| Author |
Message |
    
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 8927
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, March 19, 2007 - 11:40 am: | 
|
Should a man be allowed to free himself of any obligation to a child at ANY time upon discovering he's NOT the child's biological father? Many say he should NOT be permitted to do such.
You agree?
Growth of paternity tests sires tricky societal issues
By Kathryn Masterson
Special to the Tribune
March 18, 2007
Paul Simpson had reason to suspect that he wasn't going to like the results even before he took a paternity test. Another man, whom Simpson had become friendly with, had confessed to him that he, not Simpson, was the father of the two children born during Simpson's marriage.
Still, Simpson said he hoped that at least one of the children, who were both under the age of 2, would turn out to be his biological child. The professionally administered DNA test showed neither was.
"It's hard to describe how bad I felt," said Simpson, 25, who is now divorced from the children's mother. He was angry, then severely depressed. But he did not regret taking the test. "I had to know if they were mine--I had to."
DNA tests to prove parentage are becoming more common and easily accessible. You can order a do-it-yourself kit online for about $200, though those tests aren't admissible in court, or pay $500 for one involving professional sample collections.
The drama surrounding the question "Who's the daddy?" makes great fodder for celebrity tabloids covering the Anna Nicole Smith case and for television programs, notably Maury Povich's talk show. "[The show has] exposed this country and the world to the fact that the test is available," said Jim Hanigan, who works for DNA Diagnostics Center, a lab in Fairfield, Ohio, that processes such tests.
Yet family law experts say the tests are raising questions at the same time they're answering them. The ability to prove with near certainty who is a biological parent is creating quandaries for some lawmakers about what is best for children and prompting some to ask what exactly makes a father. Is it strictly biology, or does acting like a father to a child make you one?
"It's a really tricky, nuanced question," said Stephanie Walton, an expert on child support with the National Conference of State Legislatures. "How do we culturally and legally as a society catch up with the technology?"
And the technology offers a chance for dads who are paying child support to learn with certainty whether the offspring are truly their children.
Over a 10-year period, the number of DNA tests for parentage more than doubled to nearly 391,000 in 2004, according to AABB (formerly the American Association of Blood Banks).
Those 2004 cases include paternity tests, prenatal and post-mortem evaluations and immigration tests intended to prove that a mother, father or sibling is related to the person they are sponsoring for a visa, the AABB said.
No federal regulation
But there is no federal regulation of relationship DNA tests or the marketing of them to consumers, said Eduardo Nunes, the director of standards and international affairs for the AABB.
In Simpson's case, Illinois, like most states, presumed him to be the father of the children because the children were conceived during marriage. Under state law, he had two years from finding out that he wasn't the likely father to challenge that assumption of paternity. Simpson, who is in the Navy, now lives in Virginia while the children live outside Chicago. He does not have contact with the children.
Chicago lawyer Jeffery Leving, an advocate for father's rights whose firm represents Simpson, said his case is not uncommon. Leving, an author whose firm advertises on billboards and online, opposes the two-year time limit for disproving paternity in Illinois and at least six other states and said he believes that "paternity fraud," where a woman tells a man he is the father when there is a possibility he is not, hurts children, men and families.
One only has to look at the legal confusion surrounding the establishment of paternity of Anna Nicole Smith's baby daughter to see that there is no clear standard for determining who is the father of a child.
Paternity tests tell a man that his DNA shows he is excluded from being related to the child or that the test could not exclude him, meaning he is probably, usually with 99.9 percent certainty, the biological father.
Labs reported an exclusion rate of 26.8 percent in 2004, according to AABB data. The organization says that does not mean that all of those excluded men were misled into believing they were a biological father and later found out they were not. In some cases, several men may be tested but that does not mean they were all told they were the father.
A legal thicket
Meanwhile, laws regarding paternity vary widely.
Some states allow fathers to challenge paternity at any time. Others have time limits or other restrictions on when paternity can be established.
A key issue is whether the man signed a voluntary acknowledgement of paternity; that is important when the state is trying to get reimbursement for public aid.
Florida passed a law last year saying that men who are paying child support can challenge paternity with DNA tests and be released from payment at any time if the DNA results show they are not the biological father. In Colorado, the legislature is considering a measure to allow termination of child support at any time by men who can prove through DNA tests they are not the father. Colorado law now allows challenge of paternity only during an eight-month window. In Illinois, a bill was introduced in 2003 that would have criminalized paternity fraud. It never got out of committee.
"It's just crazy," said Northern Illinois University law professor Jeffrey Parness, who has written about paternity law. He points to the example of Romel Smith, an unmarried man who had signed a voluntary agreement of paternity and whom the Illinois Supreme Court ruled in 2004 had missed the time frame to challenge that paternity admission even though DNA tests showed he was not the biological father of the child.
Melanie Jacobs, an associate professor of law at Michigan State University, argues that concern for children should be paramount. The law should not permit men to challenge paternity at any time because it could harm children, she said, adding that she thinks the law needs to be more consistent.
Indiana University professor Michael Grossberg, who studies the history of family law, said he believes the well-being of the child should be the main concern.
Grossberg said he is especially troubled by situations where a man has been living with a child he believes is his, then decides after a DNA test that he no longer will have a relationship with the child.
"Blood is only one definition of fatherhood," he said.
But Leving argues that paternity fraud is rampant. It hurts children who are denied knowing their real father and his family's medical history, as well as hurting the men who believed they were the fathers of children they were raising, he said.
In the June 2006 issue of Current Anthropology magazine, researcher Kermyt Anderson, a University of Oklahoma anthropologist, found in a review of paternity and genetic test data that only a small percentage of men are being deceived into thinking they are the biological fathers of children they are raising when they are not.
Anderson said that rebuts long-standing conventional wisdom that 10 percent of fathers are unknowingly raising children not biologically their own.
`Duped dads' fight back
For those who do learn they are not the biological father of a child, what they do with that knowledge depends on several factors, including where the person lives, what his relationship is with the mother and how long ago he suspected he might not be the father.
Some men in this situation say they're being defrauded. They call themselves "duped dads" and say they don't want to be ATMs for other men's children.
Carnell Smith of Georgia is one of the leaders of these dads. Smith, who discovered that a child he thought was his and for whom he was paying child support was not in fact related to him, waged a legal battle that went to the Georgia Supreme Court, where his appeal was rejected.
But he pushed Georgia legislators to change the law so that a man who is under court order to pay child support can challenge paternity at any time.
"We're tired of being treated like we're walking checkbooks," Smith said. "The rights of that child are superior to my rights for a situation I didn't cause and I can prove I didn't cause."
Copyright © 2007, Chicago Tribune
SOURCE: http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/health/chi-0703180358mar18,1,4758732.stor y?track=rss&ctrack=1&cset=true |
Cynique
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Cynique
Post Number: 7889
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, March 19, 2007 - 12:43 pm: |
|
Even animals are now being subjected to paternity tests. Just last week a zoo was trying to figure out who was the baby daddy of a female chimp's newborn because all of the male ones she had contact with had had vasectomies. As it turned out the DNA test pointed to one male whose vasectomy had apparently reversed itself. When the results were read, the female chimp started jumping up and down shouting to the chimp who had called her a stank ho, "I tol you dat was yo baby. He look jes like you", her triumphant outburst leaving the guilty male to cover his face, while rolling around on the floor, muttering, "damn."
On a lighter note, the question has also arisen when after a couple divorces and the wife decides to be implanted with saved frozen embryos fertilized by her husband, should he be obligated to suppoprt any baby that results from this procedure. I say, "no" and I really can understand why a divorced man would balk at having to support a child that was fathered by another man during his marriage. |
Mzuri
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Mzuri
Post Number: 4082
Registered: 01-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, March 19, 2007 - 12:59 pm: |
|
This is what I think about it. If he knows he married a ho, and he knew the wench couldn't keep her legs closed, and he accepted her offsprings as his own, he's stuck. The children are attached.
If she tricked and deceived him, and he had no idea she was sleeping around, doing his brother, his best friend, the UPS man, and if he can prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt, then he's off the hook.
That having been said - Men are stupid.
|
Tonya
AALBC .com Platinum Poster
Username: Tonya
Post Number: 4919
Registered: 07-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, March 19, 2007 - 02:20 pm: |
|
Laws are often Black or white, one of the many down sides to them.
Yes, I agree that a man should be freed from any obligation. But I'd hope that once the restraints are lifted, the man chooses to do what's right for the child and give what ever he can.. freely. |
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 8931
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, March 19, 2007 - 02:26 pm: |
|
Tonya,
I this were to happen to me, I believe I would assume paternity of the kids if I'd bonded with him-her as father AND if I were assured that no other man could legally claim rights to and paternity of them. If their blood father PERMANENTLY signed away any/all rights/claim to the children, I'd be their father.
But if I had not bonded with them and I could not PERMANENTLY assume 100% paternal right and claim, I'm not taking care of the children and in all likelihood I would seperate from and/or divorce of them and of the mother. |
Brownbeauty123
Veteran Poster
Username: Brownbeauty123
Post Number: 1862
Registered: 03-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, March 19, 2007 - 02:36 pm: |
|
"Should a man be allowed to free himself of any obligation to a child at ANY time upon discovering he's NOT the child's biological father?"
Yes. |
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 8933
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, March 19, 2007 - 02:39 pm: |
|
So then you ladies are NOT of the But the Baby Needs a Daddy stripe? |
Mzuri
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Mzuri
Post Number: 4085
Registered: 01-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, March 19, 2007 - 02:49 pm: |
|
On second thought, I think the suckers should pay regardless because they probably have some unclaimed unbeknownst children out there somewhere and what goes around comes around.
So pay up all you jive turkey suckas, whether the DNA matches or not!
Men are sooooo stupid.
|
Yvettep
Veteran Poster
Username: Yvettep
Post Number: 1778
Registered: 01-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, March 19, 2007 - 03:00 pm: |
|
I'd hope that once the restraints are lifted, the man chooses to do what's right for the child and give what ever he can.. freely.
Agree 100%. |
Cynique
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Cynique
Post Number: 7895
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, March 19, 2007 - 03:02 pm: |
|
The man should have the option as to whether or not he wants to voluntarily be a father to a child that is not his. The biological father of the child should figure into this equation. He is the one who should be trying to bond with his flesh and blood, and the child might appreciate his efforts to do so. |
Doberman23
Veteran Poster
Username: Doberman23
Post Number: 894
Registered: 01-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, March 19, 2007 - 03:08 pm: |
|
HELL NO ... IF IT IS NOT HIS CHILD HE SHOULD NOT ONLY BE CLEAR AND FREE, BUT HE ALSO SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO RECOUP FOR LOST TIME, MONEY, AND EMOTIONAL DAMAGE.
|
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 8935
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, March 19, 2007 - 03:15 pm: |
|
Dobes,
Hmmmmmmmm?
Well. If the woman KNEW dude wasn't the daddy, perhaps the option you describe should be made available to him.
'Course, you've got to prove she did (or should) have known, which might be easier said than done. |
Urban_scribe
AALBC .com Platinum Poster
Username: Urban_scribe
Post Number: 383
Registered: 05-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, March 19, 2007 - 03:23 pm: |
|
I remember reading some years ago that Robert DeNiro is paying child support for a child who isn't his. DeNiro knew from jump that he wasn't the child's father because the mother already had the child when he met her. However, the child grew up knowing DeNiro as the only father he's ever known. When DeNiro and the woman parted ways, she sued him not only for "palimony" but also for child support. The judge APPROVED the child support stating that DeNiro had WILLINGLY and FREELY made the boy accustomed to a certain lifestyle, knowing that he wasn't his kid, now DeNiro had to follow through and continue to provide that lifestyle for the child.
Now, the dynamic may be somewhat different because DeNiro knew it wasn't his child, but I think the same principles and laws may still apply. Also, I feel there has to be some sort of emotional attachment. You don't just walk away from a child you love and who loves you just because you find out the child's not yours. Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, we can't turn our emotions on and off so easily.
Personally, I don't think there should be any financial obligation, unless the gentleman wants to of his own volition, but the law may say otherwise. I find that laws sometimes don't make sense. Women could always claim that without the "father" paying support the child won't be able to continue going to a private school, for example, and the child's always been in private school thanks to the "father" paying the tuition. Maybe since he started it, under the law, he's got to finish it - biological father or not; deception or not - for the child's best interest. |
Cynique
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Cynique
Post Number: 7897
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, March 19, 2007 - 03:27 pm: |
|
I hear ya, Dobes. Why all of a sudden would a woman know her child wasn't her husbands? In all probablity she realized it all along and just didn't want to fess up. There are no winners in this kind of a situation, and the cuckhold husband is as much a victim as the child. They are both innocent. |
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 8936
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, March 19, 2007 - 03:34 pm: |
|
Urban_scribe,
I wager in the case of DeNiro the court figured that he could quite easily continue to provide for the child without such even registering a blip to his bank account. Were DeNiro much less wealthy, I suspect a reasonable judge would have gone in the other direction.
Here's what even the most REASONABLE man likely would NOT want to deal with: Paying child support and having to in any other way continue to be associated with a woman who's deceived him into believing a child is his that actually is not.
It's like the man is being made to pay penance for, in essence, a 'crime' that he was the VICTIM of.
Even if he loves the child dearly, the raw anger born from the betrayal, the lies and manipulation she dealt might make it best that he totally remove himself from the situation. |
Mzuri
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Mzuri
Post Number: 4086
Registered: 01-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, March 19, 2007 - 04:20 pm: |
|
Legal presumptive suckas must PAY!!!
http://www.falseallegations.com/estop-2.htm
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3898/is_200406/ai_n9435739
|
Doberman23
Veteran Poster
Username: Doberman23
Post Number: 895
Registered: 01-2006
Rating: 
Votes: 1 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, March 19, 2007 - 04:51 pm: |
|
mzuri these dudes that this happens too are no more suckers than a wife who gets hiv/std/aids from a cheating husband. you don't even make sense insulting these poor dudes. |
Mzuri
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Mzuri
Post Number: 4089
Registered: 01-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, March 19, 2007 - 04:57 pm: |
|
Dobey - For a woman, it's pretty much a given that men cheat. Men's infidelity is expected, typically overlooked, and when it's discovered or revealed it's forgiven. But men are so dumb that they can't even imagine their woman would actually want to ride another man's dick, as if we don't want the same spicy variety as they do. And then they snivel when the baby that never even resembled them in the first place ends up not really being theirs.
I don't expect you to understand. Because . . .
Men are stupid 
|
Doberman23
Veteran Poster
Username: Doberman23
Post Number: 896
Registered: 01-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, March 19, 2007 - 05:35 pm: |
|
lol ... two words that harmoniously go together for you my dear... one being phuck and the other is you.
all newborns look the same, i bet most parents couldn't even pick them from out of a nursery if it weren't for those star is born name tags. and there is a 50% chance that the kid is going to look a lot like the mother ... so you'll have to forgive the good guy or husband for not assuming he should get a blood test as soon as junior comes out of the fur hole of their wife or girlfriend.
but that's neither here nor there, no one should have to pay for someone else's kid unwillingly. and if all men are stupid, what does that say about women ... who has and will always be 2nd class citizens. |
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 8940
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, March 19, 2007 - 05:45 pm: |
|
Dobes,
One thing that could be done is that DNA analysis be included as a part the standard Obstetrics process. The husband and/or alleged father could obtain a copy of the result of the testing would be at the liberty to obtain a test that either matches or doesn't match the results of the child's DNA testing.
It seems to me the crux of the issue is that foks don't want to make DNA testing a standard part of the baby making process because of some notion of suspicion of the integrity and skanky dealings of the mothers. |
Doberman23
Veteran Poster
Username: Doberman23
Post Number: 898
Registered: 01-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, March 19, 2007 - 06:00 pm: |
|
abm that is an excellent idea! you wouldn't even have to sign papers or anything, so that would kill any later legalities. sometimes you are a genius man! |
Mzuri
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Mzuri
Post Number: 4090
Registered: 01-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, March 19, 2007 - 06:04 pm: |
|
Dobey - You must not have any children since all babies do NOT look the same. Children take on certain very distinguishable traits from their father, one being their hairline, and there are others. But men are too dumb and blind to see because they only see what they want to see.
So fukc you back 
|
Cynique
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Cynique
Post Number: 7905
Registered: 01-2004
Rating:
Votes: 1 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, March 19, 2007 - 06:21 pm: |
|
DNA testing is quite expensive, and certainly not something that hospitals or health care insurance would want to foot the bill for since it is not necessary for a newborn's physical well being. Not only that, DNA testing like pre-nup agreements, create a wedge of distrust in a marriage. |
Renata
Veteran Poster
Username: Renata
Post Number: 1854
Registered: 08-2005
Rating: 
Votes: 1 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, March 19, 2007 - 09:30 pm: |
|
ABM, I agree completely. And to go along with that, I don't know why anyone would want a man who isn't the father to have equal say over a child that isn't his. More than financial support, every child has a right to know who his or her father is. Also, most men (but not all) want children simply to try to control the mother, which is why they ask for children after they've known the mother only a short while....it's silly to go through child support/custody/visitation drama with someone you don't even HAVE to go through all of that BS with. SERIOUSLY.....by lying, you're robbing your child of the chance to know their real father and you're linking yourself to someone for at least 18 years, also the loser that did knock you up and dump you gets off scott free....how is that fair to anyone?
However, there is something that my husband told me, and I really want to know how other men stand on this issue. (He came from a highly religious background and strict traditional household, so I don't think he has views similar to other men, but I could be wrong). According to him, the reason men avoid women with children and try so hard to get a child with their wife/girlfriend as early as possible is because they feel that women are basically suckers for the father of their first child.......I've always wondered about that.
Also, I seriously think that people should wait a few years before having children, so that you know whether you really want to be involved with them for the rest of your life.
Doberman, I don't agree with you that all babies look the same, but I've heard that statement from most men that I've met. I think that mothers and fathers just look at children differently. |
Doberman23
Veteran Poster
Username: Doberman23
Post Number: 899
Registered: 01-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, March 19, 2007 - 10:53 pm: |
|
your right mzuri, i don't have any kids ... and to me all newborns look like little rats! none of them are cute, when people come up to me all happy and prideful i always lie to them when they show me their pics of their newborns ...newborns aren't cute. toddlers are cute, newborns aren't.
renata: some dudes try to do that because they know other dudes who have the ability to take their girl, usually don't want them when they have a bunch of crumb snatchers hanging around them. i don't date women with kids because, i don't want the responsibility, i don't want to be in a ready-made family, and because i don't want to deal with any baby daddy drama ... oh yeah, and since i don't have any kids i only want to deal with them and make exceptions and time for them when i want to.
cynique: if the test is mandatory, then it shouldn't be any issues unless the woman wasn't sure. don't people have to get blood test before their married? i think i'll get a prenup if i ever get married ... i'll be damned before i let someone take my house, cars, and money. being in a relationship is a bidness risk
|
Cynique
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Cynique
Post Number: 7907
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, March 19, 2007 - 11:18 pm: |
|
First of all, Dobes, the ACLU just might step in, because there are those who argue that mandatory DNA testing is an invasion of privacy. Plus these tests are too expensive to make people have to pay for them out of their pockets. And since they are not a health issue, medical insurance and welfare agencies would be unlikely to underwrite the cost of them. If a man goes into marriage thinking that later on down the line he may need a DNA reading to make sure he's the father of his kids, then he doesn't need to be getting married. Of course there's nothing to prevent people from making a personal decision to undergo this testing. |
Mzuri
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Mzuri
Post Number: 4092
Registered: 01-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, March 19, 2007 - 11:58 pm: |
|
Dobey, when you have your first child, and especially if it's a boy and his little penis looks exactly like a miniature version of yours, you won't be telling anyone else how babies look like rats and that they are all alike. Trust me.
|
Mzuri
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Mzuri
Post Number: 4093
Registered: 01-2006
Rating:
Votes: 2 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, March 20, 2007 - 12:00 am: |
|
Renata - Wonder no more. Your husband basically told you that you are a sucker. And I think we've told you that as well so now you know for sure.
|
Doberman23
Veteran Poster
Username: Doberman23
Post Number: 902
Registered: 01-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, March 20, 2007 - 12:19 am: |
|
cynique i see your point, but if the test are mandatory, then they will be less expensive than what they are now. also this is a health related, because if the real father has some history of health issues that the kid could have, then there could be early prevention or steps taken to take better care of the child. also stress causes all sorts of health problems and kids cause stress
it really isn't an invasion of privacy for the kid to know 99.9% for sure who it's parents are. if they had a vote on that i couldn't check my ballot fast enough.
mzuri, you might be right. but that day hasn't come and it won't for awhile as long as i can help it |
Renata
Veteran Poster
Username: Renata
Post Number: 1857
Registered: 08-2005
Rating:
Votes: 2 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, March 20, 2007 - 02:39 am: |
|
LOL....I'm hardly going to take an insult from some whore willing to tell her child his/her father is whoever is willing to sign the birth certificate. Of course YOU would be happy to have men be that stupid.....the father is probably just as big a mystery to YOU as to anyone. LOL
And he waited a good SIX years to have that baby.....when I was good and ready to have one, not just pop them out because someone else wanted it.
meh
Doberman....I'm really proud of that decision you've made. I LOVE it when people decide they don't want children so they don't have any. |
Renata
Veteran Poster
Username: Renata
Post Number: 1858
Registered: 08-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, March 20, 2007 - 02:44 am: |
|
I don't say this often (I don't think I've ever said it), but Cynique is RIGHT ON THE MONEY with herlast statement. If you need to get a DNA test on kids with your wife, you really don't need to be married to her. Likewise, if you think your husband is having kids, tell him to step on. There's no reason to complicate things. |
Doberman23
Veteran Poster
Username: Doberman23
Post Number: 903
Registered: 01-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, March 20, 2007 - 02:45 am: |
|
renata i will one day, but today ain't that day... i work too much to be dealing with some kids ... infact i'm working right now. :p |
Renata
Veteran Poster
Username: Renata
Post Number: 1859
Registered: 08-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, March 20, 2007 - 02:47 am: |
|
Doberman, I've heard that a lot too....guys who hate babies, but like toddlers (just when they're at the age to knock the house down, LOL.) |
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 8941
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, March 20, 2007 - 07:43 am: |
|
Renata,
I agree every child has right to know his blood father. And that's why I'd probably only assumed the position of the child's father IF the blood father permanently surrendered any/all parental rights. Because there's nowayinHELL I'd want have to deal with the additional indignity of having to vie for the child's love with the man with whom my wife cheated.
I'm familiar with your husband's opinion. And I imagine a woman might feel connected to the first man with whom she reproduces. But I don't know whether that permanently makes her a "sucker" for him.
I agree it's a good ideal for foks to wait to really get to know each other BEFORE they have children.
With respect DNA testing: Since the MAJORITY of Black babies are being created outside of wedlock (many of whom sans ANY form of commitment), it would be of particular benefit to MOST of US to include some form of DNA testing with in the standard Obstetrics process. And I wager when the % of WHITE babes born outside of marriage matches that of Blacks, DNA testing WILL be automatically done for all. |
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 8943
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, March 20, 2007 - 08:14 am: |
|
What's STARTLING in the article is that when you look at Paul's age (25) you have think that either they married at a very young age OR his wife might have STARTED cheating and making babies with another man very EARLY in their marriage. If the latters the case, that there's some evil...EEEEVIL stuff there.
WTF could Paul have done or been that would warrant her thinking to do such a thing to her husband? |
Yvettep
Veteran Poster
Username: Yvettep
Post Number: 1783
Registered: 01-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, March 20, 2007 - 08:40 am: |
|
Side note: If you know anyone trying to choose a career path, have them consider being a tech who tests DNA. Labs are backed up all over the country, and there are not enough techs to go around. High quality, well trained technicians will likely be even better trained AND paid than now as labs and their results are coming under greater scrutiny as a result of some high profile mistakes, mismanagements, and apparently a few cases of out-and-out frauds.
DNA testing for all sorts of things will continue to grow, expense or no expense. Not just paternity but maternity as well, "wrongful birth" suits where folks claimed their OBs should have caught some herediitary disease, criminal justice, adoption birth family searches, custody hearings (e.g., she shouldn't have custody because she's at risk for disease X), etc. etc.
Over time the tests will become less expensive. But as Cynique is saying, right now they are too expensive for any large scale routine testing. Maybe in the future when they are less expensive they will be routine. Some folks say but then watch for the government to say, well as long as they're routine for every person born, why don't we just keep DNA-ID samples on every citizen for future use... |
Mzuri
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Mzuri
Post Number: 4094
Registered: 01-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, March 20, 2007 - 09:56 am: |
|
Renata - I KNOW you aren't referring to me since you're the one who fell in love with the co-worker -
http://www.thumperscorner.com/discus/messages/11222/11562.html?1149651419
|
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 8944
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, March 20, 2007 - 11:10 am: |
|
Yvettep,
If and when DNA testing become a part of the standard Obstetrics process, the price of the service will plumment because foks will rush into the market of providing the service and that competition will lead to better, less expensive service providers. |
Cynique
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Cynique
Post Number: 7909
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, March 20, 2007 - 12:23 pm: |
|
The idea of mandatory DNA testing has sinister overtones. It is reminscent of 1984's big brother is watching you. The records of such a tests categorize the individual and have the potential for all kinds of ramifications. There is a move underway to require all incarcerated people to submit DNA sample and even this has evoked protest from legal watchdogs. If on a whim people want to voluntarily have DNA tests administered to their children then that's their prerogative because this is a social issue not a health one. Currently many parents are balking at the idea of States requiring adolescent girls to take a vaccine to prevent Ovarian cancer, and this is ostensibly a test designed to be beneficial. |
Latina_wi
Regular Poster
Username: Latina_wi
Post Number: 283
Registered: 08-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, March 20, 2007 - 12:43 pm: |
|
URBAN_SCRIBE: I remember reading some years ago that Robert DeNiro is paying child support for a child who isn't his. DeNiro knew from jump that he wasn't the child's father because the mother already had the child when he met her. However, the child grew up knowing DeNiro as the only father he's ever known. When DeNiro and the woman parted ways, she sued him not only for "palimony" but also for child support. The judge APPROVED the child support stating that DeNiro had WILLINGLY and FREELY made the boy accustomed to a certain lifestyle, knowing that he wasn't his kid, now DeNiro had to follow through and continue to provide that lifestyle for the child.
That is a very unique case but I can totally understand why De Niro's ex won her case. You can't claim a child as you own and play a father figure role then withdraw responsibilty as and when it suits you (possibly due to bitter feelings in a divorce). Real parenthood doesn't allow you to do that.
However, I do think that if the man has been fooled or misguided and made to think a child is his when the female is totally aware that it isn't then he has the right to withdraw any monterary or other responsibilties. |
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 8947
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, March 20, 2007 - 12:58 pm: |
|
Latina_wi,
If DeNiro never FORMALLY signed on to being the kid's father, I don't see why he shouldn't have been able to move on sans being financially obligated to the child.
Just because he did what he did out of his goodwill doesn't mean he OWES the child anything. |
Latina_wi
Regular Poster
Username: Latina_wi
Post Number: 284
Registered: 08-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, March 20, 2007 - 01:16 pm: |
|
ABM; he acknowledged that the child was his own. LOL, is it considered a 'verbal agreement' of sorts if the child called De Niro 'Dad'...?
I get what you mean that this could be a gesture of goodwill (and the mother is probably a little bit of a gold digger) BUT you cannot just pull parent responsibilty or acknowledgement because it suits you.
Why should the child suffer because of bickering adults? That could really mess him up. Unless the child was of an age, or totally understood, that De Niro wasn't his Dad then I can see why this case went to court and I can see why the mother won. |
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 8949
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, March 20, 2007 - 01:58 pm: |
|
Latina_wi,
The kid calling him dad don't mean DeNiro owes him anymore than he by his own volition was willing to do for the kid. The only man who really OWES the kid anything is REAL father, whomever the hell HE is.
DeNiro is not the cause of the child being in that situation. It's his mother and his absent REAL father.
DeNiro generously gave too the child and was punished for his generosity. That's, in my book, a very BAD precedent for a court of establish.
The mother has manage to extort money from a man who's NOT her child's father WHILE the child's real father has gotten away with having to honor his legal/moral obligation to the child. DeNiro got played here. |
Latina_wi
Regular Poster
Username: Latina_wi
Post Number: 287
Registered: 08-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, March 20, 2007 - 02:12 pm: |
|
ABM: The kid calling him dad don't mean DeNiro owes him anymore than he by his own volition was willing to do for the kid. The only man who really OWES the kid anything is REAL father, whomever the hell HE is.
DeNiro is not the cause of the child being in that situation. It's his mother and his absent REAL father.
That's a very good point.
Cases like this do kind of put me in two minds though. I don't know why but it reminds me of a couple in the UK who wanted to sue their local authority because their adopted children grew up with learning difficulties. They also dumped the children on the doorstep of the local children's home when they became too much trouble.
Adoption is meant to be the tantamount to actually having your own children, so what the heck would they have done if the children were their own? It is the same with the De Niro case: you got to take the rough with the smooth and cannot just withdraw responsibilty and confuse a child because it suits you.
De Niro obviously wanted to play father and when starting a relationship with the woman realised that her and her child came as a package (obviously this woman's child was a very lucrative package to her)! The child's biological father position is obviously very suspect and there is no doubt the child's sperm father is lacking. However, that aside - if De Niro decided to play Daddy he has to give the role is all - so does that include divorce?
I wonder if the child still as a relationship with him now (and if one of the requirements of the mother was that he keeps in contact). Kind of changes the case a bit. |
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 8951
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, March 20, 2007 - 02:30 pm: |
|
Latina_wi,
You're imposing duties upon DeNiro he did NOT sign-on for. He did NOT adopt the kid.
I don't know how it works in England. But in the US, foks come and go in/out of the lives of foks who already had children. Some of them even adopt faux father-child relationships. But when the men and women break up, the men are NOT made to pay child support for children that were born PRIOR to their ever becoming involved with each other.
Again. The ONLY reason the court awarded in favor of child support is that they figure what was being required of DeNiro was such a miniscue portion of his wealth/income that it's probably not worth his been too bothered about it. |
Latina_wi
Regular Poster
Username: Latina_wi
Post Number: 288
Registered: 08-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, March 20, 2007 - 02:38 pm: |
|
ABM: I don't know how it works in England. But in the US, foks come and go in/out of the lives of foks who already had children. Some of them even adopt faux father-child relationships. But when the men and women break up, the men are NOT made to pay child support for children that were born PRIOR to their ever becoming involved with each other.
Again. The ONLY reason the court awarded in favor of child support is that they figure what was being required of DeNiro was such a miniscue portion of his wealth/income that it's probably not worth his been too bothered about it.
In reference to your last paragraph ABM I admit that I was probably being a bit biased and looking at it from that view point also. I figured that it probably wouldn't do much damage to his bank balance (which is probably what the mother thought)! And went from there opinion wise.
Which isn't fair as I wouldn't do it if the case involved a menial worker.
It is very hard to look at this case as straightforward and legal as it involved a child. But your right - people walk out on children all the time and have no monetary obligation, whatsoever,legally. Possibly the judge took a moral stance in the De Niro case (like many tend to do) and felt he had no right to walk out on the child's life because they had developed a relationship.
|
Renata
Veteran Poster
Username: Renata
Post Number: 1860
Registered: 08-2005
Rating:
Votes: 3 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, March 20, 2007 - 02:49 pm: |
|
Please, ABM, that woman probably did that because it was easier to FIND Deniro than whoever the kid's real father was......otherwise, the real father would have been paying BEFORE Deniro showed up. Really, think about it, she didn't make a point of getting the father to pay BEFORE Deniro....why bother looking for him now that someone else has shown up to claim responsibility?
This sickens me, only because APART from finances, this child probably still doesn't know who his real father is.
Yeah, MZURI....but I didn't have to •••• HIM....BTW... BUY CONDOMS (they aren't expensive, I promise) and you won't have to hope a John Doe #2 shows up to sign your kids birth certificates.
Really, even PILLS are typically about 10 to 40 per month depending on what kind you get.
There are two types of sluts:
Fun girl: sleeps with whom she wants, takes a PILL, wears a CONDOM, and keeps having fun.
DUMB SLUT: sleeps with whom she wants, gets pregnant because she's too cheap to get a condom, gets DUMPED because she can only attract deadbeats, and has to sleep with another man without a condom to find a "father" for her brats.
If I were your kids, I'd have a lot of questions. I hope you kept a list. |
Renata
Veteran Poster
Username: Renata
Post Number: 1861
Registered: 08-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, March 20, 2007 - 02:55 pm: |
|
ABM, I seriously have to step away from such negativity as this in the future. It somewhat invalidates my meditative goals. I enjoy discussing things with you and other people, but from now on I might just post only to the more light-hearted topics. |
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 8952
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, March 20, 2007 - 03:11 pm: |
|
Latina_wi,
Judges should arbitrate law. Not morality.
Renata,
I agree the woman's behavior and objectives seem quite apparent. But sadly why awarding in her favor the court basically JUSTIFIED what she did.
What negativity are you referring to? Are you referring to the subject or to some of foks with whom you're engaged in such? |
Renata
Veteran Poster
Username: Renata
Post Number: 1865
Registered: 08-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, March 20, 2007 - 03:15 pm: |
|
LOL....other foks....and sometimes the subject, but not necessarily in this case. |
Moonsigns
Veteran Poster
Username: Moonsigns
Post Number: 1855
Registered: 07-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 - 12:19 pm: |
|
If a woman chooses to have children out-of-wedlock, in my opinion, it should be law that her partner(s) take a paternity test. That way, future problems are avoided. If a husband suspects that the children born within his marriage aren't his, I think he, too, should also be protected by law to seek a patenrity test. Regarding both situations, I think that the couples in question should be, by law, required to split the cost of the paternity test(s) (wages garnished, to be exact). It's a way to create accountability for the actions people choose.
And, if a man has been paying for a child that he finds out is not him (via testing), the sorry trick-of-a-woman should be required, by law, to pay him HIS money back.
|
Mzuri
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Mzuri
Post Number: 4108
Registered: 01-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 - 12:30 pm: |
|
You obviously feel strongly about this MoonSigns but you know the babymomma isn't going to reimburse the money that she tricked out of the trick. The trick should just move on. It's not like he didn't get anything out of the deal - he got a million dollars worth of pussy and the love of some children that he thought were his. Did I mention that I think men are stupid? LOLOL!
|
Cynique
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Cynique
Post Number: 7927
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 - 01:33 pm: |
|
Yes, "in a perfect world" this problem could very easily be solved. |
Renata
Veteran Poster
Username: Renata
Post Number: 1867
Registered: 08-2005
Rating:
Votes: 2 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 - 02:57 pm: |
|
LOL....there seems to be some smart men at least....who have children with a woman he realizes he can't trust and still leaves without paying a dime for his OWN children. Doesn't seem very stupid to me.
I don't get the big laugh in taking advantage of an honorable man who WANTS to take care of his children, so a no good man who hides from his responsibilities just goes on to the next "free deal". Why don't whores find it a big deal to make THESE men pay anything?
It seems Mzuri finds men stupid who actually want to stick by her (I can see the logic in THAT)......the SMARTER men GOT THE •••• OUT before the umbilical cord was cut.
Meanwhile, the real losers in this case are the children who don't even know what their father looks like. |
Renata
Veteran Poster
Username: Renata
Post Number: 1868
Registered: 08-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 - 02:58 pm: |
|
anyways.....
meh.
|
Renata
Veteran Poster
Username: Renata
Post Number: 1869
Registered: 08-2005
Rating: 
Votes: 4 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 - 03:02 pm: |
|
Subconsciously....I think whores don't want deadbeats to pay.....because they actually RESPECT them more for leaving their asses.
And any man wants to be near them.......they can't understand.
In Mzuri's case, I CAN SEE THE LOGIC IN IT.
LOL |
Mzuri
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Mzuri
Post Number: 4113
Registered: 01-2006
Rating:
Votes: 2 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 - 03:43 pm: |
|
Renata - You should probably stop talking out of your clueless ass and concern yourself with getting some money from your own man, the one that thinks you're a sucker. LOL!!!
http://www.thumperscorner.com/cgi/discus/show.cgi?tpc=2152&post=47912#POST47912
http://www.thumperscorner.com/cgi/discus/show.cgi?tpc=179&post=92997#POST92997
|
Moonsigns
Veteran Poster
Username: Moonsigns
Post Number: 1856
Registered: 07-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 - 03:57 pm: |
|
Mzuri,
I feel strongly about people taking responsibility for their actions. And it disgusts me that many children suffer because of their parent's selfishness. A lot of people want to phuck but then act retarded when a child is conceived -as if they don't comprehend the basics of sexual reproduction. It's completely foolish!
|
Renata
Veteran Poster
Username: Renata
Post Number: 1871
Registered: 08-2005
Rating: 
Votes: 3 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 - 03:59 pm: |
|
LOL........I'm sucker enough to let him pay for his own kids without having to "trick" another man into wanting to stick around.
Keep that list.....check it twice. You may need to check it a few times.
Again, your DEADBEATS weren't TOO stupid to get STUCK with your ass even though they could've been MADE to take care of your kids.
And apparently, your men didn't stay stupid for long, or they'd still be there.
Hmmmm, stick Mzuri's dumb ass with a brat, get lost.....and be considered the GOOD guy. While anyone actually STICKING AROUND your ass is a DUMBASS and a trick.....
LOL.....
You can say what you want....this just made my day:
Ho with such "respect" for herself that she thinks any man willing to STAY with her and help take care of her and her children is the STUPID ONE.
I'll take your word for it.
ROFLMAO |
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 8957
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 - 04:02 pm: |
|
Wonder what would happen if men could (with some limitations) opt out of parental responsibility and obligation, sorta like how women can opt out of being mothers via abortion.
|
Renata
Veteran Poster
Username: Renata
Post Number: 1872
Registered: 08-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 - 04:05 pm: |
|
ABM.......it seems they have that option. They just bow out, skip town, and hope the woman can trick another man into sleeping with her. |
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 8958
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 - 04:10 pm: |
|
Renata,
Well. I was talking about a more, say, HONORABLE way of bowing out. One that doesn't require them being the fugitives of the state and child services officials. |
Renata
Veteran Poster
Username: Renata
Post Number: 1873
Registered: 08-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 - 04:12 pm: |
|
But, ABM, seriously......I really want you to know that women really appreciate, adore, honor and love honourable men like yourself who are willing to be there for your children. We really LOVE that, and don't forget it.
In the end, realize that your being there for YOUR DAUGHTERS (and sons, for men with sons) has only a small amount to do with your wife and is more of a benefit for your CHILDREN.
And I wouldn't DARE disrespect and berate a man because he loves his children and wants to be there for them.
So, when you hear crap about women who just look for any random "trick" to sign a birth certificate so she can get money from him and her deadbeat can go find someone else........well, consider the source.
If you're EVER told you're stupid because you stay with your wife and children and take care of them, consider that a sign that the person is just well......MZURI. |
Renata
Veteran Poster
Username: Renata
Post Number: 1874
Registered: 08-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 - 04:14 pm: |
|
ABM....that's what CONDOMS are for. If you're with a woman who refuses to take the pill...where a condom. Heck, if she DOES take a pil...where a condom.
If you REFUSE to wear a condom and the girl gets pregnant.....sorry, trade that porsche in for minivan and start a college fund. |
Yvettep
Veteran Poster
Username: Yvettep
Post Number: 1786
Registered: 01-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 - 04:15 pm: |
|
Wonder what would happen if men could (with some limitations) opt out of parental responsibility and obligation
I believe this currently exists. (1) Do not have sex. (2) Do not have sex without protection (as well as protection for your protection). |
Latina_wi
Regular Poster
Username: Latina_wi
Post Number: 290
Registered: 08-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 - 04:17 pm: |
|
^^^^Too frigging true Renata. |
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 8959
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 - 04:18 pm: |
|
Renata,
Thanks!
I don't give a dayam what anyone else thinks about what I do for my children. They're my kids and my legacy to tend to.
But maybe we have entered an era where many women are inclined to attempt to trick men into paying to children fathered by other men. And if that's the case, perhaps the laws/courts should be changed to better help and protect them. |
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 8960
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 - 04:21 pm: |
|
Yvettep,
Women can have sex...WITHOUT protection and STILL opt out of parenthood (e.g., via abortion, adoption).
Why shouldn't men be granted similar options? |
Yvettep
Veteran Poster
Username: Yvettep
Post Number: 1787
Registered: 01-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 - 04:25 pm: |
|
Men should advocate for male pregnancy, then. That way they could do the same. Additionally, some men do "opt out": they beat wives/girlfriends into miscarriages, they force women who do not wish to to have abortions, they kill babies and children, and as some have said here--some just leave and never pay a dime. |
Renata
Veteran Poster
Username: Renata
Post Number: 1875
Registered: 08-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 - 04:27 pm: |
|
Well, sorry, ABM......but that's just the cost of actually CARRYING the child.
But CONSIDER: you know you don't want a child BEFORE sex, just protect YOURSELF.....Also, this would help men not be tricked into caring for other men's children. She comes up pregnant, and you KNOW you always wear a condom? You don't even have anything to worry about. |
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 8961
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 - 04:27 pm: |
|
Honestly. It seems to me if you're going to allow women to have abortions without the man (even HUSBANDS) ever having the right to even KNOW the women have had an abortions, much less have anything to say about it, the FAIRER thing to do is (with some limitations) allow a man to opt out of parental responsibility as well.
The woman has the rights and means - via abortion/adoption - to rid herself of a mistake. Why shouldn't a man be able to do something of the sort? |
Renata
Veteran Poster
Username: Renata
Post Number: 1876
Registered: 08-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 - 04:30 pm: |
|
Again, the cost of CARRYING the child. If you want the child and she doesn't, would you be able to carry the child to term without her?
I can understand your concern, and I don't really think it's fair....but that's biology. Talk to god about that. |
Latina_wi
Regular Poster
Username: Latina_wi
Post Number: 291
Registered: 08-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 - 04:31 pm: |
|
Isn't it the case that if a woman tells her partner that she is pregnant and he doesn't want to become a father and makes this clear then he is within his right to opt out of parental responsibilties but not monteray support?
|
Mzuri
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Mzuri
Post Number: 4117
Registered: 01-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 - 04:33 pm: |
|
Because men are NOT the decision makers in the reproductive process. It's not rocket science. |
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 8962
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 - 04:34 pm: |
|
Yvettep,
I man shouldn't have to be able to get pregnant to decide he doesn't want to be a father.
I'm sure I'm misreading you. But, just in case I'm not: Are you RECOMMENDING men beat their wives/girlfriends into miscarriage?
Renata,
Why does the fact that a woman carries a child mean she can resolve the consequence of her error or irresponsibility?
Moreover, the way things are now, a HUSBAND doesn't even have a right to know his wife has aborted. Yet if she decides to have the kid, short of his committing one of the heinous acts Yvette refers to, the man can't say or do a dayam thing about it. |
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 8963
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 - 04:37 pm: |
|
Renata,
Okay. The woman carries the child (which is, btw, what women are designed to do). Does that mean then that men should not even KNOW their wives have aborted?
Does that mean that women should be able to put children up for adoption sans ever even attempting to inform and solicit the approval of the (possible) father? |
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 8964
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 - 04:39 pm: |
|
Renata,
GOD ain't got a DAYAM thing to do with the laws/regulations governing paternity, abortion, adoption, etc. |
Renata
Veteran Poster
Username: Renata
Post Number: 1877
Registered: 08-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 - 04:41 pm: |
|
Again, ABM....I understand exactly what you're saying....but that's biology.
About the laws of a wife aborting and the husband not knowing, I don't agree with that myself......but I think it's basically doctors wanting to cover their own asses. They don't ask ANYONE if their married, if the father wants the child, etc., then they can just do their job and not worry about lawsuits, etc. |
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 8965
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 - 04:42 pm: |
|
Latina_wi:
Why would a man want to be financially responsible for child he doesn't in any OTHER way want to be responsible for?
Moreover, what the rationale of a law that would allow a man to surrender parental rights while STILL making him financially responsible for a child? |
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 8966
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 - 04:48 pm: |
|
Renata: "I think it's basically doctors wanting to cover their own asses. They don't ask ANYONE if their married, if the father wants the child, etc., then they can just do their job and not worry about lawsuits, etc."
There you are. I thought if I continued here eventually you all might begin to present a fair and reasoned response to WHY things REALLY are as they are.
My point here is one of the main reasons why paternity fraud occurs is that so much of everything is constructed and administered in ways that take advantage of men.
Heck. Even when it's CLEAR women have dooped or defrauded the men, the women are almost NEVER punished. |
Yvettep
Veteran Poster
Username: Yvettep
Post Number: 1788
Registered: 01-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 - 04:49 pm: |
|
No, ABM. That is not my recommendation. It is my observation: that men do take advantage of "options," often with sad effects on children and their mates.
I can only repeat what I and many others have said here: Men should educate themselves about the simple biology behind procreation--including the imbalance inherent in who carries embryos and fetuses within their body and who (at least for the time being) has the legal right to make decisions covering her body. If a man does not want the potential of fatherhood, he then needs to take the necessary precautions.
|
Latina_wi
Regular Poster
Username: Latina_wi
Post Number: 293
Registered: 08-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 - 04:50 pm: |
|
ABM: Why would a man want to be financially responsible for child he doesn't in any OTHER way want to be responsible for?
Moreover, what the rationale of a law that would allow a man to surrender parental rights while STILL making him financially responsible for a child?
Maybe I was misinterpretating the problem page that I was reading but the agony aunt told the prospective mother that if she did go ahead to have the child because the man said he didn't want to be a father he could withdraw parental responsibilty. However, he would still be liable to support the child financially if she couldn't alone. I suppose that it is because it shouldn't be down to taxpayers to solely support a child just because he didn't want a child and wasn't careful enough.
Which I think seems fair enough (when you are looking at it as straightforwardly as that I suppose). He made his bed and now he has to lie it in. He knows for next time I suppose.
As for your queries to Renata about a man rights when it comes to abortion. A few years back a young guy was fighting for the right to stop his older partner having an abortion. They had got together and had decided to start a family. However, she became pregnant and wanted an abortion.
In this cae I think the guy was right. He said something along the lines of, when a man is being chased for payments he is constantly reminded that it takes two to make a baby. But when it comes to abortion and his child's life he is told his opinions don't matter. And this woman promised him a child and a family.
But as before, the case seems straightforward but that isn't always true. |
Renata
Veteran Poster
Username: Renata
Post Number: 1878
Registered: 08-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 - 04:58 pm: |
|
Also, ABM....I think a portion of it is that some are so sick of paying taxes for children whose fathers have left (and many of those men ASKED for the kids they eventually abandon), that they may just allow abortions to get rid of what they see is just another day out of their own paychecks.
Just a theory. |
Renata
Veteran Poster
Username: Renata
Post Number: 1879
Registered: 08-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 - 05:00 pm: |
|
Sorry...meant to say another "DOLLAR" out of their own paychecks. |
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 8968
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 - 05:02 pm: |
|
Yvettep,
I could say that many WOMEN would benefit from some biology lessons as well. Still. When women have failed to learn those lesson, they have options that men do not have.
Don't get me started on what a woman should be able to do with her body as rationalization for a woman being allowed to abort (again WITHOUT even telling the father). Because there are LOTS of things we can't by law do to our bodies (e.g., consume cocaine, commit suicide, etc.). |
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 8969
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 - 05:04 pm: |
|
Renata,
The women have created the financial (social and cultural) burden the rest of us must bear just as the men have. And, unlike the men, the women have more options to NOT burden us as such. |
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 8970
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 - 05:09 pm: |
|
Latina_wi,
What would happen if we elected to be less helpful to women who have children outside of wedlock?
You think maybe many of those women might be LESS inclined to burden themselves with children they can't possibly take care of?
You think maybe they'll think a lot MORE about the quality of men they lie down with?
I believe what you said here speaks for itself:
"...when a man is being chased for payments he is constantly reminded that it takes two to make a baby. But when it comes to abortion and his child's life he is told his opinions don't matter." |
Yvettep
Veteran Poster
Username: Yvettep
Post Number: 1789
Registered: 01-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 - 05:12 pm: |
|
I know the futility of an abortion debate here. I was pointing out what the law (again, currently) allows. I am not trying to rationalize at all. Everyone could benefit from more scientific knowledge. True.
Listen, bottom line: Are you trying to say that men are more "victimized" by all the various aspects of reproduction than are women? That women are better protected legally? What, exactly?
|
Renata
Veteran Poster
Username: Renata
Post Number: 1880
Registered: 08-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 - 05:15 pm: |
|
ABM, I actually agree with that to a point.
You forget that abortion is only a choice for a short time. Many men ask for children and are really happy about the child being born.......for about two months, if for that long. When he changes his mind and the child is three months old, the mother is then alone with the child. By that time, women are so in love with a child that there's no way they would give it up.
It's a different situation than if the father says right away that he doesn't want the child (in TIME for her to get an abortion), or before the child is born (in time for her to decide not to fall in love with the child and choose adoption.) |
Mzuri
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Mzuri
Post Number: 4118
Registered: 01-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 - 05:22 pm: |
|
I think that somebunny's having babymommadrama! |
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 8972
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 - 05:29 pm: |
|
Yvettep,
I think the current laws not only give women all of the reproductive power and leverage, but they also make it easy for women to defraud and manipulate men largely because the women are almost never punished for their misdeeds.
Renata,
What if a man declares before their ever is a pregnancy that he does NOT want to be a father? Or what he declares such immediately after discovering the woman is pregnant?
Those would allow women sufficient time and information to make better choices to protect themselves and/or reconcile (via abortion, adoption) an unexpected pregnancy if she so chooses or to prepare herself for having/raising a child on her own. |
Renata
Veteran Poster
Username: Renata
Post Number: 1881
Registered: 08-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 - 05:35 pm: |
|
Declares BEFORE pregnancy? That would be great, wouldn't it? Many women DO protect themselves in such cases or find men who want children. But, responsibility is for self only. If he says it, and she wants one anyways....he has to do what HE has to do to make sure it's not on him. By not wearing a condom, he basically just gave HER the responsibility to make sure HE isn't a father....why give someone else that much power?
Immediately AFTER learning of the pregnancy? She may or may not want it...again, biology, talk to god about that. |
Yvettep
Veteran Poster
Username: Yvettep
Post Number: 1790
Registered: 01-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 - 05:36 pm: |
|
Because there are LOTS of things we can't by law do to our bodies
If I am not mistaken, this is not entirely correct. Rulings generally support a right to bodily privacy. For example, laws against cocaine use are not enforced in the drug's effects on the body but in things like possession, sale, driving while under the influence, etc. I do not believe you can be arrested for sitting on a park bench, high. And has suicide been enforced as a crime? FOr example, if someone attempts, but fails, they are not arrested, are they?
Even if it is the case that "there are things we cannot legally do to our bodies," there are far more things we can do without the law stepping in: tatoos, piercings, getting obese, getting rail thin, wearing outdated clothes, etc.
I now understand your larger point, but I do not agree that as things shake out in the real world (DESPITE whatever the laws may say) that women end up with more reproductive "power" and "leverage." I bet that for every case of fraudulent fatherhood victimizing men, there are at least 10 cases of (confirmed) fathers gone missing. In many cases women never end up seeing a penny of what courts rule their children are owed--plus they may end up having to pay the legal fees!
BTW, just as a side note: Men do not need their wives' permission to get a vasectomy... |
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 8975
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 - 05:52 pm: |
|
Yvettep,
How does one comsume cocaine without ever having been in ILLEGAL possession of it?
You can most DEFINITELY be arrested for public drunkeness and inebriation (including via park benches) in most states.
Hell. It's still legal in many states for cops arrest men having sex with other men in the privacy of their own homes. (In fact, if I recall correctly, MOST American states still have anti-sodomy statues on the books.)
Again. There are LOTS of things we can not by word of LAW do to our own bodies.
And yeah men often shirk their duties to help foot the bill of their children. But in most cases, they must break laws or rules to get away with doing that.
What you're talking about are situations where men sneak around, quit jobs, lie on documents, etc. They must live secret lives, they risk discovery, being charged with crimes, etc.
What I talking about are situations where the laws essentially HELP or ENABLE women to screw over men and do NOT punish the women after their misdoings have been made evident.
PS: I believe at the very least a wife should have the right to KNOW her husband has gotten a vasectomy. |
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 8976
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 - 05:55 pm: |
|
Renata,
I'll make a deal with you: I'll talk to GOD about the biological aspects of female reproduction after you've provide a certifiable dissertation of what HE-SHE really thinks about legalized ABORTION.
Deal? |
Renata
Veteran Poster
Username: Renata
Post Number: 1882
Registered: 08-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 - 06:07 pm: |
|
LOL.......don't get in a huff....
Don't talk to god about it. Ask Hecate or Zeus or Artemis, I guess.
I actually don't even agree with legalized abortion myself (and think god is against it, but have no proof other than the major religious writings, and even some of those depend on how it's deciphered and whether you even think it's divinely authored.....but WHATEVER), but it's legal at this time. Get god (or hecate, artemis, god/goddess of your choice) to sign any of his religious writings and declare them his/her own, and I'll gladly tell you how I deciphered it (and abortion would probably be illegal in every country except India).
Man, sometimes when you can't control something else (abortion laws, whether or not someone will have an abortion), you just have to do what you can about what you CAN control. You can't control that other stuff...but you CAN control whether or not you become a father.
|
Renata
Veteran Poster
Username: Renata
Post Number: 1883
Registered: 08-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 - 06:13 pm: |
|
LOL, speaking of India...talk to Ganesh about it....he probably has an interesting take on the father's right to opt out of fatherhood.
Ganesh was unwanted by his father, who chopped off his head as he first saw him. I forget who the father was.....anyways....mama was so upset that she made the father go and find a head for him. Daddy walked into the jungle and found a "donor" and you have Ganesh.
Man, if that's not a poppycock story of creation, I don't know what is.....but I think that of most creation stories......Enough people believe it, so whatever. |
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 8980
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, March 22, 2007 - 10:19 am: |
|
Renata,
I think I've effectively made the point that there's little FAIR about how things are done with respect to reproduction, childbirth, child support, custody & rearing, etc.
I agree men should do what they can to protect themselves from a system that's grossly biased against them. And that protection should included condoms, vasectomies and DNA testing.
PS: Sorry. I don't know what Ganesh you're referring to. |
Yvettep
Veteran Poster
Username: Yvettep
Post Number: 1793
Registered: 01-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, March 22, 2007 - 10:41 am: |
|
I think I've effectively made the point that there's little FAIR about how things are done with respect to reproduction, childbirth, child support, custody & rearing, etc.
Right. There's little that is fair about it. But despite your protestations, most of the unfairness still disproportionately effects women and children. |
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 8983
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, March 22, 2007 - 10:48 am: |
|
Yvettep,
We're going in circles.
As I said before, the difference is as follows:
Laws are made to help make things fairer for women, and laws are made to help make thinks UNfairer for men. |
Latina_wi
Regular Poster
Username: Latina_wi
Post Number: 294
Registered: 08-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, March 22, 2007 - 11:26 am: |
|
ABM:
What would happen if we elected to be less helpful to women who have children outside of wedlock?
You think maybe many of those women might be LESS inclined to burden themselves with children they can't possibly take care of?
You think maybe they'll think a lot MORE about the quality of men they lie down with?
If who elected to be 'less helpful' to unwed mothers? The guy who fathered the child.
He could solve his problems quite easily BEFORE having the child - he could also be careful about who he decides to lay down with!
Your right, women should be wary about the quality of their men. But I worry for a man who sleeps with a obvious whore and then gets itchy feet when she gets pregnant and he has to some responsibilty. I know it sounds corny - but you do have to be responsible when having sex. And you can't become aghast when you sleep with a ho, she becomes pregnant and your told you could be the possible father.
Though you do have every right to ask for a paternity test.
|
Yvettep
Veteran Poster
Username: Yvettep
Post Number: 1796
Registered: 01-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, March 22, 2007 - 11:27 am: |
|
ABM, first of all I disagree with your basic premise. Historically and even currently women have been far more burdened by laws--including in the realm of reproduction--than have men. From criminalizing addiction in pregnancy to making welfare benefits dependent upon Norplant to going after women's financial assets post-divorce because women (often through their chhildren) are easier to find than men--the law cannot be said to be consistently making things "fair" for women, especially minority and/or poor ones.
I think you are being selective in what you choose to focus on to assert your opinion. If you are concerned about the injustices men face in these aspects of law, then by all means make that point. But to say that the law disenfranchises men to a greater extent than women overall is just not something that I feel is supported by evidence.
Second of all, laws are just words on paper without enforcement to back them up. No matter what laws may offer as protections, in the real world...how things actually shake out in practice...the folks who bear the brunt of the unfairness around issues of reproduction and child rearing are women and children.
My personal standpoint is that laws need to be more family centered and--via the family unit--more child-centered. I think the US (and Western, generally) focus on individualism in politics and law is inherently dangerous for children and totally unhelpful in supporting family units. As long as we have a system that even invites this kind of debate we're having--which individual is better/worse off--we will not be able to make inroads in conceptualizing a new system that tries to take into account the good of the group. In this model, everyone will have to give up some of their "individual rights" in order to do what is best for their unit and the most vulnerable people who are part of it (e.g., kids and elderly). Many states are trying to move towards this, for example in voluntary arbitration in divorce cases or agreements for "open adoptions" where birth and adoptive families formally agree to certain post-adoption contact.
All of these are still kind of experimental at this stage. But I think ultimately they will be better for kids and families than our current system of law. |
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 8986
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, March 22, 2007 - 11:30 am: |
|
Latina_wi,
In the article above, the poor guy was MARRIED to the whore. But I agree dudes should be wary of whom they droptrou' with. |
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 8987
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, March 22, 2007 - 11:43 am: |
|
Yvettep,
The vast majority of Black addicts who are doing prison time are MALES. We BOTH know that.
Very few crack mothers actually do time prison time. Only in some fair extreme cases are welfare recipients required to use Norplant (which is only really an issue IF/WHEN a mother is on or seeks government assistance). And the courts have often overturned such.
I think I've made my point. Perhaps it is somewhat selective. But then I wager it's no more selective than yours.
I agree with you there are many women and children who suffer from being mistreated by men and fathers. I don't believe, though, crafting and enforce unfair laws help to resolve the problem. That only busy us with victimizing innocent, well-meaning and earnest men while the true bad guys, those the current system FAILS to make abide ANY rules, get away with abuse and neglect.
The laws will never be family-centered because that would require all of us - men AND women - to give up liberties (e.g., indiscriminant sex, abortion rights, divorce, etc.) that most of us would rather hold on to. |
Renata
Veteran Poster
Username: Renata
Post Number: 1893
Registered: 08-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, March 22, 2007 - 11:54 am: |
|
Abm, the law isn't unfairly stacked against men. Men have the choice to leave even much later AFTER the child is born. If my husband abandoned my son at age 5, no law enforcement agency would blink an eye, without him even caring about setting up the child for adoption. If I decided to do the same, I'd be in jail before the kid even realized he was abandoned. And (at least in MS) these men DO work after they've left their children, usually numerous children, and don't even have warrants. (In GA, however, not paying child support will get your driver's license revoked, but you can fix that just by moving to another state.)
Anyways.......there are too many problems and too many angles to come from to actually ever have any good laws to protect both men and women. People try to write laws to be logical and fair....for people who are sometimes illogical and unfair. Show me the law that says a woman has to contact her husband before an abortion, and you can find a woman who will lie and say she's single. Show me the law that says a man can enforce an abortion on a woman who doesn't want one....you can imagine how ugly that would be.
I could go on and on.
Anyways....Ganesh is that elephant-headed dude from the Hindu pantheon of gods. |
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 8990
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, March 22, 2007 - 12:08 pm: |
|
Renata,
You husband would be charged with child abandonment as quickly as you would be. The only reason men are not often charged with abandonment is they they're not married to the children mothers and have no formal legal custody and/or guardianship of the children.
Just because laws can be broken does not mean the laws should not exist.
PS: Thanks for explaining who Ganesh is. I admit I'm not much schooled in Hindu mythology. |
Renata
Veteran Poster
Username: Renata
Post Number: 1894
Registered: 08-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, March 22, 2007 - 12:29 pm: |
|
There are MANY men who were married and have left their children.....probably some even in your own neighborhood.
My own father left when I was young. He'd left his first wife with children. My mother was his second wife. He also left his third wife with children. I know that he's been married at LEAST one other time.....and I have no reason to believe that he didn't do the same to her. My mother and his first wife filed for child support. He's still working (as a nurse), still no warrants. Really....the most a man has to do to skip these laws, is just ignore them.
Hindu mythology is fascinating because it's so weird.....The gods Krisha and Vishnu (I think) are the same god in different incarnations...Krishna steals milk and ogles milkmaids (and this is just the PG stuff I can post here). |
Email This Page