PLEASE HELP!!!! Benefits??

bodmil

Yes I did notice there's some slight repeatition in deepmistrust's arguments. Oh which there seem to be quite a few...

I do wonder if every women acted on their right to have lots of children, and their children would of course have the right to be provided for by the state, where that would end up? Surely children only have the right to state provisions if the majority of the population DON'T exercise their rights to procreation, which surely isn't..... right?

vaporate

divastrop wrote: »

Too many young women? I'm pretty sure men play a part somewhere along the line. Maybe the woman wants the child to have two loving parents, but the father of the baby is not interested in raising a child, or is not a suitable person to raise a child ?

Yeh forced to pay child benefit while denied rights regarding access to their own kid.

Dont assume the father is not interested in their own kid. Very sexist comment.

viktory

divastrop wrote: »

Too many young women? I'm pretty sure men play a part somewhere along the line. Maybe the woman wants the child to have two loving parents, but the father of the baby is not interested in raising a child, or is not a suitable person to raise a child ?

Yes, men do play a part but as I have already said, the woman is the one left holding the baby. Not a suitable person to raise a child? Bloody hell, I would hope that you'd be assured of his suitability before conceiving! Not interested? Again, a discussion about wanting children should occur before conception - not after.

paye

Some of the comments made on this thread are bang out of order, It's not the OP fault the situation she is in at the moment, as people say life full of ups and downs, i'm sure most of us on here will need some form of financial help in the future from the state, considering the current economic climate we are in, if the OP been working and has been paying here dues in the past she has got every right to claim everything that is available to her. Asking her if she thought about an abortion is no one business.

mumps

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

(Mind you, I do wonder whether their views would be the same if there weren't the safety net of having a home and income funded by the state!)

I think that is a very patronising thing to say. I was pregnant at 17, I went back to work and bought my first house at 18 and by 21 had a 4 bed Edwardian semi and two children. By 25 I had a degree and a good job. Never had any benefits (well I did have child benefit.) Three of my children have degrees and the other one is starting at university. At 17 my doctor pressurised me to have an abortion and when he, and other people, were told I couldn't have an abortion due to my religious beliefs I was told that if it was a choice between babies life and mine I would have the abortion. Well with one of my children I was faced with that choice and I knew I would save baby before myself. Thanks to a very skilled doctor we both survived.

To the OP I hope everything works out OK for you, I don't know much about benefits but there will be help for you and my advice is to go back to work when you can and make a great life for your baby and yourself. It is hard, and sometimes it seems like life is all about working either at home or in job but it will all be worth it. When I saw my first son graduate with a 1st I thought back to the doctor who wanted him aborted and was glad I never listened.

Oldernotwiser

mumps wrote: »

I think that is a very patronising thing to say. I was pregnant at 17, I went back to work and bought my first house at 18 and by 21 had a 4 bed Edwardian semi and two children. By 25 I had a degree and a good job. Never had any benefits (well I did have child benefit.) Three of my children have degrees and the other one is at university. At 17 my doctor pressurised me to have an abortion and when he, and other people, were told I couldn't have an abortion due to my religious beliefs I was told that if it was a choice between babies life and mine I would have the abortion. Well with one of my children I was faced with that choice and I knew I would save baby before myself. Thanks to a very skilled doctor we both survived.

I have every respect for someone who is against abortion for religious reasons as you are. I'm not going to say any more on the subject.

Bogof_Babe

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

I have every respect for someone who is against abortion for religious reasons as you are. I'm not going to say any more on the subject.

What about people who are against contraception for religious reasons? Should the state be responsible for bringing up their dozen or so kids?

Deepmistrust

viktory wrote: »

Are you cherry picking because you are getting desperate? That might also explain the spelling mistakes.

My disputed part of my post:



Any sensible woman would therefore make sure she is adequately protected against an unwanted pregnancy. A loving couple will, of course, have discussed contraception as part of their relationship. A couple that fancy a quick knee trembler against the pub wall probably won't have such a discussion. Therefore, surely it would be prudent of the female to use contraceptives to ensure no pregnancy and also tell the male to use a condom to prevent STI infection. For both to fail would be incredible odds. To me, that is not a sexist point of view, but a sensible one.



I choose neither. Any woman that is pregnant with no financial support, no home and no loving partner should explore all the options available to her. These include abortion and adoption. It may be unpalatable to some, but these are the realities of unplanned and unwanted pregnancy.



You may live out your fantasies on here - I certainly don't.

Spelling mistakes? All that and you're picking up on a spelling mistake? And you call me desperate? Wow.

The point you supported (even confirmed you agreed with) was the belief that contraception is a "womans' job".
No one is suggesting that women should not be responsible for their bodies. But you are suggesting that avoiding a child being born, is the responsiblity of a woman.

That is not sensible advice, that is warped backward thinking.

Continue wittering about how the OP should consider abortion, despite what she's already posted on here. Like I said, live out your fantasies on here, I'd enjoy hearing you say to a pregnant woman who has been let down in *real life* she should consider an abortion, despite her telling you how it's already out of the equation.

How very tasteless.

Deepmistrust

sunnyone wrote: »

You havnt accused someone of using the straw man argumant yet Deepmistrust, that normally comes along with the Ad homimen argumant that you use to attack other posters.

Well, if the cap fits Sunnyone.

Deepmistrust

bodmil wrote: »

Yes I did notice there's some slight repeatition in deepmistrust's arguments. Oh which there seem to be quite a few...

I do wonder if every women acted on their right to have lots of children, and their children would of course have the right to be provided for by the state, where that would end up? Surely children only have the right to state provisions if the majority of the population DON'T exercise their rights to procreation, which surely isn't..... right?

Repition of points will come, when faced with repition of same idiotic argument.

Your second paragraph is just a load of witterings that have no basis in scientific, objective, or even relevant, fact.