Who is the bigger lowlife, the SA or OS?

SA: Common law married to a man who worked all throughout the relationship. Made a decent living. Freely gave $$ to his CL wife so she would be comfortable. Man ensured wife had health coverage and a decent vehicle. Man continued to run his old truck, though made sure wife had new vehicle every three years. Man gets laid off. 10.5% Unemployment. Man is educated and now completing a certification program for additional training. Man is continuing to pay 70% of household bills, but no longer has health coverage. Wife works. Makes above 10 an hour and has health insurance. Woman refuses to put CL husband on health coverage. Woman now says the two are not married, though for the previous years when husband was working, the woman always used the mans last name. Woman decides to go to match.com, pays the $150 registration, and looking for soulmate on line, even though when husband was working, always told the man he was her soulmate. Woman also goes out every weekend, never acknowledging man. Man tried to talk to her, but she totally ignores him. House in mans name only, but knows the laws favor whoever can pay for the better lawyer. Man is just left sitting in room without companionship, while woman goes out with her friends, hooking up with new guys, and generally doing her own thing.

OS: Has 6 children by three different men. Decides to use the children as leverage over one man. The other two men do not pay child support. The man who pays child support is basically paying for 4 other children who are not his. When ever man goes to see HIS children, the kids are dirty and clothes are terrible. Man usually has to take kids to go get new clothes monthly. This woman sells her food stamps for beer money. Sells the SS numbers for IRS fraud. Man has tried to get full custody but gets denied because according to the state, the woman is not an 'unfit' mother. Man works hard and makes sure kids are taken care of. When 2nd child was born, man did not know as the man and woman were not together. Man found out three years later. Put the child on health insurance and gave woman extra money for child, believing it was his in good faith. Man was able to get a court date to prove paternity and pay obligated child support. When in court, man was forced by the state to give back child support. Man tried to argue the health insurance and extra money. Woman denied both. Only thing man was able to prove was health care, but state did not give credit.

Woman takes man back to court every year for child support modification, but does not seek out other two men for support of other four children.

We all know the man in both scenarios is an idiot for being with either one of these women, but the question for the panel is which of the two women are the bigger lowlifes.