Skip to comments.
Why men should be able to sue women who lie about who's the daddy
JWR ^
| Nov. 27 , 2002 / 22 Kislev, 5763
| Dan Abrams
Posted on 11/29/2002 7:08:00 AM PST by Balto_Boy
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120, 121-140, 141-160 ... 321-326 next last
To: BuddhaBoy
You are such a moron. God help any children that come around you. You'd probably elbow a kid out of the way to get a spot on the bus, huh? Equal treatment, after all. Why should a kid get a seat when you can't?
You make me sick.
To: Clara Lou
The women of America applaud your point of view and fervently hope that you have actually put it into practice in your own life."- Clara Lou. Ugly is in the eye of the beholder, dear.
Your snide comment was the beginning of the degredation of this thread, and if you are not smart enough to recognize that then you really are beyond help.
You speaking for 'the women of america' should alarm, if not offend them, as you havent the right.
To: Morrigan
And if you have to be slightly uncomfortable for a few years in order to make a kid happy, oh well. I'm not saying that these guys should be forced to pay for kids that aren't theirs.Apparently, in this case, you are.
What I AM saying is that ultimately lying about your child's paternity hurts your child more.
How did the man who has been forced to pay for a child that was never his lie about the paternity?
Let's confiscate 10% of your paychecks for the next 10 years and give it to a kid who needs to have "a real childhood", and that you haven't seen in 7 years (maybe some neighbor child from a neighborhood you used to live in). After all, it only inconveniences you, and children are more important than you.
To: Morrigan
You are an emotional wreck. Go away. Or better yet, try thinking instead of feeling sometime.
To: Clara Lou
"Why don't you say what you mean the first time instead of editing later?"
The post she is refering to was #90. If you look, you will see that I didn't "edit it" later.
To: BuddhaBoy
To: Balto_Boy As I keep saying to any man who would listen, that it is CRAZY for a man to marry and have children under our current legal conditions in America. Once a man's name is on a marriage certificate and/or birth certificate, he will in one way or another end up an indentured servant at the point of a government gun. Just say no, Men. 8 posted on 11/29/2002 9:39 AM CST by BuddhaBoy [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
So, you said it, but you didn't mean it? How is it "ugly" for me to support your own posted serious remarks? You really do have a sadly and/or conveniently) twisted mind.
To: Morrigan
"Why should a kid get a seat when you can't? You make me sick."
There is nothing is his posts to suggest he would elbow a child out of the way to get a seat on a bus. Of course, when I was younger, it was respectful to give up your seat to an elder, but things have changed. (And he does not have the power to make you sick.)
To: Morrigan
Are you a man or a woman? I suspect you are a woman. If you are it's OK, but knowing your sex might help up put your posts into perscective.
To: Clara Lou
You have a serious problem. I didnt direct my post directly at another individual. Do yourself a favor and dont post to me. You are logically deficient, and I have no desire to embarass you further.
To: Enterprise
Save it; the emotions have taken over, she/he cant hear you.
To: Balto_Boy
Sounds like the "wife" might be engaged in a conspiracy to defraud. The "ex-husband" should have recourse against the "boyfriend". Also, let the "boyfriend" should be made to start picking up the tab from here on out.
Perhaps if a few of the honey dippers are burned for support it might make them stop coveting the neighbor's wife.
131
posted on
11/29/2002 11:30:25 AM PST
by
F-117A
To: Dutch-Comfort
>>In my humble opinion, the law should require a woman to get a signed and notarized document from any male that she sleeps with before she sleeps with him that any results of his sperm meeting her egg are his financial responsibility. Without it, she should then have sole responsibility for the results<<
The English common law, and the law of the United States prior to 1972, was exactly that (without the notarized statement).
Children born out of wedlock were the responsibility of the mother (no child support under any circumstances). This was because, in the case of sluts, you can never be sure who the father is.
Children born within marriage were the responsibility of the husband.
To: Morrigan
You know why kids' lives are more important that grown-ups? Because they are f##king kids, that's why. The government should not support fraud. What makes anyone believe that the child will benefit from this money anyhow? The nonfathers forced to pay support to children that aren't theirs aren't giving the child the check, they're giving lying whores the check.
133
posted on
11/29/2002 11:32:25 AM PST
by
FITZ
To: Jim Noble
and the law of the United States prior to 1972, Could you point me to that law, Jim? I would love to read about how it was abandoned, as if we didnt already know.
Thanks.
To: kilohertz
Besides, the man wasn't suing the child, but the adulterous mother, for money he paid her under a pretense. He was taken advantage of, and should have done what he could to recover his money. I basically agree with you, it's just a shame the child has to grow up being raised by a woman who would do this kind of thing. What kind of future can a child that is raised by someone that unethical have? Too bad there isn't some better way.
135
posted on
11/29/2002 11:34:51 AM PST
by
FITZ
To: BuddhaBoy
You have a serious problem. I didnt direct my post directly at another individual. Do yourself a favor and dont post to me. You are logically deficient, and I have no desire to embarass you further.
~snicker~ Your'e here venting your spleen publicly. You've obviously got a HUGE chip on your shoulder, I repost your original words (which you seem meant at the time, but now you don't?), and that's all you've got to say? Someone is embarrassed all right, but it's not me.
To: Clara Lou
Still here? I dont know why. You dont understand a single post. I doubt you understand your own. You can have the last word, I have no need to converse with you.
To: FITZ
What kind of future can a child that is raised by someone that unethical have? Life isnt fair.
You dont compound one wrong with another. No man should be forced by the government to raise another man's child.
The woman who committed the fraud should be charged with the expense of finding the real father, who should be paying instead of the duped man.
However, if women didnt have the Courts to depend on in these cases, they might think twice about becoming pregnant or sleeping around in the first place.
To: BuddhaBoy
You dont compound one wrong with another. No man should be forced by the government to raise another man's child. I know ---it's sort of like the forced welfare/charity programs we have ---the government only promotes fraud and irresponsibility when it forces one group to provide for another group with the second group not to be held accountable in any way. The Constitution never gave the government this kind of control over our lives.
139
posted on
11/29/2002 11:49:46 AM PST
by
FITZ
To: IronJack
But the court had its reasons for ruling as it did, and the opinion spells them out pretty clearly.
Yes the court had its reasons, none of which are based on the law. Social agendas are un-constitutional.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120, 121-140, 141-160 ... 321-326 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson