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.
Yes you can demand a paternity test at birth. But shouldnt it actually be the wifes responsibility to inform the parties involved that there is a possible question of paternity? WHere does the cheating womans responsiblity lie? SHe has no obligation to speak up? I mean its already established that shes a liar and a cheat so why bother right? She can just keep her mouth shut while her husband signs his life away for some salemans daughter that he thinks is his?
See you are stating an emotional reaction. You say " why wouldnt a man raise a child after 9 years"? The truth is that most men would. If they were emotionally attached to the child most men would never turn his back on them. But that is not a logical legal argument. If I were to suspect 5 months in that the child may not be mine after all, even though my wife dooped me and both of our families into believing so then I have a right to contest paternity. If Im found not to be the father then I should have no legal obligation to provide any financial support for a child I did no create. Period.
She should. No one has said it's not wrong for her to hide that he may not be the father. That is a separate issue though. Once done, and once he's established himself as the father, to the child, he is the father.
The legal and logical argument lies in looking at this from the child's perspective. The law will favor the child no matter what either parent did.
Sorry if you were offended, but my points were not directed at you, but the law and the issue raised by paternity fraud. It is a statement on how the law treats men vs. women in these cases. i.e. Men/ fathers: you are accountable even if you are the victim of fraud. Women/mothers: You are not accountable even though you perpetrate the fraud.
It's clear to me that you are not sorry. So don't say it -- it's hypocritical. Of course women are accountable. Infidelity is grounds for divorce. It's the same punishment when a man cheats. As for making the woman pay money for fraud -- ultimately, it can't be done without depriving the child, who is not responsible for the circumstances of his conception. There is no question that a woman who has cheated and realizes she may have gotten pregnant should disclose that fact to her husband, so that he may test for paternity and decide whether he wants to remain married to a cheater. At the same time, there is also no question that a man who suspects (for whatever reason) that the child may not be his, is morally obligated to inform his wife of his suspicion, so that she may make a decision whether she wants to continue to be married to a man who thinks she is a piece of ****. There is no question that fraud -- provided, the word is used in its legal sense, and not as hyperbole -- should not countenanced by law. And it's also certain that victims of fraud should have no more right than anyone else to dangle the prospect of a lawsuit indefinitely.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OC Investor2
As for being put in a position to defend all women, I've never seen women hesititate to indict men ("the Patriarchy") when discussing geneder specific injustices suffered by women.
An indictment of the patriarchy does not constitute an indictment of men. This is the equivalent of saying that indicting slavery constitutes an indictment of white people -- and it is, of course, absurd. Men are individuals; patriarchy is a social arrangement. The patriarchy frequently benefits men at the expense of women, but for you to claim that any woman who doesn't want to live in a patriarchal society is thereby a "man-hater" actually confirms my conclusions about you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OC Investor2
So now that the shoe is on the other foot, and men are suffering a wrong we have to couch all our debating points in qualifiers so as not to offend?
Oh, as in, "Jane Schmoe called men names, so I'm gonna take it out on all the b/tches who have the misfortune of communicating with me"? This is your concept of justice?You stated that women lack accountability and reason -- all women all the time. In no way, shape or form is it the flipside of saying I don't want to live under a patriarchy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OC Investor2
We are/were having a debate about the law. Why do you feel the need to personalize it? Or have you just run out of defenses for your side?
It's you who personalized it, probably because you ran out of arguments; although I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you just reflexively say this **** about women because it makes you feel superior and scores you points with certain barely coherent Neanderthals who wouldn't know accountability or reason if it bit them in the nuts. You claim that women, being women, lack responsibility and intelligence. I am a woman. So don't kid yourself -- this is as personal as it gets. Maybe it's just the irrational woman in me speaking, but I don't think that "Girls are stupid poopy heads" is a legitimate argument. You apparently see it differently.
This has been going on a long time, for instance, Joseph was not Jesus's father. Yet, him being Jesus's mothers husband, made Jesus a descendant from the lineage of King David, which Joseph was, somehow?
So if it's good enough for Christians, I guess family court figures...
This has been going on a long time, for instance, Joseph was not Jesus's father. Yet, him being Jesus's mothers husband, made Jesus a descendant from the lineage of King David, which Joseph was, somehow?
So if it's good enough for Christians, I guess family court figures...
It's clear to me that you are not sorry. So don't say it -- it's hypocritical. Of course women are accountable. Infidelity is grounds for divorce. It's the same punishment when a man cheats. As for making the woman pay money for fraud -- ultimately, it can't be done without depriving the child, who is not responsible for the circumstances of his conception. There is no question that a woman who has cheated and realizes she may have gotten pregnant should disclose that fact to her husband, so that he may test for paternity and decide whether he wants to remain married to a cheater. At the same time, there is also no question that a man who suspects (for whatever reason) that the child may not be his, is morally obligated to inform his wife of his suspicion, so that she may make a decision whether she wants to continue to be married to a man who thinks she is a piece of ****. There is no question that fraud -- provided, the word is used in its legal sense, and not as hyperbole -- should not countenanced by law. And it's also certain that victims of fraud should have no more right than anyone else to dangle the prospect of a lawsuit indefinitely.
An indictment of the patriarchy does not constitute an indictment of men. This is the equivalent of saying that indicting slavery constitutes an indictment of white people -- and it is, of course, absurd. Men are individuals; patriarchy is a social arrangement. The patriarchy frequently benefits men at the expense of women, but for you to claim that any woman who doesn't want to live in a patriarchal society is thereby a "man-hater" actually confirms my conclusions about you.
Oh, as in, "Jane Schmoe called men names, so I'm gonna take it out on all the b/tches who have the misfortune of communicating with me"? This is your concept of justice?You stated that women lack accountability and reason -- all women all the time. In no way, shape or form is it the flipside of saying I don't want to live under a patriarchy.
It's you who personalized it, probably because you ran out of arguments; although I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you just reflexively say this **** about women because it makes you feel superior and scores you points with certain barely coherent Neanderthals who wouldn't know accountability or reason if it bit them in the nuts. You claim that women, being women, lack responsibility and intelligence. I am a woman. So don't kid yourself -- this is as personal as it gets. Maybe it's just the irrational woman in me speaking, but I don't think that "Girls are stupid poopy heads" is a legitimate argument. You apparently see it differently.
No I am sorry. We were having an interesting debate and apparently you took something I wrote as a offensive when It was not intended as such and apparently you went off to the races.....
I will point out that you just wrote a 4 paragraphs to proclaim you are offended that I said women do not have accountability and in the first paragraph you basically state they can't be held accountable in any real way (i.e financailly) because it would damage the child's interests.
As I stated in the original post, I've never fully agreed with the dialoque from the Nicholson charachter, but the accountability part does seem true in the matter of paternity fraud. If the reason part offended you I am sorry, I included it because that is the line from the movie.
I will point out that you just wrote a 4 paragraphs to proclaim you are offended that I said women do not have accountability and in the first paragraph you basically state they can't be held accountable in any real way (i.e financailly) because it would damage the child's interests.
If you prove fraud (which is actually quite difficult), hold them financially accountable by all means -- as long as you find a way to provide for the child without involving the taxpayer. Fair enough? As for the adultery itself, no one is ever held accountable for it financially. Men who cheat on their wives do not get held accountable financially; fault does not impact the distribution of property, or any other financial issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OC Investor2
As I stated in the original post, I've never fully agreed with the dialoque from the Nicholson charachter, but the accountability part does seem true in the matter of paternity fraud. If the reason part offended you I am sorry, I included it because that is the line from the movie.
Even assuming it's true, it would be an exception to the rule. There are many situations in life when men, unlike women, are not held accountable for bad conduct, or held less accountable. Since I've already disclosed that I have a sick child, I might as well say this: I cannot tell you how many times well-meaning people have told me that my husband is a "hero" simply because he didn't leave us. I won't dispute that my husband is a hero, but it's certainly not for the fact that he didn't abandon us. In fact, men are considered fully within their rights to simply walk out on a sick child or a sick wife for the price of leasing a Toyota. Were a woman to do the same, she would be a pariah. I think abandoning one's child because he isn't as perfect as you expected is one of the most profoundly disgusting things any person can do -- yet when men do it, society looks upon it with indulgence and even credits them for good parenting if they pay child support (which in no way compares to actually CARING for the kid). Another obvious example is the so-called midlife crisis. Men who decide to let their raging narcissist out meet with understanding and a sympathetic chuckle, occasionally even envy. The wife -- the ball and chain -- is generally held responsible for her husband's malaise. She allowed herself to be older than 23, and she told him to pick up his **** a few times -- so now he is entitled to a Ferrari and some 20-year-old ass. Middle-aged women, who feel just as lonely and apprehensive about aging, get no such indulgence. They are expected to continue caring for their families (including any minor children), and make sure these children still have a good relationship with their father, who is out somewhere getting in touch with his inner teenager. I would grant you that women are probably held less accountable for domestic violence, but that, again, is a minor exception to the general rule.
If you prove fraud (which is actually quite difficult), hold them financially accountable by all means -- as long as you find a way to provide for the child without involving the taxpayer. Fair enough? As for the adultery itself, no one is ever held accountable for it financially. Men who cheat on their wives do not get held accountable financially; fault does not impact the distribution of property, or any other financial issue.
Even assuming it's true, it would be an exception to the rule. There are many situations in life when men, unlike women, are not held accountable for bad conduct, or held less accountable. Since I've already disclosed that I have a sick child, I might as well say this: I cannot tell you how many times well-meaning people have told me that my husband is a "hero" simply because he didn't leave us. I won't dispute that my husband is a hero, but it's certainly not for the fact that he didn't abandon us. In fact, men are considered fully within their rights to simply walk out on a sick child or a sick wife for the price of leasing a Toyota. Were a woman to do the same, she would be a pariah. I think abandoning one's child because he isn't as perfect as you expected is one of the most profoundly disgusting things any person can do -- yet when men do it, society looks upon it with indulgence and even credits them for good parenting if they pay child support (which in no way compares to actually CARING for the kid). Another obvious example is the so-called midlife crisis. Men who decide to let their raging narcissist out meet with understanding and a sympathetic chuckle, occasionally even envy. The wife -- the ball and chain -- is generally held responsible for her husband's malaise. She allowed herself to be older than 23, and she told him to pick up his **** a few times -- so now he is entitled to a Ferrari and some 20-year-old ass. Middle-aged women, who feel just as lonely and apprehensive about aging, get no such indulgence. They are expected to continue caring for their families (including any minor children), and make sure these children still have a good relationship with their father, who is out somewhere getting in touch with his inner teenager. I would grant you that women are probably held less accountable for domestic violence, but that, again, is a minor exception to the general rule.
Very good points. Women's indiscretions are, definitely, looked down upon more than men's. Even when children are healthy, he's an ok dad if he writes a check. If a mom walked out, she'd be a pariah no matter how big a check she wrote.
Now that I'm struggling with a 14 year old, I find people blame me and not dh yet, counseling has revealed that he is the source of the issue between her and I. Still the finger points at me. There are times I just want to move out and let the two of them sort through this (probably the best thing I could do) but I'd be a bad mom if I did and, I'm sure, the problems stemming from this will still be my fault.
Nope the state is holding him to an obligation HE TOOK ON. The role of father is one you accept. You take it on voluntarily and it doesn't matter if you have a blood tie to the child or not. Once you've established yourself, an presented yourself to the world, as a child's father, you're the father.
Parenthood is not a conditional contract.
I've used this analogy over and over. If one of my kids was switched at birth, my responsiblity to support the child I have raised would not end even if the switch was the result of a deliberate fraud. I have accepted the role of mother to my daughter and presented myself to the wolrd as her mother. I'm still her mother even if she's not genetically my child. It would take a court order to change that and you probably couldn't without good cause.
And for the sake or argument, let's say my child died at birth so there's no other child out there or other couple in the same boat. She'd still be my child.
This is a fraud, if it is one, that the father, blindly, accepts. Right or wrong, when he does that, he takes his chances just like I took mine when I accepted that the hospital gave me the right baby. I trusted them. He trusted her. You can take her to court, as I would the hospital, more to make sure it didn't happen again than for money, and see what they'll give you if you can prove fraud but you don't get out of the responsibility to take care of the child.
Back on topic.. how about you use the man pill , pull out, doggie, in the pool, get snipped, turn gay, don't have sex
How about the woman own up to who the father is if what the OP says is true? Seems like a pretty good solution to me.
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.
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.
And it is a BIT more than spit and q-tip.
