CSA Law UNFAIR! From a woman!

kelloggs36

Good to get back to the issue in question Ice! I agree, but do you agree also that as both parties were agreeable to the act in the first place, and a failure in contraception DID happen, that both parties are responsbible for the outcome?

I do have a bit of a dilema with the issue when either party makes it clear that they want no part in it, but the bottom line really, is that if they want to have sex, they have to realise that a baby may be the end resuult- whether they use contraception or not, so the only way to avoid it altogether, is not to take the risk in the first place.

It is a difficult one, because it is the norm within our society to have casual sex these days; it always has been, but these days people are very open about it and it is impossible to stamp out - but we can't dictate to people how to conduct their sex lives, BUT we can as a society ensure that if that is the way in which they wish to live, they are aware of their moral responsibilities and child maintenance could be argued as being one of them. Obviously maintenance is not just an issue for accidental pregnancies and the vast majority of cases involve parents who have been in a relationship (which in my book is longer than 1 night!!) To have a sexual relationship involves that same risk whether in a long -term or short term relationship so if a man is quite clear that he never wants to be a father, he could have a vasectomy just as a woman can elect to be sterilised herself. But this isn't what the majority want. In most cases also, even the children are actively planned and wanted in the first place, but when the relationship breaks down and the parents start fighting, the children get caught up in the middle of it all and this is where it all falls apart.

Master says that all women should sit down and talk with their exs and come to an arrangement because he seems to think that all women want to do is go to the CSA to extract as much money out of their ex as possible. I am sure that there are indeed some such women, but on the whole, those who are not on benefits are not ALLOWED to come to their own arrangements by law, so his argument falls down here and it is not adviseable to encourage people to start committing fraud, and of those who are private clients, the majority of them are clients of the CSA are so because either one of them cannot come to an agreement or won't even entertain the idea of sitting down and talking about it. Those of us who have posted on here are women who would dearly LOVE to have a conversation and come to an amicable agreement, but all our our exs have refused to do so. Not only have they refused to negotiate on a civil level, they have refused to care for their own children. There is no other option but to go to the CSA in these instances in order to get the other parent to pay what they legally should to help the child stuck in the middle. Statistics prove that the vast majority of applicants to the CSA are women which seems to be the only criteria required in Master's book for labelling them as money grabbers. His argument is flawed from start to finish, but yes, there will be a very small element of women who wish to get as much money from their exs as possible. There are safeguards in place which stop this from happening such as the % limits imposed. It isn't a perfect system, it never can be as society is made up of such a vast range of people with different issues which cannot be catered for so it will obviously not be suitable for some people. Those who set up the CSA were extremely naive in believing that most people would comply willingly to pay for their children hence the lack of enforcement action. It has taken them many years to wake up to the fact that their beliefs were incorrect and there is a large number of parents who do not wish to maintain their children and will go to great lengths to avoid doing so. Master believes these people to be justified and makes sweeping statements as to women being the reason, when clearly each individual case is different and there are a large number of men out there who just won't pay anything regardless of how fair the women wish to be. I know, I worked there on Face to Face and so I have first hand evidence of cases which don't involve my own so I am not just looking at my single case and making judgements on others - I am using evidence.

master99

kelloggs36 wrote:

Good to get back to the issue in question Ice! I agree, but do you agree also that as both parties were agreeable to the act in the first place, and a failure in contraception DID happen, that both parties are responsbible for the outcome?

I do have a bit of a dilema with the issue when either party makes it clear that they want no part in it, but the bottom line really, is that if they want to have sex, they have to realise that a baby may be the end resuult- whether they use contraception or not, so the only way to avoid it altogether, is not to take the risk in the first place.

It is a difficult one, because it is the norm within our society to have casual sex these days; it always has been, but these days people are very open about it and it is impossible to stamp out - but we can't dictate to people how to conduct their sex lives, BUT we can as a society ensure that if that is the way in which they wish to live, they are aware of their moral responsibilities and child maintenance could be argued as being one of them. Obviously maintenance is not just an issue for accidental pregnancies and the vast majority of cases involve parents who have been in a relationship (which in my book is longer than 1 night!!) To have a sexual relationship involves that same risk whether in a long -term or short term relationship so if a man is quite clear that he never wants to be a father, he could have a vasectomy just as a woman can elect to be sterilised herself. But this isn't what the majority want. In most cases also, even the children are actively planned and wanted in the first place, but when the relationship breaks down and the parents start fighting, the children get caught up in the middle of it all and this is where it all falls apart.

Master says that all women should sit down and talk with their exs and come to an arrangement because he seems to think that all women want to do is go to the CSA to extract as much money out of their ex as possible. I am sure that there are indeed some such women, but on the whole, those who are not on benefits are not ALLOWED to come to their own arrangements by law, so his argument falls down here and it is not adviseable to encourage people to start committing fraud, and of those who are private clients, the majority of them are clients of the CSA are so because either one of them cannot come to an agreement or won't even entertain the idea of sitting down and talking about it. Those of us who have posted on here are women who would dearly LOVE to have a conversation and come to an amicable agreement, but all our our exs have refused to do so. Not only have they refused to negotiate on a civil level, they have refused to care for their own children. There is no other option but to go to the CSA in these instances in order to get the other parent to pay what they legally should to help the child stuck in the middle. Statistics prove that the vast majority of applicants to the CSA are women which seems to be the only criteria required in Master's book for labelling them as money grabbers. His argument is flawed from start to finish, but yes, there will be a very small element of women who wish to get as much money from their exs as possible. There are safeguards in place which stop this from happening such as the % limits imposed. It isn't a perfect system, it never can be as society is made up of such a vast range of people with different issues which cannot be catered for so it will obviously not be suitable for some people. Those who set up the CSA were extremely naive in believing that most people would comply willingly to pay for their children hence the lack of enforcement action. It has taken them many years to wake up to the fact that their beliefs were incorrect and there is a large number of parents who do not wish to maintain their children and will go to great lengths to avoid doing so. Master believes these people to be justified and makes sweeping statements as to women being the reason, when clearly each individual case is different and there are a large number of men out there who just won't pay anything regardless of how fair the women wish to be. I know, I worked there on Face to Face and so I have first hand evidence of cases which don't involve my own so I am not just looking at my single case and making judgements on others - I am using evidence.

i like it when you call me master sounds kinky:p

lebly

posted by master 99i like it when you call me master sounds kinky

I really just cannot beleive your ego. You really need to take a long hard look at yourself. Maybe though it is not your ego but your inability to put forward a sensible intelligent answer/argument.

Well done kellogs you seem to be helping alot of people here!

Zara33

master99 wrote:

i like it when you call me master sounds kinky:p

:rolleyes: hellooooooo, have you actually heard yourself lately??? step away from the computer and venture into the real world not the lala land that you are actually in just now.

ALWAYS_POOR

Ah hem, CONDOMS???????? Takes two, you know?

newcook

Zara33 wrote:

Oh b*gger i'm no use at guessing the other id :rotfl:

nor me... is it that masters and OP are the same?????

Masters - your have got some serious issues! fair enough, you have your opinion and everyone else has theirs but there is no need to be blaintantly rude and obnoxious to others just because they may not agree with what you have to say - its called a debate.

from the sounds of it you must have got pretty badly burned by your ex(s) which is why you are so bitter towards a lot of the women on here. there is no need to say that 80% of women are vindictive as its just not true
there is also no need to quote each and every person so you can snap back at them with some pathetic twisted comment

gregg1

iceicebaby wrote:

USE CONDOMS = NO ACCIDENTAL PREGNANCIES

If men are daft enough to not use condoms on a one night stand more fool them I say . Also goes for women too.

absolutely agree with you on this one. Why on earth should the tax payer pick up the bill. Whether its a one night stand or not, the child is still the responsibility of BOTH parents, whether they think they have been tricked into it or not.