ‘go to hostel’

Comments