Skip to comments.
In state after state, men are challenging laws forcing non-fathers to pay child support
AP ^
| 6/16/02
| DAVID CRARY
Posted on 06/16/2002 1:29:22 PM PDT by Senator Pardek
Edited on 07/06/2004 6:37:37 PM PDT by Jim Robinson.
[history]
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 181-196 next last
To: Torie
This is not merely about punishing the sleep around wife.You want to punish the victim of fraud instead. Nonsense.
To: Torie
You know what the point is.
To: RJCogburn
Well, then married couples should cease to expect any government benefits. As it is, there are a host of them.
43
posted on
06/16/2002 3:16:06 PM PDT
by
Torie
To: He Rides A White Horse
Your analogy lacked traction in my opinion.
44
posted on
06/16/2002 3:16:58 PM PDT
by
Torie
To: Torie
Ya, but in addition to the rip off wife, is the child. I simply refuse to let an obsession with genetic material be the ultimate trump card here. Folks who do that have their priorities wrong in my opinion, or at least don't share my priorities.
And I refuse to let an obsession with making someone NOT LIABLE by means of fraud PAY!
Who cares WHAT method is used to discover a cheating wife! Would it be better if every husband was allowed to hire a Private Investigator to make a dtermination?
What about what was brought up...if the child has some inherited disease/illness...if the REAL father isn't available for testing/donation, then what happens to the CHILD?!
Let's see... A man has sex with a woman. She becomes pregnant. We have some scenarios here...
1) He wants the child, she doesn't. The Courts mandate he pay for the abortion...he has no legal rights to keep his child alive.
2) She wants the child, he doesn't. In this case, the Courts mandate he pay child support and any and all bills for that child, in some cases thru College! The man has NO out!
Now, in the case of 2), we later find that the child is not his. Are you telling me that after the initial raping he got in the Court system...the Bi**h gets away with it AGAIN in your logic?
At what point does a man have ANY rights in your world? Or are we just convenient ATM's?
45
posted on
06/16/2002 3:16:59 PM PDT
by
Itzlzha
To: Torie
Well, then married couples should cease to expect any government benefitsOkay.
To: Senator Pardek
Manditory DNA testing should accur at the time of birth. Then the truth will be known and decisions can be made. Of course the number of abortions may increase.
47
posted on
06/16/2002 3:18:51 PM PDT
by
gunshy
To: gunshy
You mean at the time of conception, or as nearly thereafter as possible I assume?
48
posted on
06/16/2002 3:20:16 PM PDT
by
Torie
To: Torie
"We men have been duped and shanghaied and made into involuntary servants," Smith said. "If you want men to be responsible for the children they bring into this world, you've got to make women responsible too."Well said.
In addition to allowing child support orders to be voided, the bill would create a new crime of paternity fraud. Anyone knowingly making false assertions that a man is the biological father of a child could face up to two years in prison.
Sounds like a great idea. Fraud is fraud, and this is a fraud of the worst kind. The man is defrauded, the child is defrauded by not knowing who its real father is, and you would have 'Mom' reap roses when she sowed weeds.
To: Senator Pardek
Amazing how much importance feminists place on the father-child relationship when the father is the walking ATM machine of the "family" and how little this relationship means when he's asking for more visitation or more accountability in how his child support money is spent.
To: jwalsh07
What do you think about all of this?
51
posted on
06/16/2002 3:22:48 PM PDT
by
Torie
To: strela
Has she checked Bill Clinton?
To: Torie
Your analogy lacked traction in my opinion.You are entitled to your opinion. However, your 'opinion' doesn't give you the right to saddle some man with a bill which isn't his. Just because you have some vague notion of 'Doing it for the Children'.
Sounds all too familiar.
To: DeaconBenjamin
a man is liable for all child support which has accrued before it was determined that he was not the father, if he legally accepts or recognizes the child as his own. Sounds like a real incentive for men to accept paternity. Another case of unintended consequences? Or was this intended all along?
54
posted on
06/16/2002 3:25:48 PM PDT
by
IronJack
To: LittleBoPeep
There are some things that even fraudulent, conniving hussies should never be forced to do.
55
posted on
06/16/2002 3:25:56 PM PDT
by
strela
To: He Rides A White Horse
Ya, there are two sides to the argument here. No doubt about it. That is why the issue interests me, sort of out of the blue.
56
posted on
06/16/2002 3:26:15 PM PDT
by
Torie
To: Lower55
On Maury Povich there was a woman on there several times, bringing half the town for DNA tests. Last time I saw it she had still not come up with the proven father. Does this woman not remember where the lower half of her body has been (maybe it sneaks out at night while she's asleep)??? Or was she maybe too smashed to remember?
To: Torie
Rewarding bad behavior is a terrible precedent. It only encourages more of the same.
To: Lower55
For every man that is forced to pay foranother man's child, another man is getting a free ride.Well, duh. Do the math.
59
posted on
06/16/2002 3:33:10 PM PDT
by
gcruse
To: Senator Pardek
bump
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 181-196 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