Posted on 01/09/2006 12:19:01 AM PST by RWR8189
Same as abortion. It doesn't matter if you had a drunken one-night-stand with a total slut, I think you should have to have responsiblity for the child that union created, even if she lied to you and told you she was on the pill. There is something more at stake now.
I've seen episodes of the People's Court where the man sues some years after he finds out the child isn't his...usually they've never been married, and he doesn't recover child support. Don't recall the time factors involved though, several years at least.
Otherwise, you are just the windbag that I suspect you are.
With abortion on demand as the law I believe with the choice goes the responsibility.
Morally a man should take care of his children, but it is not a mater for the courts, unless the man enters into a contract. Adoption is such a contract.
I hear David Letterman is looking for some new comedians
In my world, conservatives have a sense of justice. By that standard, it is safe in my view to regard you as something other than conservative when it comes to this.
If you had, you would have adressed them as opposed to merely dismissing them as pointless, which they are not.
What I dismissed as pointless is your pointless remark that fathering a child is not a crime. No, your right; it's not. And that's totally irrelevant to the debate at hand. Since you made that totally irrelevant pointless statement in the context of "innocence" or "culpability" I quite clearly stated for you why the adulterous wife and her bedfellow that's the actual father are in fact not innocent regardless that fathering a child is not a crime.
That's it, the People's Court judge said he'd acknowledged the child was his, so he was stuck. In one case the man had kept up visits and was devastated to find the boy wasn't his. The judge said, well as far as that goes, you're the only father he's ever known. Keep up the visits and make the relationship work for both of you.
Yah, you're wrong.
Try that one out if your wife runs up a million dollars in credit and see how it goes. You won't like the results.
From a time when women didn't exercise full citizenship, and enjoy minority protections even though a numerical majority!
Yah, so what? A lot has changed since the Constitution was originally written too. Does that make all of it's ideas void?
"Parents" don't have a thing to do with that. The only person that can put an unborn child to death is a Mother.
That is perposterous unless you consider parenthood to be nothing more then having sex with results.
A father is more then a sperm doner.
So his character is questionable if he resists victimization?
No, he's of questionable character if he would ditch a person he called his son or daughter because of his own convenience.
I say go for it. He'd love you.
Since when is being married to a woman involve the "responsibility" of paying for her willful deceit? What is the precedent for a man having to pay for the "crime" of being deceived by a lying partner? Why isn't it HER responsibility to pay for the kid, and the biological father? Where is this "responsibility" written down? What man ever married a woman promising to pay for her children which weren't from the marriage?
If a man marries a woman who already has children, he is not automatically responsible for their upbringing; that is something the two work out, both of them knowing all the facts ahead of time. What is the precedence for this?
B. 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.
That's the father's choice--sorry, I know this drives some people nuts, but men ARE human beings, too, and we DO have the right to choose who is and is not in our lives...just like everyone else.
"Far worse" for whom? The child? Yes--so maybe the mother should not have created this situation.
If a mother brought up a child, and then, years later, learned he was not hers, would the mother be FORCED to LOVE her? Of course not. And any judge who forced a mother to keep a child she learned was not hers against her will would be slammed on every TV show around, while the teary-eyed mother said she loved the child she THOUGHT was hers, but her REAL flesh and blood child was stolen from her, etc. etc. My point in drawing this illustration: No mother would ever be forced to BE a mother--we even have abortion and birth control in this country (no matter what I think of those).
But a man deciding who his own kids are? Ta heck with that! How unfeeling! And what about the children?
C. It's a longstanding legal precident, that if you take responsibility for the child at it's birth, you are responsible forever. That's how it should be for the best interest of the kid. He doesn't know anything about sex or divorce or adultry, he only knows his life as it was given to him, and he shouldn't be made to suffer for others.
But that responsibility is taken on under false circumstances. If I told you your house which you bought a year ago had all sorts of problems the previous owner didn't tell you about, would you just shrug and say "Hey, I bought it, oh well"? Or would you demand compensation for your falling-apart house which wasn't what the seller pretended it was when he sold it to you?
For the same reasons, 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. If the man was a man of character, he'd pay it without the court order.
That's bull. It's emotion trumping justice. This isn't about protecting the kid--how on Earth is this protecting the kid--forcing a man to pay his bills? Does anyone think the kid believes the man is doing it because the court ordered him to love the kid? Nope--he's doing it because he's being forced to. The mans' "sin" in this situation is being a man.
If the woman were a woman of character--well, she isn't, and she knew she could get away with not being one. She lied, and ruined this man's life. Yes, hard to believe, but a man thinking he had an honest wife who gave him a child, only to find out he'd married a slut who made a fool of him and had him working his butt off to pay for ANOTHER man's child, is ruined. His life is permanently scarred. The kid's is, too, but the kid is being used as a pawn to get to the man here--it's all about the MAN being of character, when the woman, unless she gets the father to pay up, should be forced to work the rest of her life paying off the husband for the money he paid for another man's child that his wife gave birth to while married to him.
Oh, and BTW, here's another difference between us: You've taken two pre-law classes and I've passed two bar exams.
I seem to recall something about a head up an a$$, earlier.
I wonder what gave it away for a 90 year old woman to know. ROFLOL
Come on gang, I know you have some pictures!
And, one last thing. The reason why I say that you have a warped sense of justice here is because the most bedrock principle of justice is that responsible parties are the ones who are required to take responsibility. You do not justifiably 'punish' one person for the misdeeds of another.
And who ensures that "mom" doesn't spend the money on a new car or crack? No one. This is FRAUD, straight and simple. If this is the current state of the "LAW" then Congress and State Legislatures need to FIX IT.
Certainly put the child first, but the mother needs to be punished, too. Maybe after the child reaches 18 the mother could be forced to perform community service (maybe 100 hours for every year she collected child support). Otherwise, the woman has cheated and not only gotten away with it, but has been rewarded for her transgressions.
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.