|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why couldn't the forced financial support of children that are not the biological offspring of a man be considered a form of misandric rape?
Who would force a mother to raise someone else's kids under the duress of imprisonment by the state if she didn't? That would be considered an outrage!
But for men, it is "in the best interests of the children." Horse dung!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday March 12, @01:16AM EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Madcap Misogynist will translate.
Thanks for your services...they are always a hoot!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As simple as this all should seem, it realy is a fascinating "can of worms" if you look closely.
First DNA testing being a relativly recent tool in paternity suits there are some men out there who may have originaly married because they believed they were the fathers of children that in fact are not their biological offspring. This meaning that they were tricked and at times forced into a legal contract. Of course this is the reason it is being argued in the courts.
Second, if the current man is not the father and is not held responsible for child support then the unknown biological father will be sought out to pay child support and this could be viewed as forced paternity. Where as a women in most states can choose to A. keep the child, B. put the child up for adoption, C. abort the child, D. drop the child off at the police station or a hospital, a man is not given a choice. This is a problem that is on the agenda of men's groups also and rightly so.
What makes this interesting is the argument that when thinking of child support the interest of the father should be the last thing taken into consideration and the child's needs should be put first. Of course the same argument is not used for the mother when she must make one of the many choices she has when pregnant. The choice she is making is based on her needs (though some can be cloaked in what is best for the baby such as adoption). Why we wonder is the mother given so many options and the father denied the same choices? I suspect that it goes back to an antiquated view of pregnancy that does not take onto consideration modern medicine and modern socialogical changes.
With the invention of the birth control pill we changed the act of intercourse from a pleaserable encounter that both parties involved understood and excepted the risk of pregnancy, to a pleaserable encounter that did not mean a child could be the end result. As simple as this seems the impact of this change is never acknowledged. Accepting the invitation to have sex after the invention of the pill can no longer be assumed an exceptance of parenthood. As a man we have no right to assume that if a woman is willing to have sex that she is consenting to have a baby for us. What current laws are saying is that if we consent to have sex with a woman we are also consenting to support a baby for her.
I believe that the reason for this dichotomy is that our laws and society still view women as the passive partner in the sex act. There for pregancy is "caused" by men because they are the "active" participents. Women are merely passive recipients of men's urges.
It is time for the courts and society to believe what women have been saying for decades, that they have sexual needs, that it is their bodies and they are in control of them and no one should every view it differently. We as men can not force them to carry a pregnancy to full term. Following that line of logic, then the pregnancy is her responsibilty and there for hers to pay for. If the biological father agrees to take joint responsiblity after proof of paternity with DNA tests then at that point he is making an agreement to parenthood and its costs.
I can't help but wonder if the birth rate would drop if the mother thought there was a chance she would have to foot the cost alone.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You wrote:
"""I believe that the reason for this dichotomy is that our laws and society still view women as the passive partner in the sex act. There for pregnancy is "caused" by men because they are the "active" participants. Women are merely passive recipients of men's urges."""
And just who "mostly" enforce and make these misandric laws? "Some" tiresome self-important middle aged men in power and decision making positions in family law and politics. Writing family law and politics in the same sentence may be repeating myself. I think the reason these obnoxious sycophants of the femmunist agenda do this is to fulfill an egoistical need to receive the approval of females in general. The worthless dorkhead Senator Joseph Biden, author of the infamous VAWA Act is a prime example.
Until we understand and accept this reality of narcissistic older men in power positions begging to be tossed female "dog yummy" treats when they please their mistress, then we are just spinning our wheels in advancing the long overdue and much needed men's liberation movement.
You also wrote:
"""I can't help but wonder if the birth rate would drop if the mother thought there was a chance she would have to foot the cost alone."""
Of course it would drop! For some women, too many it seems, now view pregnancy with its accompanying vigorously enforced child support aspect, as a career choice and a control strategy. And control of men is the female version of pornography. Some females get a vacarious thrill out of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"You also wrote:
""I can't help but wonder if the birth rate would drop if the mother thought there was a chance she would have to foot the cost alone.""
Of course it would drop!"
It would only drop so far. You are forgetting the Murphey Brown factor, wherein more career women who have not yet had a child the traditional way (i.e. marriage) are choosing to have babies and raise them on their own. I know of a few such women personally; and then also they show them on tv, feature them in magazines... Women that desparately want the kid, but either can't get or doesn't want the husband and father.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"I know of a few such women personally; and then also they show them on tv, feature them in magazines... Women that desparately want the kid, but either can't get or doesn't want the husband and father."
Ah, such noble souls! So much love to give! I extend to them the same encouragement and sympathy I would to any man who said, "I desperately want a kid. I just can't get and don't want the wife and mother."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I wasn't bringing the right or wrong of it into question, I am just saying that even expecting to raise and pay for their kids without help, there are women who will still want to have them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry. Let me clarify by saying that I agreed with your assessment and I didn't read either endorsement or disapproval in your remarks.
Women making personal decisions that don't legally obligate others to support them sounds good to me. If they can pull it off, more power to 'em.
However, the fact that they're being featured in the media means that they're being used as propaganda in the gender wars. How much shall we bet that the coverage was uniformly empathetic and supportive? How long before we hear that society has an obligation to support and maintain these women in their independence? Maybe a government program or three for them.
*sigh*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What I find interesting is that in each of these cases, there are four parties, not just the two (the child and the duped man) that are always discussed. There is a man who IS the biologic father, and it seems to bother no one that he is never identified and asked to pay to support his child.
And there is the mother, that woman who is always right up there on the pedestal of victimhood with the child. But she is no victim; she is the real villain here, for she is the one who created the situation and lied the lies. She is the one who denied her child the knowledge of who his father really is and lied to that child.
You will notice that "best interests of the child" is never an argument when one is discussing mothers and their rights. It only comes up when one is taking money from men.
In these cases, the truth does not set you free.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
for DNA testing of babies at birth (or within the first year) to determine paternity.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
