Equal rights?

Good lordy! talk about a one-sided argument!

A man and a woman sleep together, the woman is transformed into a, "slut" (silverwolf) or, "white trash," (Death Rabbit), whilst our noble protagonist Dave, is merely a fun loving guy.

Mr. Writer, have you ever had a baby? I'm guessing that "Sally's" life isn't all that great being a single mother. You do realize when a child is born it has a tendency to wake up on the hour (if you're lucky) and start crying for food? A single mother is typically a *tad* rundown from that whole giving birth thing... they usually proceed to not get any sleep for a month after that.

I'm not saying she's some paragon of a person, how could I know? But they both sound like complete imbeciles, and maybe if Dave had gotten more involved, rather than trying to forget it ever happened, she wouldn't be poisoning his son against him.

He hung up the phone, and assumed she went and got an abortion.

How noble.

Just as an afterthought, Dave's life is now "ruined" because he's paying for his kid to get raised, and he can no longer party every night (which caused the problem to begin with).

Would it be fair to say that p'raps Sally's lifestyle was slightly altered a bit from this whole thing as well?

 

I guess the moral is...

No matter how ****ty your situation is, you can always be noble(er).

Or not. Whatever.

 

Art the point im trying to make is Sally had several oppertunities to stop it Dave didn't and now Dave has to pay.

My gripe is with the way the law works. And with the individual Sally (NOT All single mums)

 

If I understand correctly, Sally could have ensured that it does not come to conception, because she's the woman and it's mainly the woman's job to ensure that. Dave has to expect, that when his having an one night stand, that the other side has taken care of everything.

Then, as it happens as it happened. Dave had no contact to Sally at all, but did expect, that she aborts. Did he at least offer support (financially and emotionally) concerning the abortion ?

About the life-standard. I guess if Dave and Sally married, he'd be slightly better of financially, but I think a baby is quiet expensive.

And then, your story rises doubt, that the child is really Dave's child. He should get a DNA-test, I think.

 

This is exactly the situation I face every day of my life so I feel for 'Dave' very much. I also meet at least a dozen guys every Sunday night who face the same thing. I'll try to keep from ranting too much though.

Yes, the system is stuffed as far as Child Support payments go, in Australia IIRC the rate for one child is 34% of GROSS wages, not NET wages. Something that really should be remedied. Sure, kids have to be supported and it shouldn't be left completely up to the mother unless she is determined to eliminate the biological father from the child's life, maybe having to support the child completely on her own would help her realise that kids need their father. Same would go for the father if roles were reversed. But then there's always the Single Parent Pension which gives single parents upwards of $300 each week for the first child. Not sure what the rates for more are in either Child Support or Pension payments.

What is also unfortunate is that fathers and mothers who regularly pay Support and never miss a payment often get no access to the child or children they are paying to support, and yes it is also prevalent in my experience that it often becomes apparent that a great deal of the money payed is NOT used for the child's benefit but for the benefit of the residence parent. There seems to be no way to police this though, not without somthing akin to Big Brother I would imagine anyway, except to trust. Yeah right, that's gonna work?

As for her paying if he looks after the kid, yes. Australia certainly has that law in place but it depends on the amount of time he has the kid. Also, this would reduce the amount of Single Parent Pension she would get in accordance with the shared time. This is something that a lot of mothers DON'T want to happen so often they either don't let the father ahve the kid at all or they check out what the limit is before they lose money to the father and they keep under that limit.

Yes, children put a 'crimp' in one's lifestyle sometimes but given the chance to spend time with said children, most people find that it's a 'crimp' worth having. It's just unfortunate that most residence parents seem to think only of themselves and not the kids, therefore depriving the kids of a full life with everything they deserve.

Anyway, since I can't seem to stop *****ing I'll shut up for now.

 

The basic inalienable rights of the child are of superior importance here. Such as, for example, one's right to good name is more important than someone else's freedom of speech. A human child is a human being and ownership concepts don't quite fit here. Or welcome to the world of slavery.

 

Chev - A good name? What is that supposed to mean?

 

I think he meant one's right to good care, but I'm not sure.

 

That only applies if he meant home. I think he was referring to Honour.

 

He ment the right for someone not to be lied about and slandered is more important than the right for someone to go around shouting lies about someone.

I think.

 

Um Chev? I think we're all a little confused about that statement, "one's right to good name is more important than someone else's freedom of speech." Now when I read that I think automatically of American History class and the Zeger case where a news reporter was "unpleasant truths" about the governor of New York (before Revolution.) And of course my thought is that people have more right to the truth than someone has a right to "a good name" but what I THINK you're trying to say is that someone can't just go LIE about someone else because of freedom of speech. . . I think. Do clarify.

And Artechoke: if you read my entire post you would have seen that in general I think pregnant women can have it rough. But being a girl and having to sit with certain girls in my 10th grade classes and listen to them whine about how they have to get up at 4 in the morning just so they can put on makeup and shave their legs so their boyfriends won't be grossed out when they have sex. . . . Yeah I don't really have HUGE quantities of sympathy. As Jack Funk says, "Newsflash! Having sex can cause pregnancy!" It's not like they don't know this. And as I said about Dave unless they have animal level of intelligence. . . Now, I say, give her the benefit of the doubt. And of course, I already listed my reasons why. But let's face it, there are some girls out there who give up on life and don't give a damn and more or less throw their lifes away (drugs, alcohol abuse and procreating like bunnies.) So yes, I termed her, a "slut" Am I prejudiced against her? Probably. Do I think she could take her and her son's life in her hands instead of succumbing to the harships? Indubitably. But until I meet her I will give her the benefit of the doubt. (But by going off what Mr. Writer says. . .)