'My money, my choice': Comedian Dave Chappelle tells audience that if women have a right...

The Blaze ^ | AUG, 30, 2019 | Chris Field

[fuzzylogic]

True.

Chappelle: What do you mean I can’t say “f*ggot”?
Staff: Because you’re not gay
Chappelle: But I’m not a “n*gger” either!

[fella]

With the woman’s choice a child is murdered while with Chappelle’s choice the child lives and the woman must face up to her initial choice to conceive without thought.

[BillyCuccio]

He stopped doing his tv show because he saw the double standards. He could say the N word but not call someone gay in a skit. He thought that was ridiculous. The man has integrity. This was a great special , his tv show was always funny.

[alexander_busek]

However the statement “This acted as an inducement to get married before having children” seems to me to make perfect sense.

The OP stated that there were no such things as paternity suits prior to 1972 - and that that fact acted as an "inducement" to get married before having children.

But insofar as we have established (or agreed) that there were indeed paternity suits prior to 1972, then that means that there was, in fact, no actual "inducement" to get married before having children.

If women had had no legal recourse, then indeed that would have been an inducement - at least to women - to marry first. But that is a purely hypothetical argument.

Regards,

[Rebelbase]

I’m waiting for Obama to mouth off about something Chapelle says. Chapelle will crucify him.

[Albion Wilde]

Under Roman law, husbands decided if a baby was to be kept or abandoned (most likely exposed to die).

That's where the Italian surname "Esposito" came from. It was frequently given to children abandoned and then taken to a church or nunnery to be rescued. It is literally the past participle of the Italian verb "to expose."

[Albion Wilde]

That is patently untrue! Prior to 1972, single men or men who were married to someone other than the mother of the child in question were frequently adjudged to be the "father" and thus liable for child support.

You may both be right. The laws differ from one state to another -- especially then, where more local control of social issues was more the norm than subsequently.

[Billthedrill]

I'm going to have to see this show. The latest critic party line is not that they're outraged, it's that they're "bored". Here's what Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin - had to say about that yesterday (language warning):

This is a defense mechanism because you know he came for you and you've got nothing that you can say. All of his jokes landed. His entire set was an hour-long anti-SJW roasting of your entire philosophy and it was amazing and everyone loved it.

Not, apparently, everyone. At the moment it appears to have lit every SJW's hair on fire.

[minnesota_bound]

I like funny and Dave Chappelle latest was not.
Get a copy of the Blue Collar Workers with 4 guys telling funny jokes.
Sample: Ron White Near Miss Plane Crash
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FH-LmkLFJg0&list=RDpmG0ZNEPYEY&index=7

Sorry about the ad you see...

[PapaBear3625]

That is patently untrue! Prior to 1972, single men or men who were married to someone other than the mother of the child in question were frequently adjudged to be the "father" and thus liable for child support.

What I said was "states COULD make only married fathers be liable". Some states (e.g. Texas) did so. Other states made the biological father liable regardless. What the Supreme Court decision did was to forbid states from making illegitimate children ineligible for child support.

[EdnaMode]

He should host the next Oscars.

[PapaBear3625]

There’s been a lot of clucking and tsk, tsking about his Netflix special,but you’re correct, he gets away with it because he’s black.

According to his wiki page, he's also Muslim, which double-protects him.

[minnesota_bound]

Rodney Dangerfield at His Best on The Tonight Show Starring Johnny Carson (1983)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGvnHvba_b0

[Lean-Right]

Child support laws are very unfair
under certain circumstances.
My son married shortly before
enlisting in the military. They
had two children in the first two
years of marriage. He was then
deployed to Iraq. While there, he
recieved his dear John letter and
she drained his bank account. He
came home to an empty house. No
furniture, only a closet containing
his clothes and a few personal items.
It was her choice to leave with another
man, but now he’s on the hook for child
support. She couldn’t handle the loneliness,
or the stress of raising two young children
without him being there. He shouldn’t have
to pay.

[alexander_busek]

What I said was "states COULD make only married fathers be liable". Some states (e.g. Texas) did so. Other states made the biological father liable regardless. What the Supreme Court decision did was to forbid states from making illegitimate children ineligible for child support.

My poor reading comprehension is to blame (though perhaps you could have also worded your original statement more clearly).

It used to be (before a 1972 Supreme Court decision) that states could make only married fathers be liable for child support.

The casual reader (and I admit that, in this case, I was one) can easily infer that, prior to 1972, only fathers married to the mothers of their children were liable for child support. I can see now that, instead, previous to 1972, individual States were free to exclude unmarried men (or men not married to the women of the children in question) from paternity suits; and that the 1972 Supreme Court ruling then prohibited such an exclusion.

Thanks for clarifying!

Regards,