Dear Hasbeen,

You consider this hair-splitting, but the one who robs off the wages of the check-out-chicks is not Petra, but the government - and you know what, the money that this government gives to Petra and her fellow single-mothers, is only a drop in the ocean of unfair and unsubstantiated expenses that this government makes off the robbed wages of check-out-chicks.
What allows the government to do so, is all those who voluntarily use and have faith in the currency that they print.

Petra was offered a deal: money for raising kids.
Petra accepted the deal and kept her part - she is not to blame.
The only one to blame is the body which offered her that money out of other people's pockets, including the check-out-chicks'.

Yuyutsu
Your reasoning is right up until, but excluding, the idea that using money somehow constitutes consent to be defrauded by government manipulating the supply and distribution of money.

No it doesn't. People use the government's money because the legal tender laws make it a criminal offence for any other better competitor to supply other better money; and illegal for people to use such other better money. You can't build any theory of consent on that!

All
The hypocrisy of those supporting coerced payments to single mothers is appalling.

The pretension that this is about children is completely false, because all the support of children they clam to support, could be paid for by them voluntarily! That's exactly what they don't want and are determined to avoid by advocating forcing others, who don't agree with them, to pay . These people stand for force and nothing but force because in the final analysis, that's all that government can bring to the table. Everything else society can supply itself. But notice how they don't mention that anywhere at all, and when it's pointed out, they try to ignore and evade it? Strip aside their fluffed-up indignation and their argument is nothing but brute force, falsely parading as the social principle.

The "whole of society" argument is palpable nonsense. Obviously the whole of society can't be relieved of the need to work, by living at someone else's expense. In its nature it can only be the comfortable prerogative of a privileged minority. Do they share their confiscated loot with the single mothers of the real whole of society - the rest of the world? - of course not!

Jardine K Jardine
<Parental responsibility in its very nature is opt-in, not opt-out. A woman chooses whether to have sex, whether to use contraception, whether to abort, whether to adopt out, and whether or not to support it, and then having passed through all those decisions has the gall and the legal "right" [translation: immoral power] to force the father to pay whether he chooses to or not.>

AS a man do you take any responsibility at all? A man also chooses to have sex, also whether to use contraception, maybe not whether to abort but I have known cases where the man has insisted on wanting the woman to abort because he didn’t want to be tied down by any responsibility. That is
more common than is realised.

If having not used contraception you father a child, then your responsibility along with the mother is to support that child. Assuming you are not the one doing the 24hour daycare of the child then you have to contribute somehow, because believe me, the care of young babies and children is indeed a 24hour job. It sounds to me like you don’t understand that and that says to me you have never had full time responsibility for caring for a child under five. And don’t try and throw up a red herring about the child being 8years, you know exactly what I mean by the above.

Please! when you are old, don’t expect other people’s children who you take no responsibility for,to nurse you, or serve you in shops, go to war to protect you, or provide a customer base for any business you may run or depend on for a job. In fact why don’t you go and live
out in the desert somewhere, where there is no society around you.
Wake up and see the big picture. What is it you are aiming for, tribal extinction?

Support the children of this country you need them desperately, just like the rest of us. Why should so called men's work be paid and women's work be considered unworthy of payment?

...Irrespective of ones political leanings, Adam Bandt must be admired. His proposal to boost the single parent pension by $127 pw must give single parents some glimmer of hope.

...Shame for the Greens is their pathetic stand on Homosexuality and border security. Now is the time to move to the center for the "Greens", as their German counterparts have done, by replacing the "ridiculous" with the "acceptable" in their policy position: Then they too will gain the necessary traction to be a credible alternative.

Cherful
Stop trying to squirm out of the issue. You need to justify the use of force to treat men as a money object. You haven't. You lose the argument.

PS from above:

...A "Red-Green" Alliance which will enable them to off-load the responsibility of the above mentioned negative and unattractive policies.