Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I guess I give people more credit when it comes to stupidity. I just assume any sane person that has sex with two different men in the same month would consider the possibility. I'm also confused by the notion of women keeping track of their ovulation when they're not trying to get pregnant.
Many aren't proper parents. This thread covers that fact well enough.
Deceiving a person probably does make a person immoral. I know morality is fluid and dependent on a host of variables, but to lie, cheat, etc. These are all simple things that can never be moral. So, she is immoral. That, or a sociopath that doesn't really understand what it means to cause harm to another.
eta: to be clear, I'm sure we all engage in behavior at one time or another that doesn't sit right with us. It's taken to a whole different level when that behavior screws with somebody else's trip, which is why it angers me. We live very short lives and every life is precious regardless of age. Doing this to a man robbs him of so much and 'suck it up' simply isn't a good enough option.
Women who practice the rhythm method keep track. You also call them MOM . It's not ver reliable yet people still use it because they think it works. If a woman thinks she can't get pregnant before day 11 of her cycle and has an affair on day 8 and then has sex with her husband on day 15, she's likely to assume the child belongs to her husband if she thinks the rhythm method actually works. She may not realize she's deceiving anyone. People can be really stupid.
You are correct, we all engage in behavior that's not quite right at some time or another, it is however, not usually deliberate when it messes with someone elses trip. The woman who has sex with two men in a month and gets the father right is no better than the woman who has sex with two men in a month and gets the father wrong or doesn't get pregnant at all.
What about robbing the child? Sorry but child trumps parents any day of the week. There is too much at stake for the child. I also can't figure what kind of person abandons a child because of a DNA test. How can you love a child one day and walk away the next because of a test?
By the time they divorced, dh knew dss#1 was not his. I don't think it ever crossed his mind to walk way and wash his hands of him. He knew his son wasn't to blame and he knew his son was depending on him.
Women who practice the rhythm method keep track. You also call them MOM . It's not ver reliable yet people still use it because they think it works. If a woman thinks she can't get pregnant before day 11 of her cycle and has an affair on day 8 and then has sex with her husband on day 15, she's likely to assume the child belongs to her husband if she thinks the rhythm method actually works. She may not realize she's deceiving anyone. People can be really stupid.
Maybe for some, I guess. I think that would be a very small minority. I'd hope at least.
Quote:
You are correct, we all engage in behavior that's not quite right at some time or another, it is however, not usually deliberate when it messes with someone elses trip. The woman who has sex with two men in a month and gets the father right is no better than the woman who has sex with two men in a month and gets the father wrong or doesn't get pregnant at all.
Ok, and then the convenient stupid excuse can come into play, which is hard to swallow, but that's what's on the table. So, in the end she simply doesn't have to take responsibility because she's just that stupid.- the very last people on earth that should be breeding.
Quote:
What about robbing the child? Sorry but child trumps parents any day of the week. There is too much at stake for the child. I also can't figure what kind of person abandons a child because of a DNA test. How can you love a child one day and walk away the next because of a test?
A person that loves a child wouldn't. But, those are not the people being addressed here. OTOH, lets take a scenerio of a guy in the military who is gone most of the time, years even for some I guess. Finds out a 5-6 years into it that the kid isn't his and he wants out of the whole thing. He doesn't know the kid really. There isn't a bond. Why should he have to be bothered? Should she have the rights to child support, gosh vet benefits, etc? No way imo.
Quote:
By the time they divorced, dh knew dss#1 was not his. I don't think it ever crossed his mind to walk way and wash his hands of him. He knew his son wasn't to blame and he knew his son was depending on him.
Obviously, he's a fine man. It's a difficult situation, tho, and not everybody is going to react the same. And again, if the bond isn't there for the dad to stick around, something's up.
Maybe for some, I guess. I think that would be a very small minority. I'd hope at least.
Ok, and then the convenient stupid excuse can come into play, which is hard to swallow, but that's what's on the table. So, in the end she simply doesn't have to take responsibility because she's just that stupid.- the very last people on earth that should be breeding.
A person that loves a child wouldn't. But, those are not the people being addressed here. OTOH, lets take a scenerio of a guy in the military who is gone most of the time, years even for some I guess. Finds out a 5-6 years into it that the kid isn't his and he wants out of the whole thing. He doesn't know the kid really. There isn't a bond. Why should he have to be bothered? Should she have the rights to child support, gosh vet benefits, etc? No way imo.
Obviously, he's a fine man. It's a difficult situation, tho, and not everybody is going to react the same. And again, if the bond isn't there for the dad to stick around, something's up.
The very last people on earth who should be breeding are often the ones haven 19 kids. No one ever said you had to be bright to get pregnant.
At this point in time, if your name is on the birth certificate, you're the legal father. Legally, our serviceman is the child's father until he goes to court to change that (so far, the courts seem to have refused the argument preferring to leave the legal status of father to preserve the child's support). Hopefully, our serviceman will realize what having a father would mean to the child. Having the opportunity to make an impact on a child's life and choosing not to is something you may very well live to regret.
I agree that something is up if a bond isn't there. The guy probably wasn't a decent dad anyway but he may be all the child has, and, for now, our courts will recognize that.
Honestly, someone should start selling guys "I'm not the dad" insurance. I'll bet you could make a bunch. I still don't get not bonding with a child. Dss#2 was 4 when I married is dad and he feels as much my child as his sisters who are my children both legally and biologically (unless they switched dd#2 at the hospital. Dd#1 is her dad's daughter through and through. I'm not sure any of me got in there.)
I guess I just don't get the fixation on DNA. I understand being very angry at the mother. She cheated on you and lied about it but I don't get rejecting the child as a result.
Actually, adultery isn't a crime in most jurisdictions. Neither is having a child out of wedlock. I don't think men would like it very much if they were.
Paternity fraud is, well, fraud. Adultery is merely just infidelity. See the difference? It's beyond reason to expect a victim to "suck it up", least of all every day for 18 years.
EDIT
Just caught up with the rest of the thread, all I got to say is all those ad hominems are hilarious Maybe the guys saying women are mentally limited are on to something. It'd certainly explain the poor ability of feminists and their mangina followers to articulate an argument. They nearly always resort to shaming tactics and logical fallacies, so go right on with them please. By all means prove me correct.
Paternity fraud is, well, fraud. Adultery is merely just infidelity. See the difference? It's beyond reason to expect a victim to "suck it up", least of all every day for 18 years.
Fraud, again, requires more than just infidelity, pregnancy, and some guy supporting the kid under the impression that it's his. We've been over this and over this. If you can't see it, then it's simply beyond your capacity to understand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nutz76
Just caught up with the rest of the thread, all I got to say is all those ad hominems are hilarious Maybe the guys saying women are mentally limited are on to something. It'd certainly explain the poor ability of feminists and their mangina followers to articulate an argument. They nearly always resort to shaming tactics and logical fallacies, so go right on with them please. By all means prove me correct.
Actually, it's you who is proving us correct with every one of your posts. Using fifty-cent words like "ad hominem" (which, by the way, is an adjective and an adverb, and therefore has no plural) isn't tantamount to "articulating an argument". Besides, it's the standard PUA glossary: "ad hominem", "shaming tactics", "logical fallacies", "false dichotomies", and similar verbal masturbation. It's like you guys are working off a random text generator or something. I know those are big words and everything, but can you use more than 30 in your vocabulary? Seriously, you all sound like a broken record that plays the same 5-second tune over and over. Anyway, my point still stands: you and the guy who wrote that "book" claim that women are mentally deficient and must be ordered about when it's convenient for your purposes; then expect women to enter into contracts with you and take responsibility when it suits other purposes. In other words, people who subscribe to those views are completely irrational, illogical and disingenuous. As to all these guys who are saying that women are mentally limited -- all I can say is, projection is a very common way of dealing with feelings of inferiority. I know this is very hard for you to understand, Nutz, but foaming at the mouth about how women are mentally retarded and so forth won't change reality. That's just a cold, hard fact of life.
Actually, it's you who is proving us correct with every one of your posts. Using fifty-cent words like "ad hominem" (which, by the way, is an adjective and an adverb, and therefore has no plural) isn't tantamount to "articulating an argument". Besides, it's the standard PUA glossary: "ad hominem", "shaming tactics", "logical fallacies", "false dichotomies", and similar verbal masturbation.
Hi Redisca,
You would be the first to recognize a link between PUA and rhetoric. PUA always seemed to be about picking up girls to me.
I certainly see no reason not to point out rhetorical gimmicks, and I have seen a few here. I wonder if Aristotle, the author of Sophistical Refutations, was a womanizer?
Location: An overgrown 350K person suburb of Saint Paul
383 posts, read 901,548 times
Reputation: 248
Ok chica, if you like the prospect of paying for a child that's not yours for 18 years, you find some other chap who's doing so and take over his CS payments. Put your money where your mouth is.
Ok chica, if you like the prospect of paying for a child that's not yours for 18 years, you find some other chap who's doing so and take over his CS payments. Put your money where your mouth is.
Now who's the one with the verbal Onanism now?
Why don't you go back and read through this thread? This thread is about mandatory paternity testing. You know, mandatory? No one is disputing the right of any man to demand a DNA test and to have a court order it, if he so desires. As to whether I would like the prospect of paying for a child that's not mine -- that really depends on the circumstances. I am not so hung up on the purity of blood, nor do I imagine myself as a friggin' Plantagenet. If it turned out my child wasn't biologically mine, I'd still pay for his expenses, and I would still care for him. I don't see him as an extension of myself or a meatbag for carrying on my precious genes. But that's just me.
Fraud, again, requires more than just infidelity, pregnancy, and some guy supporting the kid under the impression that it's his. We've been over this and over this. If you can't see it, then it's simply beyond your capacity to understand.
Actually, it's you who is proving us correct with every one of your posts. Using fifty-cent words like "ad hominem" (which, by the way, is an adjective and an adverb, and therefore has no plural) isn't tantamount to "articulating an argument". Besides, it's the standard PUA glossary: "ad hominem", "shaming tactics", "logical fallacies", "false dichotomies", and similar verbal masturbation. It's like you guys are working off a random text generator or something. I know those are big words and everything, but can you use more than 30 in your vocabulary? Seriously, you all sound like a broken record that plays the same 5-second tune over and over. Anyway, my point still stands: you and the guy who wrote that "book" claim that women are mentally deficient and must be ordered about when it's convenient for your purposes; then expect women to enter into contracts with you and take responsibility when it suits other purposes. In other words, people who subscribe to those views are completely irrational, illogical and disingenuous. As to all these guys who are saying that women are mentally limited -- all I can say is, projection is a very common way of dealing with feelings of inferiority. I know this is very hard for you to understand, Nutz, but foaming at the mouth about how women are mentally retarded and so forth won't change reality. That's just a cold, hard fact of life.
Very well said. I'd rep you but I have to spread some around. You've been repped in spirit.
You would be the first to recognize a link between PUA and rhetoric. PUA always seemed to be about picking up girls to me.
I certainly see no reason not to point out rhetorical gimmicks, and I have seen a few here. I wonder if Aristotle, the author of Sophistical Refutations, was a womanizer?
From the little I know on the subject (someone correct me if I'm wrong) it's more about demonstrating superiority (which leaves me wondeing if they actually feel inferior but that's another argument). Using others is part of that, hence the picking up girls.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. It's not ver reliable yet people still use it because they think it works. If a woman thinks she can't get pregnant before day 11 of her cycle and has an affair on day 8 and then has sex with her husband on day 15, she's likely to assume the child belongs to her husband if she thinks the rhythm method actually works. She may not realize she's deceiving anyone. People can be really stupid. 
No one ever said you had to be bright to get pregnant.
I'd rep you but I have to spread some around. You've been repped in spirit.