Posted on 01/09/2006 12:19:01 AM PST by RWR8189
Tell me, precisely where do you find the "individual responsibility" of (a) the adulterous mother; and (b) the actual father in all of this? Why is it that you demand "individual responsibility" from the one innocent in all this? And yes, there is most certainly innocence and guilt involved in all this. Your straw man that "fathering a child" is not a crime or whatever is totally irrelevant nonsense. The innocence or culpability has nothing to do with the parenting but has to do with the fraudulent deception and with the violation of trust and of the vows of marriage.
"You're a woman, aren't you?"
Yeah, I am. You gotta problem with that?
Oh, and it's probably safe to say that there's plenty of criminal perjury involved in this as well, although those laws are generally suspended in family courts.
With adoption you know the truth.
The child accepted at birth is taken under the assumption no one is cheating you.
There is a difference.
yeah, itmight sound good for a lawyer but I think that version is highly improbable. I think a very very small % of men would allow the direct impregnation method in that situation.
A. When he married a woman who obviously is less then moral. Sure, people make mistakes, both of them do, but that doesn't make them not responsible for their actions, not to me anyway, and I thought not to most so-called 'conservatives'.
B. When he accepted responsibility for the kid when it was born. The kid needs a father. If he was unsure of it's paternaty, he should have said something then. After that, the kid needs a father, he needs solid foundations.
I'm not even going to bother responding to the rest of your rant. You clearly don't understand several of the issues you brushed off as 'nonsense'.
There is a difference. There is not a large enough one.
Think of what you are saying: a lie means the man is not responsible.
So, a man has sex with a woman who says she's on the pill but isn't. I take it you would say he's not reponsible for any kid that might be created? Why not? He was lied to.
You are on LSD if you think a man should be forced to pay for children that aren't of his blood. He may want to pay for many good and fine altruistic reasons but he should never be forced to. A cheating wife who lies about the child's paternity, who steals money from an innocent man (and his real children in another marriage) is the lowest form of life
So amusing how some give woman a pass to lie on such an important matter.
That women cannot be sure that they are the mother to a man's child?
That the male will suck child support and alimony out of them?
That he will put on a big show of tears in court and claim she beat him?
This is probably the most scarily backwards statement I've ever read. Are you actually going to argue we should go back to the days where kids are 'bastards' and outcast because of what their parents did?
Because that is just what you are doing. You are making distinctions on the worth of the child based on who their parents are, and how moral their actions in conception are.
And what the heck does pergery have to do with this case?
You have a twisted sense of morality in my view. You demand "individual responsibility" from the one man for misjudging his wife, but you demand none from her for engaging in deception and adultery, nor any from her fellow adulterer. We obviously aren't on the same wavelength and probably won't be.
He stated that he was not unsure of its paternity at birth and there's every reason to think this was true.
There is no doubt whatsoever that I understand the issues involved, notwithstanding your pointless remark.
Classic. Personal insults when you can't answer the arguements.
Keep it up dipstick.
Wrong. I think the woman is still responsible for the child, I'm not aliving her of anything. What's more, I think it would be an excellent arguement for the father to get custody of the children if he wants it, and I think that she should have to pay alemony and/or child support if that's the case.
Men and women are different. I thought conservatives knew that. Sometimes that requires them to have different rolls. Again, I thought conservatives knew that.
I also thought that they realized parents were of upmost importance in a childs life, and that life isn't always fair, but that it doesn't aliviate you of your responsibilities.
Because if these points of view aren't 'conservative', I guess I'm a liberal, because these are the things that I think.
He stated that he was not unsure of its paternity at birth and there's every reason to think this was true.
Obviously, he was unsure, even if he didn't think he was.
There is no doubt whatsoever that I understand the issues involved, notwithstanding your pointless remark.
If you had, you would have adressed them as opposed to merely dismissing them as pointless, which they are not.
But the bad thing with this is that the real father has no legal obligation to that child. So a women could be having mulitple partners and not tell her husband and when he signs the birth certificate he is making a legal contract even if biology proves otherwise.
Does that mean she should get away with that crime too?
How did that case turn out where the two doctors were having a non-intercourse/Clinton sex affair and she had oral sex with the man, left the room, got herself pregnant and later sued for child support?
No. The child has a father; they should require the mother to reveal who he is if she wants child support payments, or otherwise require her to take responsibility for withholding his name and lying to her ex-husband and to the courts.
Because that is just what you are doing. You are making distinctions on the worth of the child based on who their parents are, and how moral their actions in conception are.
No I'm not. That is inane drivel. I think the child has every right to child support from the father, which isn't the person that's paying child support.
And what the heck does pergery have to do with this case?
The mother evidently committed perjury: (a) when filling out the paternity declaration during custody proceedings; and (b) in the course of the present contested paternity proceeding.
Excuse me?
He's "responsible" for her when she's not responsible for herself. So long as she exercises the privileges of a citzen, he has ZERO responsibility for her.
Because a child is involved, and it would be far worse to suddenly have the person it's known as it's father ripped away from it. For whom? I think "for the children" as an excuse for state sponsored discrimination is wearing mighty thin these days.
It's a longstanding legal precident, that if you take responsibility for the child at it's birth, you are responsible forever.
From a time when women didn't exercise full citizenship, and enjoy minority protections even though a numerical majority!
he only knows his life as it was given to him, and he shouldn't be made to suffer for others.And he shouldn't be insulated from suffering at the expense of an unwilling foster-parent, either.
I am also pro-life, because I don't think that the child should be made to suffer because of the sins of the parents.
"Parents" don't have a thing to do with that. The only person that can put an unborn child to death is a Mother.
If the man was a man of character, he'd pay it without the court order.
So his character is questionable if he resists victimization? You're as bad as she is.
You are opposed to lying, cheating and fraud with one exception. It's OK by you when a woman does this to a man, husband, boyfriend, ex-husband, ex-boyfriend, when it's done to extract child support payments from him for a child that isn't even his. You condone such thievery. You have a million illogical excuses and *explanations* for her
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.