« More liberal blowback | Main | Is this really child porn? »

April 19, 2008

Comments

"Another lesson from the L.M.E. case is that all men who think they are fathers should have a paternity test done just to make sure."

How do you get a paternity test done with without offending your spouse?

I imagine the conversation going something like this:

Husband: Honey, I want a paternity test done on the new baby just to make sure it is mine.

Wife: WHAT!!!!!!!!!!!

"How do you get a paternity test done with without offending your spouse?"

There are over the counter paternity tests. You swab the kid yourself and send the results to a lab. There is probably an easy way to avoid having the results be mailed to your residence- maybe list a friend's address or work address? It can be done.

One easy way would be for hospitals to allow the alleged father to get a paternity test confidentially at the time of birth.

Husband: Honey, I want a paternity test done on the new baby just to make sure it is mine.

Wife: WHAT!!!!!!!!!!!
Ah, then, dear, have you got something to hide? (Hey, if it works for state advocates of surveillance...)

Seriously, you still get socked with child support even if it's not yours if you're married. Sex is dangerous.

It is an enormously empowering and liberating feeling to read those numbers, like 99.995 or 99.9995% probability that you are the father. It makes you feel that all the sacrifices and all the work you have put in have been worth it.

Any woman who loved her husband would surely consent to him having that feeling and commitment to the children, and having the level of confidence in paternity that she has in maternity.

As a non-attorney, I am always amazed by the contradictions presented when legal precedent and law are confronted by common sense.

While common sense should always trump silly law, I'm guessing the mechanics of the appeal process will eventually bring sensible judgment out of what initially seems nonsense.

At least I hope so.

It doesn't matter if she somehow objects to the paternity test. I don't think you need her to do it, just you and the kid. And this is so important that you must run the risk of offending your spouse. Every time you are expected to spend 18 years and loads of money to support a kid, you better damn well make sure it's yours. No excuses.

It's obvious that women have all the "rights" and men have all the "responsibilities". The system is biased, and men, so far, are a little too willing to accept it.

80% of women won't cheat on their husband if they love him. Even if he doesn't care if she cheats. Even if he wants her to cheat.

So if you have a somewhat loving relationship, and you don't marry a complete slut, you oughtta be ok.

As far as these court decisions go, I think you guys aren't appreciating a few things:

There is a percentage of guys who are complete dirtbags who will say ANYTHING to get laid; who don't care AT ALL about any children they may father; and who will say ANYTHING to get out of paying child support.

If a man could weasel out of child support payments by claiming he was victimized by the mother, you can bet that hundreds of thousands of dirtbag guys would do exactly that. (This may come as a bit of a surprise to an educated, responsible guy, who would recognize and support any child that was his progeny.)

Anyway, it's probably better to let a small handful of guys get screwed than to let a large number of guys evade responsibility for their conduct.

Anyway, it's probably better to let a small handful of guys get screwed than to let a large number of guys evade responsibility for their conduct.

You might have a moral argument. The thing I've learned is that people will take advantage whenever they can, and use fine-sounding moral arguments to justify it. The church opposes the welfare state because it makes people less dependent on it. Black elites fight for affirmative action into Ivy League colleges and Wall Street that helps their kids and ignore the problems of most blacks. Feminists cry oppression so they can improve their position vis-a-vis men. Business leaders jaw about the free market so they can keep poisoning the air, robbing customers, and exploiting their workers. The Israel lobby...well, Walt and Mearsheimer did it for me, though the Iraq war you can only really lay at the feet of the Jewish right wing; say what you will about Jewish liberals, they did oppose the war. The country still gets lots of money, which annoys the Arabs with all the oil. As for the Muslims, they'll go on about being stereotyped while their mullahs preach all sorts of nasty things. The gays go on about how awful AIDS is when they did it to themselves with all the anal sex, whereas right-wing straights say 'family values' to mean bashing gay people outside of bars.
Have I got everyone yet?

Politics is a fight between groups, and if you think of the public good you will get screwed. And don't let anyone tell you that X is right. Do what's good for you; everyone else is.

Let me speak from the voice of experience:

Girls, or I would say women who believe the crap that men tell them, will get screwed...in more ways than one.

I'm sure that most parents tell their little girls to stay away from boys and of all the evil things that they have planned for the little girls.

Right...?

Actually no, and even if they did, young girls, (read teens and even those older) also have hormones that make them make bad decisions.

Birth Control is just that, control, it is not fool proof nor one hundred percent.

Should a young man (or an old man) be punished for the rest of his life because he believed the girl (woman) when she said "I've got protection"- "I'm on the pill"- " I'm safe right now, in my cycle"- "I have an IUD" or the old standby...."Just use this condom".

None of the above is one hundred percent, and most women put too much faith in "birth control". So if they want to have sex and not call it rape later, and they consent, only to find out later that they have concieved and decide to carry the baby to birth...Is the father responsible?

Sure he is, he believed her.

Papa Ray

dreamin - "Anyway, it's probably better to let a small handful of guys get screwed than to let a large number of guys evade responsibility for their conduct."

Wow,

This might be the LEAST intelligent argument I've ever read on this site.

Just because some other person might escape justice in some other case, it is NOT a justification for punishing a given person excessively (in any context).

How can "screwing over" some guys to extract a radical Feminist revenge over all men be acceptable in a modern society which purports to seek equal justice and equal protections for ALL citizens?

Will taking every last possible penny from one man balance out the fact that some other guy will pay nothing?

How can a sane person even begin to rationalize such a ridiculous notion, even to themselves?

Dreamin - "80% of women won't cheat on their husband if they love him."

And, we recently learned from a poll conducted by Woman’s Day magazine (Published in this article in the NY Times) that over 50% of married women indicated that they DO NOT love their husbands, and would not marry them, if they had it all to do over again.

So, 80% of the 50% of loving wives leaves us with something on the order of 60% of wives who will cheat then.

Hum!, interesting! that's the same percentage of women who admitted to cheating to author Susan Shapiro Barash, author of "Little White Lies, Deep Dark Secrets: The Truth About Why Women Lie"
(Another NYT piece here)

Yes, sir, men would be very wise to do a paternity test on the children they believe might not be theirs.

My general solution is to make child-support dependent upon marriage. If you weren't married to the guy at the time of conception, you shouldn't be able to get a dime.

"Loose" women bring unwanted children into the world. The state should never subsidize their reckless behavior.

I think potential fathers should have a right to opt-out from supporting children anytime from pre-conception to anytime post-conception when the woman can still reasonably get an abortion.

Roe and a variety of laws and court cases hold that having sex, even unprotected, enthusiatically pursued sex, with someone to whom one is married to does not create an obligation to support the resulting pregnancy.

Whoops. Those cases only establish that women do not incur any such obligation from sex.

Reasonably, should mutually consensual interactions establish an obligation for one party, but not the other?

As a matter of law, what a pregnant woman does with her body is her decision, it makes sense that someone who chooses to have a child, which will certainly need support, should bear the costs and benefits of that choice.

A paternal opt-out would not change that women have complete bodily autonomy. But it would give men equivalent reproductive autonomy.

Paternal opt out won't ever happen, of course. Religious conservatives think neither sex should have reproductive freedom, and feminists seem to think other people should be held responsible for the outcome of a woman's choices.

that over 50% of married women indicated that they DO NOT love their husbands, and would not marry them, if they had it all to do over again.

I think this probably answers your previous question from a few days ago asking why do women reject alpha males. It seems that a large number of women are just simply unhappy and miserable with their beta male spouses, and those who are holding out for alpha males are just simply avoiding the headache and problem of having to cheat on their beta husband. A high percentage of women who are unhappy with their husbands only creates an incentive for the next generation of females to avoid marrying beta males, and creates even more competition for the alpha males.

that over 50% of married women indicated that they DO NOT love their husbands, and would not marry them, if they had it all to do over again.

I think this probably answers your previous question from a few days ago asking why do women reject alpha males. It seems that a large number of women are just simply unhappy and miserable with their beta male spouses, and those who are holding out for alpha males are just simply avoiding the headache and problem of having to cheat on their beta husband. A high percentage of women who are unhappy with their husbands only creates an incentive for the next generation of females to avoid marrying beta males, and creates even more competition for the alpha males.


I'm getting pretty skeptical of the entire alpha male/beta male thing. I mean, I don't know any guy who is in really good shape, yet is also successful enough to make $100k or more. I think women are pretty much stuck with an either/or proposition: either marry the hunk, or live in a nice home. They can't really get both.

I think potential fathers should have a right to opt-out from supporting children anytime from pre-conception to anytime post-conception when the woman can still reasonably get an abortion.

That's kind of grisly, and unnecessary. No woman is going to is going to feel romantic with that worry in the back of her head. Rather, we should use the institution of marriage --which is thousands of years old -- to properly clarify what the guy will and won't do.

Ring = He'll stay with me, and take care of me. So, I can fuck his brains out.

No Ring = "Uhmmm, I dunno. Let's just go bowling."

Yeah, it'll suck for many, but at least everyone will know where he stands.

I mean, I don't know any guy who is in really good shape, yet is also successful enough to make $100k or more.
Visit Manhattan sometime. This is one of these things that shows HUGE local variation.

"So, 80% of the 50% of loving wives leaves us with something on the order of 60% of wives who will cheat then."

That may very well be true. However, when married couples have children, it's typically in the earlier stages of the relationship. I would guess the percentage of newleywed women who love their husbands is a good deal higher than 50%.

Look, if your relationship with your wife has gotten pretty lousy, and she tells you she's pregnant, then it may be a good idea to get that DNA test.

"This might be the LEAST intelligent argument I've ever read on this site.

Just because some other person might escape justice in some other case, it is NOT a justification for punishing a given person excessively (in any context)."

Believe it or not, the law makes tradeoffs like this all the time. Examples are too numerous to list.

The bottom line is that we have to tolerate a certain amount of injustice if the system is to function at all.

"My general solution is to make child-support dependent upon marriage."

That's one of the greatest ideas I've ever heard. Too bad it won't happen in a billion years.

Dreamin,

I see where you're coming from, but as a general rule regarding sex, its a good idea to leave the jailbait alone.

If the state of Kansas thinks a 12 year old has the mental capacity and maturity to appeciate the consequences of sex, then why do they make having sex with one a crime? But if the state believes a 12 year old does NOT have the mental capacity to truly consent to sex-- thst sex with a child that young is rape, then how the hell can you stick child support on the victim?

What an insane ruling. Seriously, making a rape victim pay child support is morally in the same category as requiring an escaped slave return to his master.

Dreamin, still championing a bad idea - "The bottom line is that we have to tolerate a certain amount of injustice if the system is to function at all."

NO, no we don't! We should never, ever just "tolerate" injustice.

Yes, it's bound to happen. But the idea that we should tolerate it is absurd. We may never prevent all instances, but that does mean that we shouldn’t try to eliminate injustice. Consider the case of Thomas Clifford McGowan (DNA frees man who spent almost 23 years in prison for rape). Should we just go on tolerating that such perversions of justice occur?

Given that technologies are improving, so too should our justice system.

Sorry, Dreamin, I can’t buy this idea that we have to tolerate injustices for the greater good of the Justice system. BTW, could you give one concrete example of how allowing even one case of injustice would serve to benefit the system?

My general solution is to make child-support dependent upon marriage.

I don't see why that should be the case. The man is just as culpable for his actions either way. And he is just as culpable for having sex outside of wedlock either way. This law would punish everyone involved except the father. I don't see why that should be the case.

I think this probably answers your previous question from a few days ago asking why do women reject alpha males. It seems that a large number of women are just simply unhappy and miserable with their beta male spouses,

Even if we accept the alpha/beta male model, this assumes that those that are unhappy are the ones with beta males. It could well be that those whose husbands are working all the time at their high-powered jobs that are the most discontented. Or those whose alpha male husbands are cheating on them.

If the state of Kansas thinks a 12 year old has the mental capacity and maturity to appreciate the consequences of sex, then why do they make having sex with one a crime?

Well put. By and large if a minor commits a crime, it's all sealed up when he turns 18 when he's tried as an adult. The reason for this is the same reason that we say that they do not have the capacity to consent to sex. It hardly seems fair to turn around and say that this person is therefore legally responsible for his actions for having sex that he was legally unable to consent to and when a crime was committed against him rather than vice-versa.

Trumwill, in reply to "My general solution is to make child-support dependent upon marriage."

I don't see why that should be the case. The man is just as culpable for his actions either way. And he is just as culpable for having sex outside of wedlock either way.

In as much as child-support in not always a straight-forward matter of a man providing financial support for his biological children following a divorce, there are no simple solutions which can adequately address all possible scenarios which we see today.

We see cases of paternity fraud in which a woman simply names some man (usually someone she knows, and knows has some steady income) as the father of her child (no proof required), and, if the unfortunate “mark” doesn’t find out about the fraud being committed against him within a rather short time frame (no requirement for rigorous attempts to inform him), he WILL be declared the father, and will not be able to get himself released from the 18-year financial “obligation”.

In other cases, a woman deceives her husband that another mans child is his. In the event of divorce, he will also be unable to avoid the financial obligation to that other mans child.

Now, in the case of the child-support judgment against the 13-year-old kid, we see yet another perversion of justice in the name of “the best interest of the child”.

What these sorts of situations demonstrate is the unfortunate intersection of male Chivalry and anti-male Feminism. Woman want and demand, and men are deluded into believe that “screwing” a few guy’s is okay, because it will be best for a child.

There is an insidious notion that men are both expendable and interchangeable as “fathers”. Chivalry declares any man can act as a father to a child, and Feminists declare that any mans money will do to pay for a woman raising a child. But, in most of these cases, the men are not even allowed to act as father, but merely ATM’s.

And, why id this? It’s because of the notion that the biological mother is the best person to raise the child, that the father is irrelevant, and that women DESERVE to be provided for so that their children can, in turn, receive some benefit. Thus, the “correct” role of any man who can be declared to be the father is to pay, pay, pay.

But, what if we could turn the tables a bit on just who will be singled out to be “screwed”. What if we could come up will novel approaches to meting out justice so that those who are most culpable end up paying the most.

Already we see a growing market for do-it-yourself DNA/paternity testing; and, in some places, lawmakers are already considering mandatory paternity testing for all babies. A good step in the right direction of forcing women to name the real fathers, and protecting cuckolded husbands and the falsely named from the injustice of paying for the woman’s mistake.

The next step will be creating the legal climate for those who’ve been defrauded to recoup some of their losses.

Finally, we will need to address the issues of men (or, as in the case HS linked, boys) who are fathers, but who cannot be expected to provide. We need to place much more of the blame on the women involved for such cases.

Since we, as a society would be loath to see children suffer for their mothers misdeeds, I propose that we continue to provide welfare assistance (where warranted), but with the proviso that after the child is grown, the woman will be expected to start paying back the money that was “loaned” to her to help cover the cost of her choice to have children that she (nor the biological father) could not support. If the government could recoup even 50% of the taxpayer money given out, it would be a very good thing indeed.

The obvious “pluses” of such an approach would be the protection of men from injustice, the shifting of half of financial obligations on the person who was (at least) 50% responsible for the choice to have the child, and, it could ultimately act as a deterrent to women having children as a way of getting financial support. Children will continue to be provided for, but women will no longer walk-away free from obligation. Some will no doubt argue that these women are being “screwed”, but rather it is protecting everyone else from being screwed by their bad decisions in life. They can live out their post-child rearing years making amends for the burden they’ve created – just like men have had to live out the child-rearing years making amends for their “mistakes”.

Society has no true interest in women birthing excess children, who they will not be paying for, and who will be unlikely to become contributing members of that society. If women knew that they would have to pay back half of the money they expected to receive, they might reconsider the “value” of having that child.


, the shifting of half of financial obligations on the person who was (at least) 50% responsible for the choice to have the child

slwerner, as a matter of law, a pregnant woman is the only person who chooses to have a child. But in general, I agree with you.

As a practical matter, we've tried total choice for women, legal responsibility for men, and as far as I understand, lots of children are unwanted or living in chaotic homes below the poverty line.

It seems we might want to consider letting states experiment with other systems.

"Our legal system has gone mad."

Where have you been? It has been going crazy for quite some time, thanks to liberals and their fucked up ideas.

"Yes, it's bound to happen. But the idea that we should tolerate it is absurd."

Look, I promise you that right now there are innocent people in jail. The only way to get them out and to make sure of it is to release every last inmate.

Personally, I think this is a bad idea. You apparently disagree.

Dreamin, still dreaming - "Look, I promise you that right now there are innocent people in jail. The only way to get them out and to make sure of it is to release every last inmate. Personally, I think this is a bad idea. You apparently disagree."

Spin it all you want, I'm talking about going forward, as in "from this moment on".

Yes, there are innocent people in prison, and we may not be able to provide justice for all of them. You’re putting words in my mouth in your implication that I would be in favor of a mass inmate release.

However, we ought NOT ever tolerate injustice just because only a few suffer from it. We ought to take the necessary steps to ensure that only the guilty suffer their deserved fate.

So, once again, just for the record. It is a very bad idea to tolerate injustice for the sake of a smoothly operating Justice System. We cannot hope to ever prevent it entirely, but we must never sink to the place where we are willing to tolerate it.

My general solution is to make child-support dependent upon marriage.

I don't see why that should be the case. The man is just as culpable for his actions either way. And he is just as culpable for having sex outside of wedlock either way. This law would punish everyone involved except the father. I don't see why that should be the case.


1. It's a way of shaming women into keeping their legs crossed until they're married. Or, if a woman is inclined to wait until marriage anyway, it gives her an excuse to say "no".


2. It's a way of saving taxpayer dollars. Enforcement of child-support laws isn't cheap. The state of Florida spent $8 million in one year on it, only to collect $250k in back payments -- a ratio of $32 spent for every $1 collected.


3. It would elevate married mothers to a higher status than single mothers. If this isn't the best method for reinstating the family as the center of society -- rather than having the government in that position -- then I don't know what is.


4. It would reduce women's willingness to sleep with a guy that she would never marry.


5. A 50% reduction in the number of women fooling around outside of marriage reduces out-of-wedlock births by approximately 50%. An identical reduction in the number of men doing the same thing results in nothing. (Think about it.) Therefore, working on the guys is a waste of time.


6. Most-importantly is this: it would end the lie we currently tell young women, the one that says that even if she gets impregnated by a guy working for minimum-wage (or not at all) we'll ensure she gets "child support".

Nationally, only something like half of all women entitled to child-support get any money whatsoever, let alone a full amount. And as the "full amount" is based on the man's income, it can vary greatly. I've personally seen it range from $400 a week for one child, to $12 a week for the same.

Guess which one of the women was married?

By saying, "Child support is for married women only," we'd pretty much just be telling women the truth.

"Yes, there are innocent people in prison, and we may not be able to provide justice for all of them. You’re putting words in my mouth in your implication that I would be in favor of a mass inmate release.

However, we ought NOT ever tolerate injustice just because only a few suffer from it. We ought to take the necessary steps to ensure that only the guilty suffer their deserved fate."

And you're putting words in my mouth. Of course we should try to make sure that the innocent don't suffer. But that doesn't change the fact that society can and must enforce policies which inevitably result in the suffering of innocents. For example incarcerating those who have been convicted of a crime.

Dreamin protests - "And you're putting words in my mouth. Of course we should try to make sure that the innocent don't suffer."

Okay, let's review...

You've posted:

Anyway, it's probably better to let a small handful of guys get screwed than to let a large number of guys evade responsibility for their conduct.

&

The bottom line is that we have to tolerate a certain amount of injustice if the system is to function at all.

I've posted:

Sorry, Dreamin, I can’t buy this idea that we have to tolerate injustices for the greater good of the Justice system. BTW, could you give one concrete example of how allowing even one case of injustice would serve to benefit the system?

&

However, we ought NOT ever tolerate injustice just because only a few suffer from it. We ought to take the necessary steps to ensure that only the guilty suffer their deserved fate."

So, what words have I supposedly "put in your mouth"? Where did I ever suggest that you've implied something you didn't post?

Here's what putting words in someone elses mouth actually looks like:

You wrote "The only way to get them out and to make sure of it is to release every last inmate. Personally, I think this is a bad idea. You apparently disagree."

Since I never wrote that I beleived in a mass prisoner release, but you contend that there is some evidence that I would be ammenable to it, you implied something that doesn'y exist - that's what is meant by the terminology of putting words in someone elses mouth.

Dreamin protests - "And you're putting words in my mouth. Of course we should try to make sure that the innocent don't suffer."

Okay, let's review...

You've posted:

Anyway, it's probably better to let a small handful of guys get screwed than to let a large number of guys evade responsibility for their conduct.

&

The bottom line is that we have to tolerate a certain amount of injustice if the system is to function at all.

I've posted:

Sorry, Dreamin, I can’t buy this idea that we have to tolerate injustices for the greater good of the Justice system. BTW, could you give one concrete example of how allowing even one case of injustice would serve to benefit the system?

&

However, we ought NOT ever tolerate injustice just because only a few suffer from it. We ought to take the necessary steps to ensure that only the guilty suffer their deserved fate."

So, what words have I supposedly "put in your mouth"? Where did I ever suggest that you've implied something you didn't post?

Here's what putting words in someone elses mouth actually looks like:

You wrote "The only way to get them out and to make sure of it is to release every last inmate. Personally, I think this is a bad idea. You apparently disagree."

Since I never wrote that I beleived in a mass prisoner release, but you contend that there is some evidence that I would be ammenable to it, you implied something that doesn't exist (not "voiced" by me) - that's what is meant by the terminology of putting words in someone elses mouth.

Dreamin protests - "And you're putting words in my mouth. Of course we should try to make sure that the innocent don't suffer."

Okay, let's review...

You've posted:

Anyway, it's probably better to let a small handful of guys get screwed than to let a large number of guys evade responsibility for their conduct.

&

The bottom line is that we have to tolerate a certain amount of injustice if the system is to function at all.

I've posted:

Sorry, Dreamin, I can’t buy this idea that we have to tolerate injustices for the greater good of the Justice system. BTW, could you give one concrete example of how allowing even one case of injustice would serve to benefit the system?

&

However, we ought NOT ever tolerate injustice just because only a few suffer from it. We ought to take the necessary steps to ensure that only the guilty suffer their deserved fate."

So, what words have I supposedly "put in your mouth"? Where did I ever suggest that you've implied something you didn't post?

Here's what putting words in someone elses mouth actually looks like:

You wrote "The only way to get them out and to make sure of it is to release every last inmate. Personally, I think this is a bad idea. You apparently disagree."

Since I never wrote that I beleived in a mass prisoner release, but you contend that there is some evidence that I would be ammenable to it, you implied something that doesn't exist (not "voiced" by me) - that's what is meant by the terminology of putting words in someone elses mouth.

The comments to this entry are closed.