Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Another Paternity Fraud case.(30% of Paternity tests prove children fathered by other men.)
Philadelphia Inquirer ^ | 12/23/2002 | By Kathy Boccella

Posted on 12/26/2002 8:34:04 AM PST by BuddhaBoy

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260261-280281-300 ... 361-379 next last
To: BuddhaBoy
re: You have not, and never will hear that from ME. Fathers should support THEIR children regardless of circumstances. )))

You may like to review posts 226, 232, and 237 and decide if a rewrite is in order.

261 posted on 12/26/2002 3:14:49 PM PST by Mamzelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 252 | View Replies]

To: marajade
No parentage, means NO OBLIGATION.

It would be no different if the government showed up at my door, and said, "You have a nice home here, we are going to assign some children to you to be raised and supported. Say hello, to Buffy and Spike. Meet your new father, kids!"

No difference whatsoever.

262 posted on 12/26/2002 3:15:45 PM PST by BuddhaBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 258 | View Replies]

To: marajade
You didn't vote for Ford?
263 posted on 12/26/2002 3:15:51 PM PST by Mamzelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 260 | View Replies]

To: Mamzelle
I worded it incorrectly ... Ford was the first Presidential candidate I voted for...

My husband who is all logic and reason and never voted other than Republican since I've known him voted for Carter... go figure!
264 posted on 12/26/2002 3:17:05 PM PST by marajade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 263 | View Replies]

To: Mamzelle
Oh, for christ's sake.

Thank you for confirming post #253.

What a stretch!

265 posted on 12/26/2002 3:17:41 PM PST by BuddhaBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 261 | View Replies]

To: BuddhaBoy
We disagree on what parentage means... I think it should be on a case by case basis leaning towards the position of the author of this article...
266 posted on 12/26/2002 3:18:12 PM PST by marajade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 262 | View Replies]

To: BuddhaBoy
Not in the least a stretch. You confirmed, with good enthusiasm as appears in the context, that "it's always the woman's fault."

You were replying supportively to an individual who clearly implied that no man should be held responsible for an immoral woman's children, even his own. Check it out. Also, in post 237, I don't hear you objecting.

267 posted on 12/26/2002 3:20:57 PM PST by Mamzelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 265 | View Replies]

To: Mamzelle
And I'll thank you for not taking the Lord's name in vain.
268 posted on 12/26/2002 3:21:49 PM PST by Mamzelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 267 | View Replies]

To: BuddhaBoy
Another response from a woman.

Women who cheat on their spouses, become pregnant from the affair then lie about it are worse then whores. They are criminals who deserve ever punishment possible under the law. Not only have they broke Gods commandments against adultry, they have abused, used, lied too and committed fraud against their husband and children.

Yes, men who find out, even years later that their child is not biologically theirs should have every legal right to repayment of all financial support as well as damages for years of fraud and abuse they suffered with. They should also be given the full opportunity to have a full relationship with the child. Even going as far as automatically changing custody to the man if that is what he wants.

Bio-Dad should be financially responsible for the children produced during the affair. From the point it can be proven he knew the child was his. Chances are, if these women lied to their children and husbands, they didn't tell the bio-dad he was going to be a father.

269 posted on 12/26/2002 3:24:21 PM PST by Brytani
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Mamzelle
What we have here, is a failure to communicate? (slang excluded)

Dont mistake my support for the idea that women decide when, and if they are going to have sex, as a suggestion that men should not support their children.

(whispering)Do you see dead people?

270 posted on 12/26/2002 3:28:19 PM PST by BuddhaBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 267 | View Replies]

To: Mamzelle
And I'll thank you for not taking the Lord's name in vain.

Does the word BUDDHAboy mean anything to you? Your Lord, is my 'noun'.

271 posted on 12/26/2002 3:29:55 PM PST by BuddhaBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 268 | View Replies]

To: BuddhaBoy
Now, my respect for your sense of outraged justice dwindles when you become juvenile. Once again I start to suspect that these "paternity fraud" threads come from anger and disdain for women (spare me the assurances that you are actively heterosexual) and an uninterest in the welfare of children who have told no lies.

You might go back and reread , and decide to answer 237. Didn't seem to bother you much that some children might go unfed by responsible fathers under that scenario.

I once again point out that in order to garner support for a change in law, calling potential supporters "cows" that should remain "unbought" is highly unpersuasive.

272 posted on 12/26/2002 3:35:56 PM PST by Mamzelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 270 | View Replies]

To: Mamzelle
Are you serious? I think your outrage is fake.

If you have never hear the expression "Why buy the cow, when you can get the milk for free?", they you need to get out more.

I often use humor(whether you think it is funny or not) in my posts. Get over it. You are doing EXACTLY what I described. Try thinking in my posts, and less FEELING, and you might understand me a bit better.

273 posted on 12/26/2002 3:43:19 PM PST by BuddhaBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 272 | View Replies]

To: BuddhaBoy
re:Does the word BUDDHAboy mean anything to you? Your Lord, is my 'noun'.

You don't hear me swearing by stray deities, Buddha or Vishnu or whomever. Do mine the same courtesy.

I can handle profanity or bathroom/barnyard/bedroom references, but dislike blasphemy.

274 posted on 12/26/2002 3:44:36 PM PST by Mamzelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 271 | View Replies]

To: Mamzelle
An expression is a matter of free speech. Take it up with the Supreme Court. While I meant no offence,(and you probably KNOW that) I will not be sensored by anyone.
275 posted on 12/26/2002 3:46:20 PM PST by BuddhaBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 274 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble
Eliminate the presumption of mother custody, and the problem goes away.

That is a few more rungs up the ladder. Right now, I would like to simply remove the "presumption of the husband's paternity", even in the face of a DNA test that proves otherwise.

276 posted on 12/26/2002 3:51:20 PM PST by SC Swamp Fox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 240 | View Replies]

To: JMJ333

>>>And regarding your left field off-topic comment on rape....I am of the opinion that it isn't the child's fault so I would give birth. That is just me though. I realize you won't be able to understand having mercy.<<<

You missed the point entirely. Before posting a condescending response, why not adequately read the posting to which you're responding first? Nowhere in that hypothetical were you the proposed mother.

Postings of dubious intellectual merit are like the thirteenth chime of a clock...wrong in and of themselves and casting doubt upon those which preceded them. I'm sorry to say that I see no value in spending further time trying to communicate with you. It's like talking to a brick wall upon which the long list of paternity fraud victimizers is inscribed.
277 posted on 12/26/2002 3:59:15 PM PST by End The Hypocrisy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 246 | View Replies]

To: End The Hypocrisy
I didn't miss the point. You're off-topic and blatently so, as a rape victim has no bearing on the argument of duties to this 14 year old girl. The point is that you care more for money and for the grown man than for the welfare child, regardless of how you try and spin it otherwise. For me, its the other way around.
278 posted on 12/26/2002 4:20:41 PM PST by JMJ333
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 277 | View Replies]

To: Mamzelle
Anyone who has read through this thread understands that most of the posters here have compassion and concern for the children involved...,
but do you think it is just that an ex-husband be held legally, and financially responsible for children he did not father, no matter what the circumstances? That is the law today in most states, that the husband is presumed to the father if the children were conceived during the marriage.

When I was in the Navy I witnessed cases where guys would return from a 7 month deployment, to find their wife 4 months pregnant. Guess what? The wife and new boy-friend got the house (sailor makes the payments), car (sailor makes the payments)and child-support, which the Navy would conviently take right out of his paycheck. Do you think this is moral, just, fair? Most of the sailors involved didn't, and they would often end up with a restraining order on them after "acting on their emotions." They would then lose visitation rights.

279 posted on 12/26/2002 4:21:34 PM PST by SC Swamp Fox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 272 | View Replies]

To: SC Swamp Fox
You're asking the policy of which I'd approve? Clearly a man cannot be expected to maintain support of a household not truly his...once this fact is discovered. Trying to go backwards in time to reclaim past support is not a place I'd go, however, given that during that time the man was also enjoying (in a manner of speaking) his role as father. Not only that, but enforcing past repayment is probably not practical...Unless you can offer a means of reclaiming the money without harming the welfare of the child. For those that insist, may I note that you are attempting to enforce a kind of *debt* on a minor.

I'd be willing to entertain a punishment for the mother, if you could come up with a suitable and workable one. Mostly what I hear is vindictiveness visited on the head of the hapless child.

280 posted on 12/26/2002 4:29:25 PM PST by Mamzelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 279 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260261-280281-300 ... 361-379 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson