If you have sex with multiple men during the same time frame, you CANNOT possible know who the father is with certainty. To suggest otherwise is a LIE. You seem to be unable to comprehend this very simple premise. The woman will always believe the best possible suitor of the men she has sex with (or didn't) is the father, period. Thus, putting a SINGLE name on the birth certificate is WRONG, and the mother knows it, even if you believe she doesn't know it.
Let me repeat, the FACT that the woman had sex with more people than the named father is EVIDENCE that she cannot possibly know the correct father short of paternity testing. You seem to accept the notion that she can pick whomever she screwed as the father and therefore it's not fraud. That's part of the reason we are here today with this problem. Most do not agree with this.
Technically, none of this meets the legal definition of fraud because this act is not defined as fraud by law. That is the whole point of the law they are trying to pass. Hence, the topic of the article.
The fact that you can't distinguish this dynamic from a parent-child relationship speaks volumes for you, and it's not flattering! :-)
I really do not have any idea to what you are referring? You have no children what so-ever, but somehow you are an expert in parent-child relationships. Most parents know that the best advice on how to raise children comes from childless couples. These people know every thing there is to know about raising children. After all, they have a couple dogs and cats they take care of and it's close to the same thing. OK, at least my childless friends all seem to know everything there is to know about parenting.
I'll count you as friend in this regard too.
Most of the comments that I have responded don't have much to do with that aspect of the larger debate.
If you have sex with multiple men during the same time frame, you CANNOT possible know who the father is with certainty. To suggest otherwise is a LIE. You seem to be unable to comprehend this very simple premise.
Not really, I am distinguishing between the woman's intent to deceive and what might possibly be a mistake. Ovulation periods and all, a woman can make a mistake. In that case, it can't be fraud. That was my only distinction from your position on this issue. Otherwise, I agree with you,.
The woman will always believe the best possible suitor of the men she has sex with (or didn't) is the father, period. Thus, putting a SINGLE name on the birth certificate is WRONG, and the mother knows it, even if you believe she doesn't know it.
It;'s not about me believing that she knows it. My belief in her word isn't worth a thing, nor is it important or probative.
Let me repeat, the FACT that the woman had sex with more people than the named father is EVIDENCE that she cannot possibly know the correct father short of paternity testing. You seem to accept the notion that she can pick whomever she screwed as the father and therefore it's not fraud. That's part of the reason we are here today with this problem. Most do not agree with this.
A woman can have sex with one man during a time she mistakenly thinks it is unlikely she can get pregnant, and have sex with another man during a time she believes it is more likely where she can get pregnant. If she goes in fact get pregnant around that time, she may rationally believe that the second man got her pregnant and in fact be wrong. In that case she isn't defrauding anybody, and she isn't even lying.
Technically, none of this meets the legal definition of fraud because this act is not defined as fraud by law. That is the whole point of the law they are trying to pass. Hence, the topic of the article.
Yes, exactly.
The fact that you can't distinguish this dynamic from a parent-child relationship speaks volumes for you, and it's not flattering! :-)
I really do not have any idea to what you are referring? You have no children what so-ever, but somehow you are an expert in parent-child relationships.
Here is another fallacy - while I have no children myself, I have been a part in a parent-chikld relationship. I am a son to both my father and mother. So I have plenty of experience on that end.
See, this is exactly the kind of thinking I see too much on FR recently - thinking in 1 dimension. I don't claim to be an expert, but to say I have no insight into this dynamic because I don't have children forgets the added dimension that I was a child and have experience from that perspective.
Most parents know that the best advice on how to raise children comes from childless couples. These people know every thing there is to know about raising children. After all, they have a couple dogs and cats they take care of and it's close to the same thing. OK, at least my childless friends all seem to know everything there is to know about parenting.
Considering I never gave parenting advice, your commentary is a non sequitur, but one that the typical Freeper will quickly rush t o see as proof of 'something,' though it's not clear what that 'something' is once put to scrutiny.