|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So what this means, if I understand it correctly, is that if we have a WOMAN who abandoned her baby at birth, and some time later we discover her identity, then the state can sue her for all of the expenses associated with health care and foster care, etc., and the taxpayers can be reimbursed, right?
Yeah, right!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
According to the court:
``The rights of support and meaningful relationship belong to the child, not the parent; therefore, neither parent can bargain away those rights.''
Sounds great. But think about it.
1) Is providing money under legal compulsion a meaningful relationship? Too bad this court seems to think so. Forcing a man to pay money to a woman solely on the basis that he had sex with her ("child support") trivializes the relationship between men and children.
2) Does "child support" have anything to do with a child's economic need for support? Answer: no.
Orwellian "child support" has got to go. And if there were a clearer public understanding that men are fully human beings, then maybe the many ways that men care for and support children would be recognzied.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday November 17, @11:09PM EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
It doesn't matter if the words are empty and insulting. This is simply the way the law is written. I am not saying that the law is good, especially not in this case, but this *is* the way it's written. Current law says that child support is the right of the child, not the mother. Because of this, the judge had no option but to rule the way he did. Judges can't just ignore the law.
The only way to eliminate child support is to change the law by arguing that children don't have a Constitutional right to support from their parents, which they don't. I believe this would hold up if someone challenged it. It would open up a can of worms in other areas. What happens within a marriage if a pregnant wife wants the kid but the husband doesn't, for example? But, child support would be *eliminated* if challenged on its Constitutionality.
Minors do not have a legal right to a free ride. Up until the mid-20th century, minors were made to get jobs and earn their own keep, and this could be one of the arguments against the unconstitutionality of child support.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday November 18, @12:52AM EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
Even if we did decide to keep the law the way it is, with minors having the right to support, the law should be amended to make exceptions in cases like this, where the parents sign a contract prior to the child's conception. An amendment might be better than eliminating child support altogether, because the latter will cause its own problems, and end up damaging fathers rights further.
I still feel that the judge had his hands tied in this case because of the current law. I don't think this is a bad judge. It's a bad *law.*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This doctor is "reported" to have agreed to siring a child as a "favour" to a woman.
This is a joke right?
Like some fucking king or god he bestows his magic sperm on this poor suffering female?
Give me a break for crying out loud!!!!!
Now this incredibly arrogant and selfish act has come back to haunt him as do most incredibly arrogant and selfish acts.
An asshole like this would probably have his DNA bronzed if it were possible.
Both of these idiots should have their tubes tied.
We have enough stupid jerks in the world as it is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>Both of these idiots should have their tubes tied.
>We have enough stupid jerks in the world as it is.
Can't say I don't agree with that. Six billion "miracles" are enough! If this woman wanted a kid so damned bad, she should have adopted one of the millions of children who were abandoned by parents who didn't want them, or seized from parents who abused them.
But noooooooooooo. It had to be *her* DNA. I'd bet she'd get her eggs bronzed if she could.
But, stupid as this guy is, and as pathetic as this whole scenario is, homeboy shouldn't have to pay child support. He was a contracted sperm donor, not a father. Like the anon user said, the judge likely had his hands tied by bad law.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In Canada every male is a sperm donor.
The universal distinction from my terrible experience here lies ultimately in whether or not said donor is a disinterested third party.
In Canada, we don't allow donors to become disinterested third parties.
Here as far as children are concerned no one can be declared disinterested. They can be readily disenfranchised but not disinterested.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
