Is this somehow supposed to be fair?

Jaw-Knee · 03-23-2009, 12:41 PM

http://www.canadiancrc.com/Newspaper...t_14DEC02.aspx

Strong repost, don't care. I'm looking for feedback, particularly from feminists.

parsnip1965 · 03-23-2009, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jaw-Knee

http://www.canadiancrc.com/Newspaper...t_14DEC02.aspx

Strong repost, don't care. I'm looking for feedback, particularly from feminists.

Is what fair? Telling the parents of a sick baby that one of them is not the real parent? Telling the parents of a well baby? Or cheating on your spouse? Can't follow the question.

Finner · 03-23-2009, 12:59 PM

Holy ****.

"In one family with four daughters, the DNA analysis was so surprising that counsellors asked the mother to explain. "It turned out that the daughters had three different fathers," said Peter Ray, a scientist at the hospital."

Umm. . .I'm sorry. If a woman has four daughters with three different men and NONE or only ONE of them is the guy she's married to, I'm going to have kind of a hard time not being judgmental. Yeah. . .I'll just go ahead and say it - I'd be REALLY judgmental. If my brother married a girl and I found out that three of the four kids weren't his, I'd hit the roof and want to rip her face off. I don't know why I feel that way, it's just. . .instinctive. It's so friggin DISHONEST. And what about those kids? WTF? I mean, you're raised thinking you have a family (and you DO), but then you find out that your "dad" isn't your biological dad. . .that your biological dad is probably a guy who never had a chance to know you existed and belonged to him? WTF is up with THAT? Or the poor sucker whose been raising them for so long, thinking that they are his. . .It's not like he can shut his feelings off just because the kids aren't biologically his. What kind of MIND **** is that for the poor guy? GEEEZ.

Of course, screwing around with DNA is kind of scary. I mean, even in the article, they state that there IS an error rate and that conditions DO exist where one parent's data obscures the other. . .so, I would guess that they shouldn't say anything to anyone unless they are 100% certain.

But damn. . .DAMN. . .how would YOU like to be the doctor that discovers that information. I mean, it's not fair for a person to not know the medical history of their biological parent because mommy won't admit that she boffed the mailman.

The only defense I can see in this position is that it is NOT the physician's RESPONSIBILITY to tattle on the mother. . .but they could "strongly encourage" her to come clean or at least make it part of that kid's permanent medical record.

I just don't know WHAT to say to all of this. It's horrible!

Jaw-Knee · 03-23-2009, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by parsnip1965

Is what fair? Telling the parents of a sick baby that one of them is not the real parent? Telling the parents of a well baby? Or cheating on your spouse? Can't follow the question.

Uh, how about all of the above?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Finner

The only defense I can see in this position is that it is NOT the physician's RESPONSIBILITY to tattle on the mother. . .but they could "strongly encourage" her to come clean or at least make it part of that kid's permanent medical record.

No, it's not the physician's responsibility, but who else is going to tell the guy? It sure as hell won't be the same mother who giggles over pamphlets about false paternity in waiting rooms.

Keltron · 03-23-2009, 01:40 PM

"Tyrelle, when it comes to 3 year old Nykeshia [opens large manilla envelope]............. you are NOT the father!"

tyranire · 03-23-2009, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keltron

"Tyrelle, when it comes to 3 year old Nykeshia [opens large manilla envelope]............. you are NOT the father!"

You can always count on Maury!

Jaw-Knee · 03-23-2009, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keltron

"Tyrelle, when it comes to 3 year old Nykeshia [opens large manilla envelope]............. you are NOT the father!"

Quote:

Originally Posted by tyranire

You can always count on Maury!

Except that guy wasn't the woman's husband and therefore had a much easier time of it than the guys who have their lives effectively torn to shreds in divorce court and end up being forced to support children who aren't theirs.

RebeccaG · 03-23-2009, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jaw-Knee

Except that guy wasn't the woman's husband and therefore had a much easier time of it than the guys who have their lives effectively torn to shreds in divorce court and end up being forced to support children who aren't theirs.

I will never understand that. How can the courts force a man to pay for a child that isn't his? How is it legally his obligation to support children he didn't produce?

Men get royally screwed in the bum when it comes to divorces and child support. Disgusting how children become 'property' when you no longer love the person you made them with. Or, in this case, didn't make them with...

Finner · 03-23-2009, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RebeccaG

I will never understand that. How can the courts force a man to pay for a child that isn't his? How is it legally his obligation to support children he didn't produce?

Men get royally screwed in the bum when it comes to divorces and child support. Disgusting how children become 'property' when you no longer love the person you made them with. Or, in this case, didn't make them with...

Rebecca - you'd be surprised. Our court systems never fail to astound me. Down where I live, if the man has been operating under the assumption that the child is his and has accepted responsibility of the child, I've seen the Courts make that man continue to pay child support. The reasoning they use is that he accepted the responsibility of the child for, say, the last seven years and is thus responsible for keeping clothes on their back, a roof over their head and food in their tummies - especially if he wants to continue to SEE the children and treat them as his own. It's an effed up situation all around. . .

Jaw-Knee · 03-23-2009, 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Finner

Rebecca - you'd be surprised. Our court systems never fail to astound me. Down where I live, if the man has been operating under the assumption that the child is his and has accepted responsibility of the child, I've seen the Courts make that man continue to pay child support. The reasoning they use is that he accepted the responsibility of the child for, say, the last seven years and is thus responsible for keeping clothes on their back, a roof over their head and food in their tummies - especially if he wants to continue to SEE the children and treat them as his own. It's an effed up situation all around. . .

No more complaining about how easy we have it, please.

(Not saying you complain, just throwing it out there in a futile attempt to get through to those who do complain.)

RebeccaG · 03-23-2009, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Finner

Rebecca - you'd be surprised. Our court systems never fail to astound me. Down where I live, if the man has been operating under the assumption that the child is his and has accepted responsibility of the child, I've seen the Courts make that man continue to pay child support. The reasoning they use is that he accepted the responsibility of the child for, say, the last seven years and is thus responsible for keeping clothes on their back, a roof over their head and food in their tummies - especially if he wants to continue to SEE the children and treat them as his own. It's an effed up situation all around. . .

I can kinda see the logic if it's a case of unofficial adoption so to speak. I think it's a little unfair to step into a kids life - WILLINGLY - as a parent figure for several years and then, when you and the bio-parent are splitsville - you walk out on the child, too.

Course I'm assuming the other bio-parent is LONG gone and there was some sort of agreement about this person stepping up as a parent. There are a LOT of factors to consider here.

And as I reread that, I'm not even convinced. SUPER sticky situation.

Now if buddy was led to believe it was his kid all along, finds out it's not, and then is made to pay because he 'assumed responsibility all along' that is BS.

Either way, I will NEVER understand how you have to write a test to operate a motor vehicle, yet any two idiots can get together and make a baby. But that's a whole 'nother thread.

Jaw-Knee · 03-23-2009, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RebeccaG

I can kinda see the logic if it's a case of unofficial adoption so to speak. I think it's a little unfair to step into a kids life - WILLINGLY - as a parent figure for several years and then, when you and the bio-parent are splitsville - you walk out on the child, too.

Course I'm assuming the other bio-parent is LONG gone and there was some sort of agreement about this person stepping up as a parent. There are a LOT of factors to consider here.

And as I reread that, I'm not even convinced. SUPER sticky situation.

Now if buddy was led to believe it was his kid all along, finds out it's not, and then is made to pay because he 'assumed responsibility all along' that is BS.

Either way, I will NEVER understand how you have to write a test to operate a motor vehicle, yet any two idiots can get together and make a baby. But that's a whole 'nother thread.

Even in those situations, though, you're never really the parent. It'd be like giving custody of a good guy's kids to his bitch wife because she wanted a divorce and he somehow managed to get thoroughly, utterly, royally screwed. She accepted parental responsibility after all by entering into a relationship with the guy, right? That still doesn't make the outcome fair, or right.

Finner · 03-23-2009, 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RebeccaG

Now if buddy was led to believe it was his kid all along, finds out it's not, and then is made to pay because he 'assumed responsibility all along' that is BS.

Either way, I will NEVER understand how you have to write a test to operate a motor vehicle, yet any two idiots can get together and make a baby. But that's a whole 'nother thread.

Yup. That's what the courts of good old South Cackilacky have stated in at least two cases that I know of. It's crazy.

And I'm with ya on that last sentiment. I'm thinking of one woman in particular who has two children - 24 and 20. . .and then, has an 8 year old (that she abandoned because of drugs) and an infant (that was born addicted to crack). Nice, huh?

RebeccaG · 03-23-2009, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jaw-Knee

Even in those situations, though, you're never really the parent. It'd be like giving custody of a good guy's kids to his bitch wife because she wanted a divorce and he somehow managed to get thoroughly, utterly, royally screwed. She accepted parental responsibility after all by entering into a relationship with the guy, right? That still doesn't make the outcome fair, or right.

The kids aren't hers? Is that what you're saying? That is definitely not fair or right. Can't argue that.

I don't know the right answer. There are WAY too many factors to consider.

I do think being a parent has nothing to do with biology and everything to do with choices and commitment - speaking from experience. Even though you despise your soon-to-be ex, the kids did nothing wrong.

At the same time, technically, you don't hold any responsibility to those children after the relationship has ended. But maybe morally you would?

I don't know. Like I said, very sticky.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Finner

Yup. That's what the courts of good old South Cackilacky have stated in at least two cases that I know of. It's crazy.

And I'm with ya on that last sentiment. I'm thinking of one woman in particular who has two children - 24 and 20. . .and then, has an 8 year old (that she abandoned because of drugs) and an infant (that was born addicted to crack). Nice, huh?

The people I'm thinking of now look like saints....

Jaw-Knee · 03-23-2009, 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RebeccaG

The kids aren't hers? Is that what you're saying? That is definitely not fair or right. Can't argue that.

I don't know the right answer. There are WAY too many factors to consider.

I do think being a parent has nothing to do with biology and everything to do with choices and commitment - speaking from experience. Even though you despise your soon-to-be ex, the kids did nothing wrong.

At the same time, technically, you don't hold any responsibility to those children after the relationship has ended. But maybe morally you would?

I don't know. Like I said, very sticky.

My point was that if she stepped in and "assumed responsibility" for the guy's kids when she married him and became a de facto mother, would it be right for her to take the kids away from her soon-to-be ex if she could?

If you're not a parent, you're not a parent. It should be up to you whether or not you want to get involved, not the court and certainly not the woman out to screw you out of everything you have. If the kids aren't blood or aren't adopted, you shouldn't owe them or their whore mother anything.

So what if the kids did nothing wrong? You're not punishing them by not giving them something you don't owe them. On the contrary, their mother is the one responsible. Make her pay damages (as she rightfully should for leeching all that money and effort out of a guy who tried to be a good father to children who aren't his) and throw her ass in jail if she can't pay up.

The only moral responsibilities are the ones you give yourself. Nobody should have the right to force that upon you. Even God doesn't fuck with free will.

pryme · 03-23-2009, 04:14 PM

Not married and no kids by design FTW.

BittyMonkey · 03-23-2009, 04:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jaw-Knee

http://www.canadiancrc.com/Newspaper...t_14DEC02.aspx

Strong repost, don't care. I'm looking for feedback, particularly from feminists.

Because feminists are all for fraud?

*eyeroll*

Jaw-Knee · 03-23-2009, 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BittyMonkey

Because feminists are all for fraud?

*eyeroll*

The self-righteous, self-proclaimed feminists who are totally cool with using what they've got to manipulate men and make it ahead in this "Man's World?" Sure, they be fraudin' all the time.

BittyMonkey · 03-23-2009, 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jaw-Knee

The self-righteous, self-proclaimed feminists who are totally cool with using what they've got to manipulate men and make it ahead in this "Man's World?" Sure, they be fraudin' all the time.

Nice stereotypes you got there.

I suppose they're all hairy legged dykes too?

Jaw-Knee · 03-23-2009, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BittyMonkey

Nice stereotypes you got there.

I suppose they're all hairy legged dykes too?

Not at all. Therein lies the danger.

RebeccaG · 03-23-2009, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jaw-Knee

My point was that if she stepped in and "assumed responsibility" for the guy's kids when she married him and became a de facto mother, would it be right for her to take the kids away from her soon-to-be ex if she could?

If you're not a parent, you're not a parent. It should be up to you whether or not you want to get involved, not the court and certainly not the woman out to screw you out of everything you have. If the kids aren't blood or aren't adopted, you shouldn't owe them or their whore mother anything.

So what if the kids did nothing wrong? You're not punishing them by not giving them something you don't owe them. On the contrary, their mother is the one responsible. Make her pay damages (as she rightfully should for leeching all that money and effort out of a guy who tried to be a good father to children who aren't his) and throw her ass in jail if she can't pay up.

The only moral responsibilities are the ones you give yourself. Nobody should have the right to force that upon you. Even God doesn't fuck with free will.

Well, when you put it that way....lol

I completely agree that the decision shouldn't be up to the courts. And I agree that the guy doesn't OWE the kids anything, I don't think it's a matter of anyone owing anyone else anything.

This sounds so cliche, I know

but think of the kids....lol Kids have people walking in and out of their lives with no explanation, no thought, no consideration. I think it is a sort of punishment to tell a child you want to be a parent to them and then to say your mom's a whore, see ya. You def don't OWE them anything, again it's that moral thing....which I agree shouldn't involve the courts at all.

I don't really know what to say. I agree with you but.....

Any person - man or woman - who steps up for children that are not theirs is pretty much a saint in my eyes. That's about all I can be sure of. The rest makes my head hurt.

BittyMonkey · 03-23-2009, 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jaw-Knee

Not at all. Therein lies the danger.

Danger, my ass.

Lots about our court system is broken. It has nothing to do with "feminists."

Lots of feminists, myself being one, are not interested in having children at all, and therefore have no interest in "trapping men", and are very pro-father's rights.

There is no such thing as a standard, all believing the same thing, "feminist."

What people like yourself mean when you say "feminist" is usually either:

1) Women I hate because they aren't what I think they should be or
2) Women I blame for the world's ****ing problems or
3) Women who aren't interested in sucking my dick.

Jaw-Knee · 03-23-2009, 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RebeccaG

Well, when you put it that way....lol

I completely agree that the decision shouldn't be up to the courts. And I agree that the guy doesn't OWE the kids anything, I don't think it's a matter of anyone owing anyone else anything.

This sounds so cliche, I know

but think of the kids....lol Kids have people walking in and out of their lives with no explanation, no thought, no consideration. I think it is a sort of punishment to tell a child you want to be a parent to them and then to say your mom's a whore, see ya. You def don't OWE them anything, again it's that moral thing....which I agree shouldn't involve the courts at all.

I don't really know what to say. I agree with you but.....

Any person - man or woman - who steps up for children that are not theirs is pretty much a saint in my eyes. That's about all I can be sure of. The rest makes my head hurt.

"WON'T SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?!"

So somebody who takes responsibility for kids who aren't his becomes a saint in your eyes and everybody else is an asshat? What about the people who are tired of getting screwed and are just trying to move on with their lives?

So what if it's not the kids' fault? It's not the guy's fault, either. Make the woman pay. Hell, if they go live with somebody else at least they won't be raised by a whore mother. Who knows, maybe they'll turn out better for it and think back on why life was what it was. When they realize that it's because their mother was a cheating skank then maybe they'll be less likely to exhibit the same future (provided they care about making themselves more than what their mother was).

RebeccaG · 03-23-2009, 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BittyMonkey

Lots about our court system is broken. It has nothing to do with "feminists."

I don't want to speak for anyone, but I don't think anyone was "blaming' feminists for anything.

OP was asking for feedback - specifically from feminists. I don't think he cared whether or not they were the hairy-legged dyke variety.

Jaw-Knee · 03-23-2009, 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BittyMonkey

Danger, my ass.

Lots about our court system is broken. It has nothing to do with "feminists."

Lots of feminists, myself being one, are not interested in having children at all, and therefore have no interest in "trapping men", and are very pro-father's rights.

There is no such thing as a standard, all believing the same thing, "feminist."

What people like yourself mean when you say "feminist" is usually either:

1) Women I hate because they aren't what I think they should be or
2) Women I blame for the world's ****ing problems or
3) Women who aren't interested in sucking my dick.

Lol, so the one who just got on my jock about stereotyping inevitably jumps to the "You're just mad you aren't getting laid!" defense.

If I wanted to get laid that bad, I would. There are plenty of sluts and hookers out there that a nut doesn't really matter much to me.

Feminism today is not what it used to be, it seems. It's kind of like punk. It used to be about a statement, and now it's all about a message a bunch of posers who killed the scene distribute to infect minds.

Lol @ "people like yourself."

limniade · 03-23-2009, 05:07 PM

Men love to whine about how much money they lose when they have to pay alimony and child support. They always seem to boil fatherhood and marriage down to the impact on the wallet--like that's the only thing that matters.

I wonder how they'd react if, were the courts REALLY fair, they were the ones who were awarded custody of the kids?

Fair is fair, right? Let the wife write a check and visit a couple times a month, and the husband be the one to raise the kids, take them everywhere, be the one who feeds them and buys them clothes and takes them to school and soccer practice. Let the husband give up dating until the kids are in college, let the husband be the one applying for food stamps and having people at the grocery store think he's a loser who can't keep his pants zipped and thus has to be a "burden on society". Let the wife be considered a saint for doing nothing more than writing a check, and taking her kids to a ball game every other weekend.

As a feminist, I would ****ing love to see that.

RebeccaG · 03-23-2009, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jaw-Knee

"WON'T SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?!"

That's exactly what was going through my head...lol

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jaw-Knee

So somebody who takes responsibility for kids who aren't his becomes a saint in your eyes and everybody else is an asshat?

Pretty much. :P

I just think people who take on the responsibility of a child that is not theirs are pretty awesome whether it be by relationship, marriage, adoption, whatever.

I don't think I'm making my point very clear - probably cause my head hurts so much and I'm not even entirely sure what my point is.... (And I can't help but think a specific woman is being referred to and I have no idea who she is. lol)

Maintaining a relationship with children after the relationship with the bio-parent has dissolved is not right for every situation. In some/many cases it may just be best for everyone if they all go their separate ways. I wouldn't fault anyone for that. I would just hope that more thought went into it then 'your mom is a whore, see ya.'

Jaw-Knee · 03-23-2009, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RebeccaG

That's exactly what was going through my head...lol

You were right--totally cliche.

Quote:

Pretty much. :P

I just think people who take on the responsibility of a child that is not theirs are pretty awesome whether it be by relationship, marriage, adoption, whatever.

I don't think I'm making my point very clear - probably cause my head hurts so much and I'm not even entirely sure what my point is.... (And I can't help but think a specific woman is being referred to and I have no idea who she is. lol)

Maintaining a relationship with children after the relationship with the bio-parent has dissolved is not right for every situation. In some/many cases it may just be best for everyone if they all go their separate ways. I wouldn't fault anyone for that. I would just hope that more thought went into it then 'your mom is a whore, see ya.'

Good on them. They're going above and beyond. You shouldn't have to go above and beyond.

No specific woman in mind, just women in general. Or, if you get a little sensitive about generalizations, the women who pull the **** the article is about.

I didn't say anything about cutting contact completely because of the mother's actions (though I can understand why one would). I'm just saying that the "dads" in these situations shouldn't be shafted with a financial burden they shouldn't have to bear on top of the emotional burden they should never have had to bear.

RebeccaG · 03-23-2009, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by limniade

Men love to whine about how much money they lose when they have to pay alimony and child support. They always seem to boil fatherhood and marriage down to the impact on the wallet--like that's the only thing that matters.

I wonder how they'd react if, were the courts REALLY fair, they were the ones who were awarded custody of the kids?

Fair is fair, right? Let the wife write a check and visit a couple times a month, and the husband be the one to raise the kids, take them everywhere, be the one who feeds them and buys them clothes and takes them to school and soccer practice. Let the husband give up dating until the kids are in college, let the husband be the one applying for food stamps and having people at the grocery store think he's a loser who can't keep his pants zipped and thus has to be a "burden on society". Let the wife be considered a saint for doing nothing more than writing a check, and taking her kids to a ball game every other weekend.

As a feminist, I would ****ing love to see that.

There are men who would love nothing more than to have this option.

And there are men who are ****ing deadbeats and STILL whine a complain about how much they lost in the divorce, when in reality they are FAR better off than the woman and child he deserted - my father is a perfect example of that.

Jaw-Knee · 03-23-2009, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by limniade

Men love to whine about how much money they lose when they have to pay alimony and child support. They always seem to boil fatherhood and marriage down to the impact on the wallet--like that's the only thing that matters.

I wonder how they'd react if, were the courts REALLY fair, they were the ones who were awarded custody of the kids?

Fair is fair, right? Let the wife write a check and visit a couple times a month, and the husband be the one to raise the kids, take them everywhere, be the one who feeds them and buys them clothes and takes them to school and soccer practice. Let the husband give up dating until the kids are in college, let the husband be the one applying for food stamps and having people at the grocery store think he's a loser who can't keep his pants zipped and thus has to be a "burden on society". Let the wife be considered a saint for doing nothing more than writing a check, and taking her kids to a ball game every other weekend.

As a feminist, I would ****ing love to see that.

Because the mothers who spend the child support money on shoes and handbags are human beings of a much higher caliber, right?

To be honest, I would go to those lengths for my kids. My kids. Not her kids, my kids. It would suck big, hairy balls, but for my kids? Why not? Lol, life is suffering, anyway.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RebeccaG

There are men who would love nothing more than to have this option.

And there are men who are ****ing deadbeats and STILL whine a complain about how much they lost in the divorce, when in reality they are FAR better off than the woman and child he deserted - my father is a perfect example of that.

This isn't about the deadbeats. This is about the good men who get duped.