Bills could end child support payments from men who aren't biological dads

MLIVE.com ^ | The Associated Press

[Mamzelle]

Buddah has oft pointed out that his is invulnerable to such dreadful antics of women. He may enjoy, but they'll stake no claim. I'm just awfully curious as to why this paternity-switching is such an obsession.

At first it was disheartening to think that there is such enthusiasm for denying a child who turns out, through no fault of his own, not to share the ersatz papa's DNA. Not that you can't make some moral argument for it, but it appears motivated chiefly as vindictiveness against the wayward female. Hurting the child probably wouldn't go far in hurting such a female, but the child remains hurt nonetheless.

If your eyes are blue, and hers are too, baby better have the blue ones.

[BuddhaBoy]

A better question would be WHAT IS THE BIG DEAL TO YOU?

This is another point of news in our society. Dont try to pin me to those silly "men's rights" groups. I think if a man is the BIOLOGICAL father of a child, he should pay, period.

What I am against, are the legal extortion of men who are NOT fathers by women and the courts. No man is safe from this, if allowed to continue.

I answered you, now YOU answer ME. What's it to YOU?

[Arthur McGowan]

Shortly after the end of his 25-year marriage, DNA tests proved Adams was not the father of the fourth child born to he and his wife.

A reporter who writes a sentence like this should lose Reporter-Support Payments from his empoloyer!

[Mamzelle]

temper, temper. I've recently celebrated my twenty-fifth, and didn't get there by hating anybody. But you do clutter up the boards with this pony. Why don't you explain why you like to make it do tricks?

[quebecois]

Two points about this issue:

1) Ms Stowe says "we don't want to impoverish a whole class of children....must look to the greater good"

Perhaps Ms Stowe would then put her money where her mouth is and pay support for all of these children? After all, they are no less her children than they are the children of these deceived men.

2) What do you think that these women's groups would say if the law allowed for a cheating husband to leave his wife and stick her with support payments for the child that his new mistress is about to deliver? Somehow, I don't think that we'd be hearing all of these pathetic rationalizations that its OK to screw jilted wives if its "for the children"

[Hodar]

I think the issue is a serious sexual discrimination issue. A man cannot come to you 18 years after you slept with him, and claim that you owe him 25% of your income (plus interest) for the past 18 years; for a child you never knew existed. You won't know what it's like to know that some woman may sleep with you (who is already pregnant) and then name you as the father; making you either accept her word, or go to court and fight a wrongful paternity. You won't know what it's like to pay child support for 18 years, to find out you've been lied to. And here's the clincher.... you cannot sue for your money back, as you would have to sue the child. This is a case of legal fraud. If I defraud you out of $86,400 ($400/mo for 18 years, no interest) there is no question of whether I will go to jail. However, if a woman does the exact same thing to a man, she gets off free. So which is it? Are men legitimate targets for extortion and women are whores; or is justice and responsiblity the correct path.

[Rytwyng]

I was a single parent but I knew my ex was my child's father

Good for you. But, can't you begin to imagine how horrible a man would feel, upon finding out that the kid he was paying for, wasn't really his?

Perhaps you can't. Maybe it's impossible for women (who can't be cuckolded) to viscerally understand how HORRIBLE this is to a man.

Well... let me tell you. Men of my acquaintance are 100% unanimous that these paternity-fraud mothers should be dealt with very severely. Any time the subject is brought up, there is no dissension whatever, and the emotions are extremely violent... even among the gentlest, pleasantest nice guys. The "best interest of the child" argument is dismissed without discussion, as nothing more than a transparent excuse for fraud. If the mother cared about the best interest of the child, she'd be faithful and honest.

[Arthur McGowan]

As long as women are allowed to kill their babies, men should have the right to "virtual abortions." All men who have fathered children should have the right, simply by signing a form, to unilaterally and irrevocably nullify all legal paternity.

[BuddhaBoy]

Buddah has oft pointed out that his is invulnerable to such dreadful antics of women. He may enjoy, but they'll stake no claim.

First, I can assure you, that THEY "enjoy" too. LOL!

Second, I think it is hilarious that you cant stand the fact that I like AND ENJOY women!

You follow me from thread to thread denoting how HORRIBLE it is that I have sex without consequences. Dont you? Or is THAT your problem? You make me laugh.

[BuddhaBoy]

What you call "clutter", some people call information. You dont have to be here.

[BuddhaBoy]

You are absolutely correct. GREAT point. Thank you.

[Hodar]

To paraphrase a previous post, if the law allowed for a cheating husband to leave his wife and stick her with support payments for the child that his new mistress is about to deliver, would you still insist that OK to screw jilted wives if its "for the children"?

This individual made a very good analogy, and counterpoint. I regret that at the time of composing this response, I am unable to correctly identify the poster. My appologies, and nice response too.

[Mamzelle]

I've had three rather nice consequences.

I didn't comment on the other thread you started. But this is the second one today. You expect me to resist twice asking why this is such consuming interest?

You claim this can't happen to you. Yet it is an abiding worry (your compassion for the potential cuckholds of the world) here on FR.

Tell me again that it's all charity on your part.

[Hodar]

Very nicely done. Kudo's...

[Junior]

"We don't want to illegitimize a whole class of children, and we don't want to impoverish a whole class of children," Stowe said. "We have to look at the greater good."

Ahem, but the child does not receive squat from child support. It all goes to the custodial parent.

[BuddhaBoy]

I agree with you, but that is a slippery slope. You then get into retro-activity clauses, revocation, etc.

I think that men should just refuse marriage, get vasectomys, and freeze their swimmers in case they want children some day. They can always change their minds about marriage and children, but this prevents them from being defrauded in the mean time.

[alpowolf]

What difference does his motive make to you?

Why do so many people on FR think they are fit to psychoanalyze others? Are there really that many shrinks in the membership?

[BuddhaBoy]

I happen to think it is an interesting subject, and I ask again WHAT IS IT TO YOU? I have friends going through this crap, so I decided to educate myself and others to exactly what is going on.

When Jimrob annoints you as the Posting Policeman, then I will take you seriously. Until then, save it.

[Destructor]

"We don't want to illegitimize a whole class of children, and we don't want to impoverish a whole class of children," Stowe said. "We have to look at the greater good."

The only reason that these children in question are "legitimate" is that their mothers have lied to the courts. Doesn't this constitute perjury?

[Hodar]

Buddah has oft pointed out that his is invulnerable to such dreadful antics of women. He may enjoy, but they'll stake no claim.

And how is this wrong? Is he raping them? Are they enjoying themselves too? Why are men required to make a committment, when women are free to 'shop around', and if pregnant 'chose' the father based upon income? Buddah makes a very compelling reason to stay single. The laws, tax codes and society place an undue burden on the married male, that do not exist for the female.