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.
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.
You are on a roll.
I love the description of the child as a meatbag to carry on genes. I've been thinking something like that but just couldn't articulate it.
ITA. Parenting is about more than just genes. If I found out my child wasn't mine, I would not stop loving her or taking care of her. Even if I found it that the baby mix up was deliberate. There is the fact, that I never would have met her without that mix up.
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.
If this were coming from somebody else, it might be insulting. From you? Not so much. It makes zero sense to chastize women...specific women...for spreading their legs when it's one of your biggest priorities to get these women to spread their legs. There is simply no way to rationalize this. You must know this on some level. To follow up such a ridiculous position with a charge of mental limitation is silly, tho, I have no doubt that is how you generally view women.
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.
I think he should he entitled to his day in court. I think he should be able to file fraud charges against her. If he can prove she, deliberately, misled him, he may get a pay out. I just don't think you take away from the child because of what the mother did.
As I said before, any retribution taken on the mother will have to be taken after the fact because the child must be raised first. Maybe she gets child support to raise the child and he gets her pension check on top of his own in retirement.
I can't make this fair to everyone. Fair would be the child wouldn't skip a beat. New daddy would waltz in, they'd bond instantly while singing the oreo cakester song, he'd adore daddy's new wife and, suddenly, develop amnesia for both the man who raised him and his biological mother and fall into his new family's loving arms, while dad sues mom, gets paid back for every cent he had to spend on this wortless child (sorry but he is treating the child as having no worth or value in his life here).
There is no fair. No one can make this fair. Life isn't fair. You do the best you can.
I will agree there should be some kind of penalty for lying about paternity. Both in cases like this and when it's used to get a baby put up for adoption back because the bio father was never notified of the adoption. There was a bitter battle several years back (I can't for the life of me remember the baby's name) but I've always thought the bio mom belonged in jail. She should not have been rewarded by giving her her baby back. She committed purgery and got away with it. Why the court did not nail her is beyond me. She, deliberately, lied on a legal document and then, successfully, used her lie to get out of it.
You would be the first to recognize a link between PUA and rhetoric. PUA always seemed to be about picking up girls to me.
The PUA movement on the net, from what I've seen, is stratified. Of course at the heart of learning how to be a PUA is about self-worth and overcoming insecurities, etc. in order to find sucess with women, which isn't a bad thing, but for many it seems to go much deeper. It's a combination of contempt for women and a need for women with a goal to conquer. It has the flavor of junky.
eta: and they do use the same language. It's uncanny.
I think he should he entitled to his day in court. I think he should be able to file fraud charges against her. If he can prove she, deliberately, misled him, he may get a pay out. I just don't think you take away from the child because of what the mother did.
I'm not suggesting the child be taken away from the dad. I'm addressing men that may not want to be bothered with said child. Again, that doesn't mean I understand it or that it's behavior I would be capable of, but I recognize, based on this thread and what I've come across on the net, that some would not feel the way I do. We can't force people to feel and be something they're not.
As mentioned earlier, there are plenty of men out there that have bio children and could care less. How? I have no idea, but I take no issue with them being forced to fork over however much cash per month. They don't have the bond with the child, but they can at least make the child's life easier financially. But, what we're speaking of here is not the same thing. You keep speaking of a bond that isn't there. Since it's not there I don't see the purpose of making the point over and over. His responsibility for the child needs to go beyond the bond argument.
To be clear, I see no difference between adopted parents and bio parents. It was a decision made by the father so he has the responsibility, bond or not. In a cuckold situation, that choice is absent. I can't reconcile it.
When I argue for mandatory child support the argument I use is that he did the deed so he needs to take responsibility for his actions. The bond premise contradicts that position as I see it. If it's a matter of bonding, it could be argued that non-married SO's might need to be held responsible. If it's simply a matter of the marital contract, well, I'm no lawyer, but infidelity seems to break that marital contract for many.
All that blurs the situation for me, and my expectations of how people should act and feel doesn't make a good enough argument.
Quote:
As I said before, any retribution taken on the mother will have to be taken after the fact because the child must be raised first. Maybe she gets child support to raise the child and he gets her pension check on top of his own in retirement.
And won't that create a super mess for him. It's a recipe to have the child he did not sire, who he had to sacrifice for, hate him even more. Restitution is a good idea on paper (sue her, jail her, etc), but eh, we all know it's far more complicated. If that's the route he wants to take fine, but I think it should be his choice. He has to have a choice some where in this.
Quote:
There is no fair. No one can make this fair. Life isn't fair. You do the best you can.
I will agree there should be some kind of penalty for lying about paternity. Both in cases like this and when it's used to get a baby put up for adoption back because the bio father was never notified of the adoption. There was a bitter battle several years back (I can't for the life of me remember the baby's name) but I've always thought the bio mom belonged in jail. She should not have been rewarded by giving her her baby back. She committed purgery and got away with it. Why the court did not nail her is beyond me. She, deliberately, lied on a legal document and then, successfully, used her lie to get out of it.
She sounds like a loon. I can't fathom lying about children she has, doesn't have, etc.
I'm not suggesting the child be taken away from the dad. I'm addressing men that may not want to be bothered with said child. Again, that doesn't mean I understand it or that it's behavior I would be capable of, but I recognize, based on this thread and what I've come across on the net, that some would not feel the way I do. We can't force people to feel and be something they're not.
As mentioned earlier, there are plenty of men out there that have bio children and could care less. How? I have no idea, but I take no issue with them being forced to fork over however much cash per month. They don't have the bond with the child, but they can at least make the child's life easier financially. But, what we're speaking of here is not the same thing. You keep speaking of a bond that isn't there. Since it's not there I don't see the purpose of making the point over and over. His responsibility for the child needs to go beyond the bond argument.
To be clear, I see no difference between adopted parents and bio parents. It was a decision made by the father so he has the responsibility, bond or not. In a cuckold situation, that choice is absent. I can't reconcile it.
When I argue for mandatory child support the argument I use is that he did the deed so he needs to take responsibility for his actions. The bond premise contradicts that position as I see it. If it's a matter of bonding, it could be argued that non-married SO's might need to be held responsible. If it's simply a matter of the marital contract, well, I'm no lawyer, but infidelity seems to break that marital contract for many.
All that blurs the situation for me, and my expectations of how people should act and feel doesn't make a good enough argument.
And won't that create a super mess for him. It's a recipe to have the child he did not sire, who he had to sacrifice for, hate him even more. Restitution is a good idea on paper (sue her, jail her, etc), but eh, we all know it's far more complicated. If that's the route he wants to take fine, but I think it should be his choice. He has to have a choice some where in this.
She sounds like a loon. I can't fathom lying about children she has, doesn't have, etc.
Now! i couldn't have said it better, you just nailed it.
In light of the good points made about the constitutional issue, mandatory testing is a sticky widget to be sure. Perhaps just a requirement that if a man's name is going to be on the birth certificate then he'll need to submit to a test, otherwise he won't be granted paternity rights since after all it cannot be verified who the father is without the test. And that makes perfect sense from a legal standpoint, especially with the growing number of women having babies out of wedlock. In the past children born to a married couple were automatically assumed to be that of the husband. That's not so in many states these days and coupled with the single mother issue we need a new way of doing things. Mandatory testing, in the sense it's still a choice for the men, but if they don't then they don't get legal paternity, I think it's a good catch-22 type system that will fix paternity fraud, protect men and children, and satisfy everyone's point about it being voluntary. If the mothers want the fathers to acknowledge paternity then they can file for child support and request the courts to hold him accountable thus having him submit to a paternity test just like they already do. From a practical perspective I don't see it as being any different from potential employers requiring a drug test before they'll hire someone.
I have never cheated...ever...so I would be extremely insulted...
Me too. It would be like my having to take a lie detector test to prove I didn't rob a bank when I did nothing to make anyone suspect I robbed a bank. At least have some suspician that I did something before you start demanding I prove m innocence.
In light of the good points made about the constitutional issue, mandatory testing is a sticky widget to be sure. Perhaps just a requirement that if a man's name is going to be on the birth certificate then he'll need to submit to a test, otherwise he won't be granted paternity rights since after all it cannot be verified who the father is without the test. And that makes perfect sense from a legal standpoint, especially with the growing number of women having babies out of wedlock. In the past children born to a married couple were automatically assumed to be that of the husband. That's not so in many states these days and coupled with the single mother issue we need a new way of doing things. Mandatory testing, in the sense it's still a choice for the men, but if they don't then they don't get legal paternity, I think it's a good catch-22 type system that will fix paternity fraud, protect men and children, and satisfy everyone's point about it being voluntary. If the mothers want the fathers to acknowledge paternity then they can file for child support and request the courts to hold him accountable thus having him submit to a paternity test just like they already do. From a practical perspective I don't see it as being any different from potential employers requiring a drug test before they'll hire someone.
The flip side is the father cannot claim rights to the child in a divorce if his name isn't on the birth certificate. Personally, I'd be fine with no father listed on the birth certificate. That way, if there is a divorce, I can just take my kids and leave. No visitation schedule or anything and my next husband can be their father. (If we, as a matter of routine, fail to put a father's name on the birth certificate, we are making fathers replacable. Any man wiill do.)
Works for me.
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.
