Posted on 01/09/2006 12:19:01 AM PST by RWR8189
For the most part, courts say the bonds of matrimony trump biology.
Then how is it that biology trumps (the lack of) matrimony in the case of an unmarried father who must help support a child?
And women wonder why men of gen x and gen y are not getting married.
What total nonsense. The courts are telling all fathers to get a DNA test at birth and/or at divorce. This is crap. Let the unfaithful sluts pay for their own offspring.
Shouldn't come as a great surprise. I've taken 2 pre-law classes and I know that if you acnolwedge a kid as yours, even if it isn't, your stuck with it. That's classic legal principle.
I agree with it actually. The kid shouldn't be made to suffer because of the sins of it's parent.
Lets face it, the courts change their mind depending on which way the hormones blow. In this day and age, testosterone stocks are worthless. Boys are darling pawns until they hit eighteen at which point they become worthless in the eyes of just about everyone, execpt men over 17 years of age. There is no equal protection under the law for men.
I disagree. I don't think the lack of money is suffering. Maybe if the child say the consequenses of being unfaithful we he/she finally got married they would remain faithful
The non-father should be a $ 1200 month meal ticket for the kid's mother who happens to be a slut? Want to guess how much of that money is spent on the kid? Find the actual father, make him pay the kid's support, and jail the mother for 90 days for perjuring herself during the divorce proceedings with respect to paternity.
This is a horrible precedent. It just gives the green light for women to cheat....now they know men will have to pay regardless.
Horrible, horrible law....
But why should the husband be the one to pay for his wife's mistake and the real father's mistake?
The court ordered this man to pay for a kid not his. Why should he? Because the kid shouldn't suffer? By that logic, I guess I have to start paying for the kid down the street whose father left--I mean, the kid shouldn't suffer.
AKA It takes a village to raise a child.
Yep.
There's a backlash to be sure. Actually, there's a growing backlash movement!
But, we must ask the question:
Was the child, regardless of parentage, denied the right to vote in the 2000 Election?
Was this child disenfranchised???
This happened to a guy in Texas too
*gulp*
Then how is it that biology trumps (the lack of) matrimony in the case of an unmarried father who must help support a child?
_____________________________________________________
An unmaried father only has to support a child IF the mother is also unmarried. So if you want a child you don't have to legal support, find a lonely married woman.
we Texans have some bad judges.... -not like that one in Vermont that sentenced a man, who had been raping a little girl for 4 years to 60 days....- but we do have bad judges.
She should be found guilty of fraud and grand larceny as well as compelled to identity the actual sperm donor for compulsory remittance to this defrauded husband and future child support. Were equality the aim in this backward "Roe v Wade" world, if she told him she was pregnant and refused to abort he should be freed of his obligations. If he didn't know, he should have a case based upon her fraud and interfering with his parental rights. (All assuming he is not otherwise unfit e.g. chronic drug abuser, child molester, etc.)
Adults should *NEVER* escape with such repulsive fundamental betrayal of a spouse simply because a child might find out the truth!
Men have no rights to reproduce (can't stop abortion of his child or destruction of his frozen embryos), to not reproduce (can't avoid child support if egg donor chooses life regardless of whether he was defrauded), or to be held harmless for any reproducing his lawful wife has engaged in (even if he's not the biological father).
Males, even children, are sexually abused and the law gives their female perpetrators a pat on the head and the victim gets an "Attaboy!" and pervert's wink from the court. Just look at the teacher/student cases with children from 9 to 13 in recent months, sometimes with abuse going for well over a year.
This is defacto proof the feminazi movement has never been about equality but rather always been about domination.
"People who depend on the courts for justice are fools."
Feminazis love these dumb antiquated laws ... just shows how corrupt feminism and feminazism are. If modern DNA technology proves a woman to be a damn liar, cheat, adulteress they don't what to know about it. Especially if it'll hurt her cash flow
DNA testing is used in all kinds of cases these days except for paternity when it will kill her and her child's (not his!) income stream from her cuckolded ex.
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.