U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-28-2015, 04:44 PM
 
Location: Backwoods of Maine
6,940 posts, read 7,671,575 times
Reputation: 17847

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by BradPiff View Post
We incarcerate more people than any country on earth, the prison population has exploded in the last 25 years. There is nothing "soft on criminals" about the American justice system
This is true; what many do not realize is that a lot of these prisons are privately-owned, not state-owned, and those who are incarcerated are forced to work for little or nothing. They are held for extended periods of time as 'slave labor'. It's "big business", and the courts know all about it.

Judges probably hold stock in the corporations that own the prisons.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-28-2015, 05:49 PM
 
687 posts, read 654,165 times
Reputation: 2243
I keep saying it, but men are losing their rights in this country. I told a young man earlier in the week to re-consider marrying his girlfriend because there is simply no rational reason why any man would or should jeopardize his well being and finances in this day an age.

Until the courts recognize that men are people too, I would avoid marriage. Have kids if you want, and pay for them (some, not the extortionate amounts commonly charged), but be very cautious.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-28-2015, 06:28 PM
 
3,720 posts, read 4,443,145 times
Reputation: 4741
Quote:
Originally Posted by mapmd View Post
I keep saying it, but men are losing their rights in this country. I told a young man earlier in the week to re-consider marrying his girlfriend because there is simply no rational reason why any man would or should jeopardize his well being and finances in this day an age.

Until the courts recognize that men are people too, I would avoid marriage. Have kids if you want, and pay for them (some, not the extortionate amounts commonly charged), but be very cautious.
Actually, a man's best position is to be married. When you're married there is no legal requirement for child support or spousal support. Only when you are single with children, legally separated, or divorced do you face those issues.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-28-2015, 06:51 PM
 
887 posts, read 441,490 times
Reputation: 964
Quote:
Originally Posted by mapmd View Post
I keep saying it, but men are losing their rights in this country. I told a young man earlier in the week to re-consider marrying his girlfriend because there is simply no rational reason why any man would or should jeopardize his well being and finances in this day an age.

Until the courts recognize that men are people too, I would avoid marriage. Have kids if you want, and pay for them (some, not the extortionate amounts commonly charged), but be very cautious.

This is one thing I don't get with the new womens right movement, they have more rights then men. Women have it made if you ask me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-28-2015, 07:45 PM
 
726 posts, read 665,155 times
Reputation: 1710
Anything just so long as the government doesn't have to pay for it, eh?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-28-2015, 07:52 PM
 
3,332 posts, read 3,269,889 times
Reputation: 8443
If the named father doesn't challenge within a certain number of years, he is considered the child's father no matter what. I know of a case where a lawyer had an affair with a married woman employee. He fathered a child with her while she was married to the other man. Knowing the law, he waited until the requisite number of years had passed that would make the other man obligated to pay child support until the child reached maturity. Then he had the woman get a paternity test on the child - so that he knew for sure it was his. She divorced her husband, and married the lawyer. The poor man realized what had been done to him, but it was too late. The courts ruled him responsible for child support, even though the child was not his. So he had to pay child support for the cuckold's child, while the lawyer lived with that child, his own biological child, and benefited from the child support that the other man had to pay. And the lawyer wasn't disbarred for this.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-28-2015, 11:30 PM
 
3,484 posts, read 1,993,286 times
Reputation: 7935
My thoughts are:
DNA tests clear things up always.

If we are going to use DNA testing to PROVE a man is the father in a court of law and hold him responsible; then we should also accept that DNA testing can likewise prove a man DID NOT FATHER A CHILD in a court of law AND NOT hold him responsible, whether he protested the case early enough or not!

Her {the Judge's} statement of "he waited too long to challenge the situation and "failed to take this matter seriously." SHOULD NOT APPLY WHEN HE IS NOT THE FATHER {proven by DNA}! IF HE IS NOT the father, WHY WOULD HE want to answer the case???? I would not! Failure to pursue a case "in a reasonable manner" does NOT AUTOMATICALLY MAKE HIM THE REPSONSIBLE FATHER monetarily!

Unfortunately, the mother can name any man she WANTS to be the father, Or any man who is handy, and that is NOT FAIR to men and REAL fathers everywhere! IT also gives honest women a bad name too!
{http://www.dna-testing-adviser.com/PaternityTestDNA.html}

I've seen WAY too many Maury Povich DNA shows and I DON'T EVEN LIKE HIS SHOWS!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-28-2015, 11:39 PM
 
Location: Subconscious Syncope, USA (Northeastern US)
2,367 posts, read 1,525,771 times
Reputation: 3814
Quote:
Originally Posted by galaxyhi View Post
My thoughts are:
DNA tests clear things up always.

If we are going to use DNA testing to PROVE a man is the father in a court of law and hold him responsible; then we should also accept that DNA testing can likewise prove a man DID NOT FATHER A CHILD in a court of law AND NOT hold him responsible, whether he protested the case early enough or not!

Her {the Judge's} statement of "he waited too long to challenge the situation and "failed to take this matter seriously." SHOULD NOT APPLY WHEN HE IS NOT THE FATHER {proven by DNA}! IF HE IS NOT the father, WHY WOULD HE want to answer the case???? I would not! Failure to pursue a case "in a reasonable manner" does NOT AUTOMATICALLY MAKE HIM THE REPSONSIBLE FATHER monetarily!

Unfortunately, the mother can name any man she WANTS to be the father, Or any man who is handy, and that is NOT FAIR to men and REAL fathers everywhere! IT also gives honest women a bad name too!
{http://www.dna-testing-adviser.com/PaternityTestDNA.html}

I've seen WAY too many Maury Povich DNA shows and I DON'T EVEN LIKE HIS SHOWS!
I know what you mean. The thing is, when a child grows up believing someone is their father, and that father has always assumed that role, then in that childs mind DNA plays no role. A 5 year old only knows they dont understand why they cant see "Daddy" anymore.

If a child is say a few months old when the DNA issue is discovered, then I agree with you completely. It wouldnt seem such a strong bond breaking would not hurt a child as much, while its still in its infant state.

Courts usually rule in the best interest of the child.

Im also radical enough to believe that if a father wants his child, he should have the right to prevent the childs mother from killing it via legal abortion.

But, that's just me. I dont speak for all women.

On the other hand, if a couple adopts a child, and neither one of them want it after a divorce, should they be able to simply return it? The DNA doesnt match afterall. *ponders*
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-01-2015, 01:20 AM
 
6,125 posts, read 3,329,551 times
Reputation: 13016
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkpunk View Post
I've read it and I feel for the man as well as the woman who had to scribble a name because of whatever reason she don't know who the father was. The state should just eat the bill.
The state is you and me. I don't believe I should be paying for that child any more than the man so ordered, your mileage may vary. That kid has two parents who should share in his upbringing; if the mother is unable or unwilling to name the father she should bear the full burden.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-01-2015, 04:48 AM
 
Location: Backwoods of Maine
6,940 posts, read 7,671,575 times
Reputation: 17847
Quote:
Originally Posted by el_marto View Post
Anything just so long as the government doesn't have to pay for it, eh?
The gubmint never pays for anything. The gubmint produces nothing and makes no money. All they have it what they steal from us. WE are the ones paying for the moochers to mooch!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top