|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday August 31, @12:43PM EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
Great! Now defrauded men can get reparations from.... biological fathers!
Again I ask: where is the punishment in this bill for the REAL criminal, the woman who defrauded the man?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Great! Now defrauded men can get reparations from.... biological fathers!
Again I ask: where is the punishment in this bill for the REAL criminal, the woman who defrauded the man?
There is no such thing as a slam-dunk except rarely. This is politics and it’s about incrementalsim. This is about being in there for the long haul. NCFM, LA and others will be in there again next year to expand the scope of this bill. And yes we want women that intentionally defraud men to be criminally liable.
In my opinion, it is ironic that billionaires like Kirk Kerkorian, who are victims of paternity fraud, will idly stand buy and refuse to support our efforts in passing a law that will hold women criminally liable when they commit paternity fraud and reap millions as a reward.
His attorney was contacted at a key moment and was asked to help support AB2240. But, for whatever reason, he sat idly by and refused to help lobby the Ca legislature. I can guarantee that if he had have been there (or represented) it would have made a major difference. I can't help but wonder if he is a whiner that complains about the erosion of men's rights and does nothing.
We felt Kerkorian's absence and silence very deeply. The silence of people like Kerkorian literally hurt us quite badly at a key moment and (IMO) resulted in a weakening of AB240. So if you want somebody to blame then blame Kerkorian for what in my opinion is his apparent apathy. Apparently, he must not mind being defrauded $325,000 per month. For a fraction of that, he could have made a major difference in helping to craft AB2240.
Nevertheless, this fight is going to continue for years. There will be more opportunities to make changes. Already the opposition is organizing to destroy this law. Men are going to need staying power on this one. We will need to make further incremental improvements for years to come. If you are looking for a quick fix then you’re wasting everybody’s time. There is no such thing.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday September 01, @02:25AM EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
I may be wrong, But this Kirk Kerkorian sounds to Me to be yet another Wussy-poopie.
You know, The kind of guy that no matter what a woman or women in general do, He just sits there submisively with a dumb, sheepish smile on his kisser.
These kind of guys drive me NUTS!
The worst thing is, Is that there is NO shortage of these kind of guys!
"I see Wussy-poopies, They're every where. They don't even know they're Wussy-poopies."
(in case anyone can't tell, I'm Paraphrazeing Haley Joel Osment In the Movie "The Sixth sense", You know, where he says; "I see dead people..."?)
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thundercloud:
Here goes my scientific side again. Your comment brings to my mind that worn old phrase of masculine behavior known as, "p----y whipped."
Perhaps, one of our great scientific researchers could do a study about the changing patterns of perception and consciousness in the male brain, through female stimulation of the p---s. Eruditely, he could explain how that activity leads to apathetical nuances, wherein survival defenses in the male are imperceptively deactivated. Of course the female partner is just explaining this behavior to the male as "sharing and trusting each other," thereby further disarming the male survival defenses. Many a man has been heard to explain to his chagrin, "I got blindsided, or I never saw it coming!"
I know that what I'm talking about is a fact. I know it would be easy to prove. My goodness I've even done unscientific experiments on myself on this one and seen the effects (like a lot of other men have too, I'm sure).
Still, if you've got money to burn, and the ladies are plentiful, I don't know too many men (especially young ones) who would take an ethical "stand," when they could be engaging in an activity of another kind in the prone position. How's this for a title of the study: "The master/slave relationship in the penis/man equation?"
Just another insight into that strange male phenomenon that has come to be known as, "THE WUSSY POOPIE FACTOR!"
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Still, if you've got money to burn, and the ladies are plentiful, I don't know too many men (especially young ones) who would take an ethical "stand," when they could be engaging in an activity of another kind in the prone position."
This was the main point that I was trying to make, "THE WUSSY POOPIE FACTOR," is a fatal illness. Men don't learn. They just keep falling for this one, and falling for this one. Sex is a life promoting physical addication (a trick of nature) that every man recieves the basics of when he is born, then matures fully into as a man.
I think it's great that we make an effort to keep people off drugs, however a lot more long term pain and misery could be averted if we could keep men off women (given the adversarial nature of our legal system). I for one, having been born addicted (no pun intended), don't hold a lot of long term hope for that. That's why I think it is wise to argue for equal rights, and a truce, rather than all out victory. I don't want to annihilate the enemy. I just want to live at peace with them and not be enemies. It would be great if our government worked as hard at promoting harmony between the sexes as they do at passing laws to create "strife for a profit" in their advesarial approach to family relations/family law.
I'm sure I'll get called a wussy poopie, a sexist, a neanderthal, all those terms for saying this, but hey, "inquiring minds want to know."
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"That's why I think it is wise to argue for equal rights, and a truce, rather than all out victory. I don't want to annihilate the enemy. I just want to live at peace with them and not be enemies."
I've been told that one of the things that makes me such a unique coversationalist is that I just keep talking long after everyone else has walked away (just kidding). I know I'm talking to myself a little here, but I just wanted to add to the thought above.
I spent about 4 hours in the L.A. law library this weekend looking up stuff. One of things that jumped out at me as I was reading one of the journals was that men in divorce/custody settlements stated that, what they were looking for, was equality (as I have stated above).
On the other hand, this article went on to state that women were not expecting equality, but favored status becuause of their roles as women and mothers. That sense of special entitlement beyond the equal rights that they are entitled to must be one of the targets of the Men's Movement as I see it.
I think this is why one male friend I know argues so strongly that all women should be "OBLIGATED" to all military service that a man is, including combat, and if they would unnecessarily endanger men due to any inherent physical weakness, they should be formed into special units (still requiring the same level of service) so that they do not unnecessarily endanger men. As drastic as this sounds I think his proposal would go a long way toward creating a more realistic viewpoint of equality in male/female realtionships. This is not an arguement for the annihilation of women, it's a call for equality. Let the government annihilate them on the same order they have been annihilating men for centuries. You've come a long way baby, NOW stick your head out of that foxhole and take what men have been taking for their country. You'll never be even close to equal till you do.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday September 02, @04:56AM EST (#18)
|
|
|
|
|
No, Ray, I haven't walked away, I'm listening to you.(^-^)
Something you said earlier, about Men being controlled by Women through sex.
I couldn't agree MORE with you on that.
That said, THIS is the EXACT reason I became celebit (I THINK I spelled that right.) I got flamed a bit, when I posted this about myself, a few months ago. But there IS great METHOD to my "MADNESS".
SEX is one of, if not THE greatest weapon women use against men. hithero, once I was celebit, their "great weapon" was no more.
It is AMAZEING the clairity of thought and prespective I gained once the female was "dis-armed".
"Wussy-poopies" are not just controlled by sex, they are SLAVES to it. therefore inslaved by their very own harmones.
In my expirience, whom ever is in controll of their harmones is in controll or THEMSELVES. The Feminists and Women have NO power over you, NONE!
Therfore you do not capitulate to their astoundingly irrational demands, which invariably demand revokation of yours, and all men's constitutional and civil rights.
It is ,again the wussy-poopie who is primairily responsible for the erosion of men's rights in this country as well as in Austrailia and Canada.
Wussy-poopies CONSTANTLY give in to the demands of Feminists and "accomplice women". CONSTANLY!
Polititians are notorious Wussy-poopies.
As are MANY Men in the media.
And of course HOLLYWOOD is over-run with Wussy-poopies.
In order to win this battle we must not only overcome the Feminists. We have to overcome the Wussy-poopies.
I have an idea for getting rid of Wussy-poopies.
What we do is, get a Dominatrix, put her in an alley with no out-let, Then tell the Wussy-poopies She's in there. Of course being Wussy-poopies they LOVE being walked all over and dominated by Women (That's why they're Wussy-poopies.) So they won't be able to resist. They'll all run into the alley where WE'LL be waiting with a big net, we throw the net on them, and then take them out to sea and leave them on an Island somewhere, with the Dominatrix. That way THEY'LL be happy. and we'll be rid of them and happy.
NO, No, wait. I have a BETTER idea. instead of leaving them on just a regular island, We could take them to MONSTER ISLAND, and have a big laugh when Godzilla eats them.
How about that.
...Still with me, Ray...?
...Ray...? ...Ray...?
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thundercloud:
I heard a saying once that, "a man gets married hoping his bride won't change and she does, and a bride gets married hoping her husband will change and he doesn't." That would certainly explain some of the disappointment on both sides. A lot of married men do turn into contented wussies as a result of their intimacy with a woman. They become more content with who they are and disinclined to change. Ironically women seem to become more discontent. One friend actually told me that, he believed, "the Penis make's them crazy."
I don't know if crazy is the right word I would have said they turn into controlling, disrespectful, insulting, joy killers, but hey that's just my opinion.
As far as your island suggestion, I think it's a great idea, albeit a fantasy. ...Fantasy Island??? No, we need a different name.
We'll need a big island, and one that's remote and difficult to escape from. Elba, where they exiled Napoleon, is too close and not big enough.
Let's see, hum... I've got it! How about Antarctica? The only problem is, I'm afraid after all of the radical feminist monster's were exiled, our lives would be so serene and utopian we'd actually be bored. Of course considering the venomousity of the radical feminst we'd immediately have to take the next logical step and start a "Save the Penguins of Antarctica Movement." Do you think the moon would be a good location or is that still too close? Hum... I'd ask Santa Claus to take 'em in at the North Pole, but I just found out last week he's not real. I never dreamed being an adult male would be so difficult. For every solution, a problem.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday September 05, @05:18AM EST (#52)
|
|
|
|
|
Ray.
We could take the Wussy-poopies to Skull island. King Kong could get them there.
Maybe we could leave them on Easter island, where they'd get egged by the Eatser-bunny. But they'd probably knock those big statues over.
Treasure island is out. Why should THEY be ritch?
Fantasy island. No, You allready said that.
Three mile island, maybe?
how about Gilligan's island?
Well, WHEREVER we send them, Just as long as we get RID of them!
(^-^)
...I have enough aggrevation...,
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You still have falsely accused men having to bear the burden of evidence.
It also relieves the state of doing their dirty work.
If you're not the father, its not your problem, its theirs.
,
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You still have falsely accused men having to bear the burden of evidence. /I.
Dan. Could you please elaborate. I don't know what you mean by this statement. I admit that the bill isn't everything we wanted. However, considering the opposition I'd say we did dang good.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Dan. Could you please elaborate. I don't know what you mean by this statement. I admit that the bill isn't everything we wanted. However, considering the opposition I'd say we did dang good. "
You did do a good job Warble. The fact of the matter is. Why are men having to put out of their own pocket to go after the real father. This is the mother's or the states problem and mostly the mother's.
This in my mind is another case of the State shifting their obligations of burden to get out of paying a dime, which is what I think the whole thing is about anyways.
Mother accuses man A of being father. Man A proves he is not the biological father but the state has left it up to him to go after man B the real father. Well 'duh' nothing has changed that should be about a given and constitutionally was allowable before if somone had of got off their ass and fought for it.
I hope the men are being remidied for their loss and inconveinance.
Still the guilty party does go free but we know that.
It reminds me of that issue over the adoption agencies. The adoption agencies are pissed that they keep ending up in court fighting over custody. The agencies have absolutely no concern whatsoever over the 'father's rights' despite what they advertise. They are more concerned about the bottom line making cash hand over fist.
Ya, they are gonna force the woman to advertise her sex life to find the guy. What a joke. The fembots will spend a ton of money fighting this, and the agencies won't give a shit one way or another who wins so long as they don't have to end up in court anymore and can sell the father's child without his consent. Ultimately men are fucked over because no one took the time to stand up to the basic justice. Which in my mind is the mother telling the father of whats going on.
How does this tie in? Its another example of the state shifting the burden and making men pay because of lack of due diligence.
In the end, yes , you have done a brilliant job Warble ,and its proof once and for all that politicians are starting to take men seriously again. My concern is that we aren't being taking advantage of with smoke and mirrors legislation.
Now if we could only work on that fucking hate law called VAWA.
.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This in my mind is another case of the State shifting their obligations of burden to get out of paying a dime, which is what I think the whole thing is about anyways.....
....Still the guilty party does go free but we know that.
You're right on both counts Dan. But for the actions of the woman there would be no paternity fraud case. It just pisses off everybody involved with this bill (proponents) that women were able to weasel out of having any sort of accountability. We have powerful female sponsored male hate groups to thank for that fact.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Now if we could only work on that fucking hate law called VAWA."
As long as there's an elected politician in America who supports the VAWA, there'll be a NAZI in office.
Very Truly Yours,
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"I can't help but wonder if he is a whiner that complains about the erosion of men's rights and does nothing."
Agreed, Warble. The biggest griper/whiners are often the furthest from the front lines. Almost reminds me of feminists.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday August 31, @08:20PM EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
You still have falsely accused men having to bear the burden of evidence.
What the blue hell are you talking about? I haven't falsely accused anyone of anything.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You still have falsely accused men having to bear the burden of evidence.
What the blue hell are you talking about? I haven't falsely accused anyone of anything.
This is a misunderstanding. I was asking Dan for clarification. There is usually something rational behind his comments.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actually people not meeting their obligations, not being accoutable for their actions (including commiting fraud), etc. is everyone's problem.
Take it out of the realm of paternity. Everytime people walk away from their obligations (such as bankruptcy to get out of meeting their financial obligations) or commit fraud, or steal .... everyone else picks up the slack and pays the penalties and interest.
Think about why you pay "ininsured motorists" premiums and your auto premiums are so high. You are carrying all the irresponsible peole who don't pay their fair share and don't pay for the consequences of their actions. Ditoo much of your tax dollars.
The "burden" is on all of us to find fair and equitable solutions to societal problems because we all pay for iresponsible and/or deceiptful people's actions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lorianne:
I know that when I renew the registration on my vehicles I have to show proof of an active auto insurance policy on the vehicle I am insuring. It appears the state has taken steps to address, and make more accountable, the frauds who try to drive without auto insurance.
On the other hand, women, who knowingly commit paternity fraud, are an altogether different story, when it comes to accountability in this state.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Take it out of the realm of paternity. Everytime people walk away from their obligations (such as bankruptcy to get out of meeting their financial obligations) or commit fraud, or steal .... everyone else picks up the slack and pays the penalties and interest.
A typical, feminist distortion by our resident feminist, Lorianne, as she tries to pretend that fraud (except paternity fraud) and stealing are in any way the same as paternity fraud. Readers should note that fraud (except paternity fraud) and stealing are against the law and are severely punished. The specific problem with paternity fraud to which we object is the fact that it's legal. (Of course, since it's males who are the victims, that's a little too subtle of a distinction for a feminist to understand.)
Paternity fraud is not only legal; it is actively encouraged by the government, which wants to force some man, even if he isn't the biological father, into paying for the caring of the child. The government doesn't want to pay, and God forbid that the woman would have to accept responsibility by paying for the raising of her children if she doesn't know who the fathers are.
One good thing, though... Lorianne did submit a post to the MS message board reading:
Actually people committing violent crimes, not being accoutable for their actions (including commiting rape), etc. is everyone's problem.
Take it out of the realm of rape. Everytime people commit a violent crime (such as shoving someone to get ahead of them in line) or commit assault .... everyone else suffers and pays the penalties.
Oh, wait! She didn't write that to the MS board. That's right, she a feminist (read hypocrite).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Oh, wait! She didn't write that to the MS board. That's right, she a feminist (read hypocrite)."
Thomas:
I would have (read bigot), but there's no reason to argue. We're both right. To the radical feminists it all just seems to come so naturally once they've suspended equal justice, and attained there priveleged status under law.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would have (read bigot), but there's no reason to argue. We're both right. To the radical feminists it all just seems to come so naturally once they've suspended equal justice, and attained there priveleged status under law.
How right you are, bro.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As usual you distort the point I was making. I was referring Dan's point that the burden is on the state to prove who the father is. The way I read it, that means as long as one can lay low enough to get out of accountability for one's offspring, then there is no problem.
The fact is there IS a problem with this attitude and it is exactly the same as the proported woman who "frauds" a man, namely, the theory that if she can get away with it, there's no harm done.
MY POINT which you chose to overlook entirely is that everyone pays when fraud OR deliberate stealth to avoid accountability is practiced by EITHER parent. The child ultimately pays, along with eventually taxpayers and our whole society.
The attitude of "let the state try to catch me" is a destructive attitude, an counterproductive, because it invites intrusive State actions to ferret out people to make the accountable for things they should already be accountable for of their own will, not waiting around for the State to "catch" them and pretending that there is no harm done to anyone in the meantime.
What better attitude to invite massive State investigations than the "catch me if you can" attitude.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MY POINT which you chose to overlook entirely is that everyone pays when fraud OR deliberate stealth to avoid accountability is practiced by EITHER parent. The child ultimately pays, along with eventually taxpayers and our whole society.
The feminist makes a few valid points, but as usual they are a smoke screen. The use of the typical feminist, "Hey, everyone is suffering," is a copout. It is the defrauded men and the defrauded children, who suffer almost exclusively. A valid comparison would be to rape. This is like a man insinuating to a woman, who's been raped, "oh I suffer from this as much as you."
Actually, a comparison to rape is not valid, because rape is illegal. The comparison would be valid if rape were the only type of assault that was legal and then the feminist lectured women
Actually people committing violent crimes, not being accoutable for their actions (including commiting rape), etc. is everyone's problem.
Take it out of the realm of rape. Everytime people commit a violent crime (such as shoving someone to get ahead of them in line) or commit assault or rape .... everyone else suffers and pays the penalties.
It's good this typical feminist posts here, so we can see the type of distortions and lies on which their entire lives depend.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As usual you distort the point I was making. I was referring Dan's point that the burden is on the state to prove who the father is. The way I read it, that means as long as one can lay low enough to get out of accountability for one's offspring, then there is no problem.
The state brings the action, the burden of proof is on the state. You bring the action, the burden of proof is on you. If I decide to sue you for something, the burden of proof is on me.
It's legal fact. It's the way it works. Careful now - you're sounding like you're advocating due process of law be suspended for paternity actions.
The fact is there IS a problem with this attitude and it is exactly the same as the proported woman who "frauds" a man, namely, the theory that if she can get away with it, there's no harm done.
Not exactly. The attitude is that if she can get away with it, "So What?"
MY POINT which you chose to overlook entirely is that everyone pays when fraud OR deliberate stealth to avoid accountability is practiced by EITHER parent. The child ultimately pays, along with eventually taxpayers and our whole society.
That's deflection, and you know it. Since you bring it up, it doesn't matter. You can accuse me of being the father of your child. If I'm not at whatever you put down as "last known address" - EVEN IF SUCH ADDRESS DOESN'T EXIST - I fail to show up for court, you win a default judgement, I'm daddy, you wait till my time to challenge it runs out, then you chase me down and start getting your checks. Happens all the time, and it's more than ancedotal evidence.
The attitude of "let the state try to catch me" is a destructive attitude, an counterproductive, because it invites intrusive State actions to ferret out people to make the accountable for things they should already be accountable for of their own will, not waiting around for the State to "catch" them and pretending that there is no harm done to anyone in the meantime. What better attitude to invite massive State investigations than the "catch me if you can" attitude.
An illogical appeal to fear; and a prime example of the futility of attempting to legislate morality. I'm sure our resident attorney, Mr. Angelucci, will be happy to talk at length about the difference betrween legal and moral, and how a confusion of the two never goes unpunished.
You want unequivocation or something? Well, even though you're too good to give it, I'll go ahead and give it to you. Pay heed. Any man who is informed by a woman that she's pregnant, and agrees to be the dad, with all that it entails, (And if he does so on blind faith he's arguably a blooming idiot, but still deserves exactly what he gets even if his only useful function thereafter is to serve as a bad example - i.e. Don't be a Dave), and then backs out is scum, and should be forced to fulfil his half of the contract. (As verbal contracts are hard to prove, any woman who doesn't get this in writing is a similar blooming idiot, etc, ad nauseum).
The parenthesis are not qualification, BTW, they're editorial comment.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The "burden" is on all of us to find fair and equitable solutions to societal problems because we all pay for iresponsible and/or deceiptful people's actions.
Lorianne,
I'm curious. In your opinion, what exactly is a fair and equitable solution to paternity fraud? Do you agree that but for the actions of the woman there would not be paternity fraud?
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, Warb, as you well know either Lorianne, the Rezident Pheminist will pick one of a few responses - ignore it, come out with some hackneyed piece of pheminista propaganda, qualify any answer she gives so far that it means zilch, appeal that things need to be done for the CHILD's good and in the CHILD's interest, or accuse you of something and fly into a phony snit and refuse to answer the question.
I'll tell you what I think should be done. Anyone who commits fraud like that, and/or does not exercise due diligence (Ask Marc) to find out the true father should be prosecuted for perjury if they put such information on an official document, and fraud if it results in the illegitimate transfer of so much as a dime.
She should be held in contempt until such time as she names the real father.
If this results in her losing custody of her child - well, it's the price you pay for being a criminal. Of course our little phemista here wiull see that as solely a male price to pay, but, what else do you expect.
While she's in jail, the child should certainly be allowed to keep in contact with the only father they have ever known. As opposed to how it is now, where that "only father" gets a bad rap for searching for the truth, the cad.
While Mom's in jail, naturally the raising of the child will fall to either "TOFTHEK" or to the real dad, so there will be no worry about someone "using this as an excuse to evade their responsibilities." If not, Grandma could surely do it, or someone could adopt the child, depending on the length of Mommy Dearest's sentence.
Of course, while momma is in jail her child support obligations will pile up, with interest. And after she gets out, with a felony conviction, she'll still have to live with a continuing obligation based on her imputed income, even though she'll have trouble finding a job at Burger King because of her felony record. Further, as a convicted felon, let's add the slew of black marks on her record for if and when she wants to apply for visitation or custody.
Her ill gotten gains will have to be repaid back of course. Probably from scratch as the state will sieze most or all of her assets. Then there's the interest. Then the lawsuit. In some states that's triple indemnity. Yeowtch.
See, Warb, if you or me were single dads, with mom dead, and we committed fraud, such things would be our fate - and we'd also recieve a heaping helping of shame for all the heartache and devastation we wreaked in our child's life. We'd be called unfit fathers. We'd have parental rights stripped away, and blocking us out of that kid's life would be "for the good of the child." That would be considered to be in the child's best interest.
But we are merely men, second class citizens of the oppressor class, and expected to bear responsibility and accountability for our criminal actionms and behavior. Step up to the plate. Suck it up. Be a man. Do the right thing.
You know the litany as well as I do.
No, Lorianne will invoke the "sacred bond" twaddle and find an excuse as to why women should recieve special treatment, and urge that "for the CHILD's sake" the perpatrator of the crime should not only get off scot free, but actually profit.
Or she'll rage at me, and deflect your question with the excuse that she's not going to dignify my little diatribe, or some other inanae and trite excuse. Maybe Thomas' reply from before, or Ray's.
How completely predictable and (yaaaaaawn) trite.
Well, how much ya wanna bet?
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, Warb, as you well know either Lorianne, the Rezident Pheminist will pick one of a few responses - ignore it, come out with some hackneyed piece of pheminista propaganda, qualify any answer she gives so far that it means zilch, appeal that things need to be done for the CHILD's good and in the CHILD's interest, or accuse you of something and fly into a phony snit and refuse to answer the question.
If Lorianne fails to answer in a reasonable period then we must assume you're right at some level. Obviously, she has an opinion on paternity fraud, or she wouldn’t be trying to say its everybody’s problem and fail to nail the one person that causes the problem.
Again, but for the actions of the woman, there cannot be paternity fraud. It is only women that can stop this destructive behavior and it is a gender specific behavior. Failing to prosecute this criminal behavior isn't the answer. Supporting institutionalized discrimination against men on the basis of gender isn’t the answer either.
The issue of paternity fraud is truly a litmus test. If Lorianne believes in actual equal rights then she must be constrained to take the position that women should be held accountable for the commission of paternity fraud. If Lorianne is a female supremacist then she will oppose holding women accountable, and she’ll use almost any excuse to try and claim that commission of the fraud is justified.
It may be that 100 years ago we couldn't tell if a woman had committed paternity fraud with reasonable certainty. At that time it made sense not to prosecute because of the potential to harm innocent women. After all, our culture abhors putting innocent people in jail, but now we know which women are committing this form of fraud. Technology advances permit us to determine acts of paternity fraud with almost 100% certainty.
We need to be treating these women like the criminals that they are. They need to be held accountable, and yes that does mean taking away children when it is proven that their mothers are little more than criminals. It is better that these children be in a responsible family with solid values then they remain with a mother who teaches criminal values. That is why we remove children from criminal parents. Children who are the victims of paternity fraud must be afforded this same level of protection from the criminal behavior of their mothers.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It may be that 100 years ago we couldn't tell if a woman had committed paternity fraud with reasonable certainty. At that time it made sense not to prosecute because of the potential to harm innocent women. After all, our culture abhors putting innocent people in jail, but now we know which women are committing this form of fraud. Technology advances permit us to determine acts of paternity fraud with almost 100% certainty.
Exactly. But some people are do not want to know the truth, they simply want retribution. This is destructive. It would behoove us too consider the child in all this, and focus on PREVENTING fruad than in gleefully waiting around to prosecute (which is the attitude I get from many peoplel). I feel that the very existence of DNA paternal testing has cut down on fraud or mistaken attribution tremendously.
We need to be treating these women like the criminals that they are. They need to be held accountable, and yes that does mean taking away children when it is proven that their mothers are little more than criminals. It is better that these children be in a responsible family with solid values then they remain with a mother who teaches criminal values. That is why we remove children from criminal parents. Children who are the victims of paternity fraud must be afforded this same level of protection from the criminal behavior of their mothers.
Again, I believe we should prosecute women who commit fraud. But as with all areas of crime we should also focus on prevention. DNA testing would be a powerful detterent to criminal intent. Furthermore, it can only be a good thing for children, which should be our focus.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday September 05, @01:01PM EST (#64)
|
|
|
|
|
>The issue of paternity fraud is truly a litmus test. If Lorianne believes in actual equal rights
>then she must be constrained to take the position that women should be held accountable
>for the commission of paternity fraud. If Lorianne is a female supremacist then she will
>oppose holding women accountable, and she’ll use almost any excuse to try and claim that
>commission of the fraud is justified.
If this is true, then you're saying I should rethink my support of this bill. I don't think paternity fraud should be a crime. I also don't think adultery should be a crime. I think paternity fraud is a civil issue that should be settled in civil court.
>taking away children when it is proven that their mothers are little more than criminals.
I do not think these women should lose their parental rights, especially since murderers do not.
>It is better that these children be in a responsible family with solid values then they
>remain with a mother who teaches criminal values.
One problem is that almost no "responsible family with solid values" is willing to adopt a child older than an infant. And almost no one is willing to adopt sibling groups of any age. Almost all of these kids will end up stagnating in the system, torn away from their siblings, their friends and everything else that gave their life meaning, and suffering from severe mental disorders. You can go ahead and claim they'll be all right, but statistics bear out that children who grow up in the system almost never become productive members of society. They usually end up dead or in jail.
It is better to let the mother keep her rights to the children, but reimburse the husband. You can give the husband custody of his bio children if there are siblings that are his bio children and have the woman visit once a month if you want. The husband gets his money back for the non-bio child and is not made to put any more money towards it, which is the most important thing.
I do not think men should have to pay for children who are not theirs. I think they should be able to sue the mother and recover the money, using the same laws that apply to other types of civil actions. I do not think this should be a crime for the same reason I don't think adultery should be a crime. I think it's a matter of one person hurting another emotionally, and nobody has a right to go through life without having other people hurt them emotionally.
I resent the fact that because I don't support criminalization, I will be labeled a "female supremacist." If you refuse to accept any disagreement, you're going to alienate a lot of people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It would behoove us too consider the child in all this, and focus on PREVENTING fruad than in gleefully waiting around to prosecute (which is the attitude I get from many peoplel).
Lorianne:
This statement is absurd and possibly ignorant. This is like claiming that a woman that is a criminal shouldn't be prosecuted because people are gleefully seeking retribution or revenge against such individuals. It is like saying that we should just have prevention in the commission of criminal acts and no mechanism of prosecuting the criminal for the demands of justice.
Women should not be immune from justice just because of their gender. Currently, women are literally able to extort billions from men using the mechanism of paternity fraud. If men were committing a what should be a criminal act that results in extorting billions then there would be not question but that there should be some form of justice in the form of prosecution. Quite frankly, (IMHO) your argument is the most bigoted thing I’ve ever seen.
Again, I believe we should prosecute women who commit fraud. But as with all areas of crime we should also focus on prevention.
It is interesting that the radical feminists who opposed AB2240 claimed the same thing. Yet when there was language designed to prevent paternity fraud they yelled and screamed that the criminal measures were useless.
They had every opportunity to suggest preventative measures. Senator Escutia gave the opposition nearly unlimited time to present suggestions for such measures. Yet they refused to suggest anything that would help to prevent paternity fraud. I guarantee that we will be quoting the opposition when we go for further amendments to AB2240. Finally, when pressed, they said they would oppose AB2240 in any form. So, when radical feminists claim they want preventative measures I tend to call them liars. They had every opportunity to contribute to such measures in AB2240 and opposed them. That fact is a matter of public record.
Finally, the focus on paternity fraud should be three-fold. It should be the prosecution of women that have extorted money by the mechanism of paternity fraud from men, removing children from these criminals and terminating all parental rights, and of course prevention by warning women that paternity fraud is a serious criminal offence that is prosecutable and that can result in the loss of parental privileges. The bottom line is that women should be honest in filling out the declaration of paternity form.
Only women can prevent paternity fraud. But for the actions of the women there would not be paternity fraud. Paternity fraud is a gender specific crime that is uniquely committed by women. Women must be held accountable for this form of criminal activity to prevent harm to children and men.
It is obvious why the penalties should be so severe when there are children involved. But of course radical feminist, in their vituperative hatred of men, desire to enjoy their position of immunity and privilege. That is the only reason that they continue to argue for the continued practice of institutionalized discrimination of men in the name of the best interest of the children.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Warble:
This is like claiming that a woman that is a criminal shouldn't be prosecuted because people are gleefully seeking retribution or revenge against such individuals. It is like saying that we should just have prevention in the commission of criminal acts and no mechanism of prosecuting the criminal for the demands of justice.
I didn't say that we should only have prevention. But how in the world can you "prove" fraud if you you don't have in place measures such as DNA testing? And if we have these means available to us, why wouldn't we use them earlier rather than later (when the child is older) to settle these matters in a pre-emptive fashion? What good is prosecution years after the fact going to do for the child? What good does it do the frauded father? Sure he gets retribution if she is prosecuted, but he still lost years of his life when he might have preferred to move on much earlier.
Women should not be immune from justice just because of their gender. Currently, women are literally able to extort billions from men using the mechanism of paternity fraud.
While this is true, it is "possible" for women to do this ..... it would be almost totally impossible for fruad to occur if we instituted laws which circumvent this happining in most cases. If the goal is to prevent men (and children) being fruaded, then it seems the impetus should be on measure which make that less likely to happen. While prosecuting fraud as a deterrance would work, it would only work later on down the line after much damage has been done. Meanwhile, my suggested measure would provide just as much if not more deterrance.
If men were committing a what should be a criminal act that results in extorting billions then there would be not question but that there should be some form of justice in the form of prosecution. Quite frankly, (IMHO) your argument is the most bigoted thing I’ve ever seen.
I don't see how preventing fraud can be considered "bigotted". Furthermore, the burden on proving "fraud" would consist of taking the exact same measures as largely mitigating it ... that is DNA testing. Why not do it earlier rather than later after much damage has been done?
Lorianne: Again, I believe we should prosecute women who commit fraud. But as with all areas of crime we should also focus on prevention.
It is interesting that the radical feminists who opposed AB2240 claimed the same thing. Yet when there was language designed to prevent paternity fraud they yelled and screamed that the criminal measures were useless.
What was the language? If you are talking about prosecuting fraud after the fact, years down the line ... I don't think it would be useless, but it is certainly not helping anyone if it could hav been prevented years earlier. You mention (below) that the "fmeinists" didn't propose anything in place of criminal prosecution, so I don't think it is fair that you lump me in with them.
They had every opportunity to suggest preventative measures. Senator Escutia gave the opposition nearly unlimited time to present suggestions for such measures. Yet they refused to suggest anything that would help to prevent paternity fraud.
Exactly. Which is what makes my points different from theirs. This is certainly a "bigotted" stance. There should be some solutions put forth instead of intransigence.
I guarantee that we will be quoting the opposition when we go for further amendments to AB2240. Finally, when pressed, they said they would oppose AB2240 in any form. So, when radical feminists claim they want preventative measures I tend to call them liars. They had every opportunity to contribute to such measures in AB2240 and opposed them. That fact is a matter of public record.
Well I agree. It doesn't seem either side is interested in actual pre-emptive solutions (as is the case with so many issues involving children/families etc.)
I agree with that fruad should be prosecuted. However in this case it is unique to the situation that the PROOF of fraud would entail the exact same measures to prevent it from happening. After all, if the woman is not sure who the father is, and the father is not sure which child is his when he knows it "could" be his child .... some means of determining it would need to be employed. It seems shortsighted not to promote a quicker resolution to this problem rather than to promote waiting it out and both sides waiting to be "caught" and the children to get caught in the middle.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Let's see - mechanisms for preventing Paternity fraud consist of:
1) No Establishment of paternity without a DNA test.
2. Mmmmm.... I guess that's it.
So..
The Married presumption of paternity is out, no? That's a good thing. It'll take the onus off the man who suspects something from having to be the "bad guy." (Curious how in this instance alone, searching for the truth is "insensitive," ain't it?)
How about we give that some real teeth by not allowing an "opt out" clause, so the male doesn't feel undue pressure to waive his rights - we can, of course, include an "opt in" clause where he can assume paternal responsibility - AND RIGHTS - so long as he is aware going into it.
Who pays for this genetic testing, especially if there are half a dozen or so possible fathers?
Same question, assuming Dad pays for his - does she pay for the other five? Or do we stick pop with the bill?
What if one of the possible fathers is "This guy who called himself Vlad I met at the bar," unless you're suggesting that no women ever have nearly anonymous, ahem, intimate encounters?
What if one guy can't be found - you know, ex-boyfriend, lost touch, moved out of town - is he still guilty by default?
What about the guys already under an immoral order to pay when the child isn't theirs? Do they get relief, or just "Tuff. Suck it up." or some similar response? Reduction to merely a base minimum level? Anything? Or does he continue to serve as momma's cash machine?
Same guys - do we continue the widespread habit of punishing them for discovering the truth that goes on today? You know, you have to keep paying because you're daddy on paper, but you can't see them because you're not daddy, and it's your fault for ruining that special bond that we otherwise deny exists?
What recompense is made to the child who has been defrauded out of his or her daddy by mommy dearest?
If I defraud you out of a lump sum, and take off, the clock starts ticking on the "statute of limitations." However, if you are regularly paying me under fraudulent pretenses, the crime is considered to be ongoing, and the most recent date of payment is where the statute is derived. Agreed?
The rhetoric and pontificating sure sounds good, and the invocation of the "child's interest" certainly gives that voice of concerned morality, but overall there's a lack of substance. Whole lot of qualifying, equivocation, and deflection going on.
See, Warb? What I say? Who da man? WHO DA MAN?
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See, Warb? What I say? Who da man? WHO DA MAN?
Gonzo is!
Yes. Lorianne does keep skirting the issue of there being a unique form of fraud called paternity fraud. She also fails to acknowledge the fact that it is a form of fraud unique to women only.
She does finally admit that if there is fraud that the person should be prosecuted. But then she goes off into some implied retraction, which states that the women shouldn’t be prosecuted because it will harm the child, and she cannot see what good it would do.
I should point out that the fact that many of the Ca legislatures are women who have committed paternity. That fact didn’t help AB2240. It was clear that these women were protecting each other in the commission of paternity fraud. They knew that if they voted on the criminal measures that some women would loose their office.
During the hearings, it was so plane that a significant portion of the women had committed paternity fraud. It might as well have been announced on the loud speaker. Those of us that watched closely know some of their names. Their actions and statements betrayed them.
Lorianne plainly contradicts herself all over the place. I honestly didn't expect this level of contradiction on her part. Her logic ignores the long history of damage that has been done to men and children. She seems to presume that by keeping silent on the matter that children will be somehow protected.
This is the same type of bigotry that, in my opinion, CA N.O.W. demonstrated at the CA Senate hearings on AB2240. I cannot wait to get the tapes and post their comments!
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday September 04, @01:41PM EST (#42)
|
|
|
|
|
You said that if a woman commits paternity fraud, all of her children should be seized and adopted out. My question is, by WHO? Very, very few couples want children older than infants, particularly if they're not white. Add into the mix the fact that these kids are going to be severely emotionally damaged, and probably have rage issues because one day they had a family, and the next they're being told Daddy hates you and hopes you die, and Mommy's an ugly, lying whore, and because you are half of her, you are half an ugly, lying whore.
The husband certainly doesn't want the kid. He hates the fucking brat because it dropped out of his wife's cunt, a cunt that was fucked by another man. Victims of paternity fraud would kill the brats themselves if it were legal.
Oh yeah, people are going to line up to adopt a kid that throws rage fits and sets shit on fire because he or she has been told you are shit, your parents hate you, and your father would give anything to watch you die, or preferably kill you himself because you dropped out of an ugly fatass WHORE who he hates and wishes would hang her whore cunt ass in her cell.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You said that if a woman commits paternity fraud, all of her children should be seized and adopted out. My question is, by WHO? Very, very few couples want children older than infants, particularly if they're not white. Add into the mix the fact that these kids are going to be severely emotionally damaged, and probably have rage issues because one day they had a family, and the next they're being told Daddy hates you and hopes you die, and Mommy's an ugly, lying whore, and because you are half of her, you are half an ugly, lying whore.
There is no hate speech against men here at all. Nope not one bit. NOT! This person would have us believe that if the parents were both drug dealers that the children should be left with the parents. The person would have us believe that children always experience irrevocable damage when they are taken into foster care. NOT!
Where one or both of the parents are determined to be criminals we have laws that resolve the issue. In this case, we would simply apply known laws to the criminal activity of paternity fraud.
The husband certainly doesn't want the kid. He hates the fucking brat because it dropped out of his wife's cunt, a cunt that was fucked by another man. Victims of paternity fraud would kill the brats themselves if it were legal.
More anti-male hate speech. This person needs help. This person has major issues.
The fact is that men should enjoy the right of choice. They should be given the choice to make an informed adoption of a child. Women should not be permitted to commit paternity fraud and use the power of the state to coerce men to accept financial responsibility for another mans child.
Currently, millions of women use the form of fraud to unjustly enrich themselves. They are quite knowledgeable on the procedures for committing paternity fraud.
Oh yeah, people are going to line up to adopt a kid that throws rage fits and sets shit on fire because he or she has been told you are shit, your parents hate you, and your father would give anything to watch you die, or preferably kill you himself because you dropped out of an ugly fatass WHORE who he hates and wishes would hang her whore cunt ass in her cell.
This hate speech is really quite offensive. But it is to be expected from the radical feminists. The fact remains that this civilization accepts removing a child when there is criminal activity. This is the societal norm. When parents commit fraud they loose parental privileges. There is no reason that women should be immune from prosecution on account of their gender. Further, these children routinely grow up to be healthy adults that contribute to our society.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You said that if a woman commits paternity fraud, all of her children should be seized and adopted out. My question is, by WHO? Very, very few couples want children older than infants, particularly if they're not white. Add into the mix the fact that these kids are going to be severely emotionally damaged, and probably have rage issues because one day they had a family, and the next they're being told Daddy hates you and hopes you die, and Mommy's an ugly, lying whore, and because you are half of her, you are half an ugly, lying whore.
The husband certainly doesn't want the kid. He hates the fucking brat because it dropped out of his wife's cunt, a cunt that was fucked by another man. Victims of paternity fraud would kill the brats themselves if it were legal.
Oh yeah, people are going to line up to adopt a kid that throws rage fits and sets shit on fire because he or she has been told you are shit, your parents hate you, and your father would give anything to watch you die, or preferably kill you himself because you dropped out of an ugly fatass WHORE who he hates and wishes would hang her whore cunt ass in her cell.
Ah, pure and unadulterated misandry; Hatred of the male in all it's glory. How refreshing. And signed by Anonymous. Whatta shock. Yet another chickenshit who isn't proud enough of their words to stand by them.
Daddy hates you ... (the husband) hates the fucking brat ... (men) would kill the brats ... father would give anything to watch it die ... kill you himself ... wishes the whore he hates would hang herself... FEEL THE LUUUUUUUV!!! I think someone needs a nap. LOL!
Now THAT'S Entertainment! (At least as old Vlad Tepes used to say) Dontcha just love it when you strike a nerve and one of these schnooks shows their true colors?
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Warble:
I think you are still missing what I'm trying to say. Fraud is bad, fraud should be punished but it would be better for EVERYBODY if paternity issues were sorted out right away rather than years down the line when:
a. The children are older and can be hurt emotionally by all the legal wranglings.
b. The frauded father has already invested years of his life, emotion, money etc. into the kids and may not want to walk away.
To me it just makes sense to focus on detterrent to fraud right away by clearing up paternity right away soon after birth of a child. I just don't see why this isn't a viable plan. Logically, everyone is better off this way.
To only focus on prosecution of fraud years down the line seems to me to be counterproductive the man will never be compensated for what he lost no matter the punishment on the woman. Furthermore to focus on ONLY that seems vindictive vindictive as if men can somehow regain something by seening the woman punished. ??? I would get that if there were no way to circumvent the whole thing. Then punishment would be all you have left.
But since there IS a way to almost completely eliminate the possiblity of fraud, why not use it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Peace and Joy to you:
I would not take the kids away from Mom, even though she be convicted of parternity fraud.
If there's is sufficient evidence to substaniate a charge that a woman has committed paternity fraud, then she should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, and punished likewise if found guilty. She should not get off Scot-free (no offense to Scots)as she does now. Some serious counselling should also be an order of any sentence she receives, because there is something seriously wrong and delusional about a woman who has so little sense of justice that she would lie and make some man pay for kids who are not his.
If bio-dad is found, he should pay his "fair" share. If not, it's just paternity fraud Momma, the State and the kids. Now there is truly a match mad in heaven, albeit psycho heaven.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lorianne,
you wrote:
"To me it just makes sense to focus on detterrent to fraud right away by clearing up paternity right away soon after birth of a child. I just don't see why this isn't a viable plan. Logically, everyone is better off this way."
My reply:
Great! Yes, it is viable. We now have DNA technology that allows us to do this so I say no problem, we are in agreement.
You go on to say,
"To only focus on prosecution of fraud years down the line seems to me to be counterproductive the man will never be compensated for what he lost no matter the punishment on the woman. Furthermore to focus on ONLY that seems vindictive vindictive as if men can somehow regain something by seening the woman punished. ??? I would get that if there were no way to circumvent the whole thing. Then punishment would be all you have left."
My reply:
I suspect that Barry Scheck, the attorney (I forget the name of his group) who has used DNA evidence and technology to free close to a thousand men falsely convicted of crimes would probably disagree with you that it is counter productive to administer justice, albeit delayed. I certainly would. Mr. Scheck uses DNA evidence to free wrongly convicted people, but this two edge sword cuts both ways. It has already been used to convict people in decades old cases and should not be spared if it can convict women who have committed paternity fraud. That justice would allow men who are victims of paternity fraud to regain some of the dignity that was unjustly taken from them, and it would be further injustice to deny them their right to that fairness under the law. It's called equal justice under the law, and it is the 14th ammendment to the U.S, Constitution. I mention that, because so many feminists either forget it or choose to forget it.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lorianne,
You wrote:
"Exactly. But some people are do not want to know the truth, they simply want retribution. This is destructive. It would behoove us too consider the child in all this, and focus on PREVENTING fruad than in gleefully waiting around to prosecute (which is the attitude I get from many peoplel). I feel that the very existence of DNA paternal testing has cut down on fraud or mistaken attribution tremendously"
My Reply:
Where was the woman wanting to focus on the best interests of the child, when she was having daddy hauled off to jail on false accusations of domestic violence or child abuse. You definitely are forgetting who you are talking to here. You beg "sympathy for the devil" who has committed paternity fraud, but to quote an earlier saying by one of our group I say, "BURN BABY BURN." The deeds of darkness (liars who committed paternity fraud) are finding the light of day, and the attention these criminals are getting is making them very nervous. "NO SYMPATHY FOR THE DEVIL, BURN BABY BURN"
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think you are still missing what I'm trying to say. Fraud is bad, fraud should be punished but it would be better for EVERYBODY if paternity issues were sorted out right away rather than years down the line when:
a. The children are older and can be hurt emotionally by all the legal wranglings.
b. The frauded father has already invested years of his life, emotion, money etc. into the kids and may not want to walk away.
In my humble opinion, this argument is the standard bigoted radical feminist line for rationalizing that women should not be prosecuted for paternity fraud. It is used to argue that if the child will be emotionally harmed that we shouldn't take corrective measures when there has been the commission of paternity fraud.
Note that Lorianne doesn’t use this argument to justify keeping criminal parents that have robbed a bank from being prosecuted. That's because everybody recognizes that criminals harm their children by their actions. But she does use it to try and minimize the perception of harm to a child when the women commits a criminal act.
I've heard all of these bigoted rationalizations before from radical feminists. They all go along the line that the child may be harmed so we shouldn't do anything to the woman, and the man should still be held responsible even when they are proven NOT to be the father of the child.
I've even seen feminists argue that a woman should not go to jail after committing murder because the children will be all alone. Whaaaa!
By contrast, our culture routinely resolves the issue of children switched at birth even if it is ten or more years later. Nobody argues that if two children were switched at birth that they should not be returned to the actual biological parents. This demonstrates the importance of biology in establishing paternity.
In addition, women don't argue that they have years of financial and emotional investment into a child that was switched at birth. No. They sue the hospital for almost unlimited damages and fight to obtain custody of their biological child. Likewise, men should have the same right to prosecute women that have committed the fraud. They should have the right to obtain justice and a remedy at law.
The switched child example also demonstrates the importance of holding women criminally liable for paternity fraud. If a woman will sue a hospital for punitive damages when a child is switched at birth then it demonstrates the importance of holding women liable and accountable for the commission of paternity fraud.
Worse, unlike the accidental switching of children at birth, paternity fraud involves an intentional misrepresentation on the part of the woman. If it is bad to accidentally switch children at birth then it is many times worse for women to commit paternity fraud because it is an intentional act.
We can infer intent because women are uniquely knowledgeable on whether there is more than one possible father. Finally, we know there is severe emotional damage to both the child and the father when there is a discovery of paternity fraud. For that fact alone the women deserves to do jail time. That isn’t being vindictive it is seeking justice.
To me it just makes sense to focus on detterrent to fraud right away by clearing up paternity right away soon after birth of a child. I just don't see why this isn't a viable plan. Logically, everyone is better off this way.
The male-hating radical feminists objected to all of the measures that were in AB2240 to prevent paternity fraud. They had every opportunity to provide suggestions for amendments that would prevent paternity fraud. It is my opinion that all they could do in their anger against men for suggesting that there should be a Paternity Justice Act was stammer and "oppose AB2240 in any form" (CA N.O.W).
In addition, NCFM, LA and other father’s rights groups took extensive painstaking measures to address this issue. If you have a problem with the removal of the preventive measures then go complain to your resident radical feminists organizations.
To only focus on prosecution of fraud years down the line seems to me to be counterproductive the man will never be compensated for what he lost no matter the punishment on the woman. Furthermore to focus on ONLY that seems vindictive vindictive as if men can somehow regain something by seening the woman punished.
Unbelievable. The level of thinly veiled anti-male bigotry in this statement is almost beyond belief. First, the original form of AB2240 had a balanced approach of prevention and remedies for the discovery of the act of paternity fraud.
I believe that the bigotry of this statement lies in the assumption that women somehow mitigate the damage of paternity fraud as time passes. Quite the opposite is true. The longer the fraud continues, the greater the collective damage that is done by the woman.
While it is true that seeking justice will not undo the damage to the victims, it is also true that there is peace of mind in knowing that the demands of justice were met.
Using the logic that Lorianne presents, we can argue that a murderer who has an emotional bond to children should not go to jail if they successfully hide the criminal act for a period of ten years. According to Lorianne’s form of reasoning, people that seek to prosecute the murderous criminal are just vindictive.
It is not vindictive of a man to want justice when they have been defrauded in paternity matters. Men have a natural basic human right to know of any biological connection with their children. AB2240 supports that right and it will be strengthened in other states in the years to come. AB2240 is just plain good law.
The radical feminists have a choice, they can lay down their hate, stop criminalizing men, accept responsibility for their advocation of institutionalized discrimination against men, they can negotiate in good faith, or they can go to hell kicking and screaming. The choice is theirs.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday September 05, @11:43AM EST (#53)
|
|
|
|
|
Fuck counseling. The lying bitch and her brats should be eliminated from the gene pool. If Suzie's mother was a lying whore, Suzie will spread her whore legs to any guy who winks at her and follow right in her path. She's a born whore who should not be allowed to birth more born whores.
We should give the brats lethal injections while the cunt watches so she can watch them die before we execute her. Then maybe she'll kill herself and save the taxpayers the cost of using drugs to send her to hell.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday September 05, @11:47AM EST (#54)
|
|
|
|
|
Did your daddy taste another guy's cum when he licked the cunt of that bitch who birthed you? I'll bet she had every cock in town in her snatch. Your daddy would kill you himself if he knew you are the product of your bitch fucking some truck driver at a rest stop. Fuck love. No man alive would love some bastard brat who isn't his.
I hate everyone. I hate you, I hate your mother, I hate your father, I hate your kids and I hate everyone reading this. Youre all fucking pieces of shit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday September 05, @11:52AM EST (#55)
|
|
|
|
|
Bastard brats born of a cunt and the cocksucker who fucked her ugly fat snatch do not become productive members of society. They're whores and bitches and criminals. If Suzie's mother was a lying cunt, she's a lying cunt who's just as ugly and just as much of a slut. She'll spread her whore legs for her own daddy if he asks her, because it's in her genes.
Your own mother was probably a fucking whore and a cunt. If you haven't tested your DNA, how the fuck do you know? Why do you trust the bitch whose cunt you dropped out of? She probably lied and she probably deserves you to fucking hate her and kick her ugly whore teeth in for spreading her cunt for some truck driver.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday September 05, @11:56AM EST (#56)
|
|
|
|
|
>The frauded father has already invested years of his life, emotion, money etc. into the kids and may not want to walk away.
Like fuck he won't want to walk away. He licked the mother's cunt and tasted the other guy's cum, all because she's a whore who can't keep her crusted panties up where they belong. No man loves a bastard brat born because his wife is a cunt willing to let any asshole stick a dick in her snatch.
The bitch deserves to be tortured until she hangs her whore ass in her cell. Her brats should be given lethal injections to prevent them from spreadinig the whore genes that made her go out and fuck fuck fuck like an animal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday September 05, @12:01PM EST (#57)
|
|
|
|
|
You say I'm talking hate speech, but you don't care about the fucking brats either. You don't want it resolved at birth because you WANT the brats to suffer later, watching their mother, exposed as the ugly whore she is, hang herself in her cell. You want the brats to hear daddy say I HATE YOU AND I HOPE YOU ALL DIE. I'D KILL YOU ALL MYSELF IF I COULD BECAUSE YOU CAME OUT OF THAT WHORE'S SNATCH.
Biology is everything. NO MAN ALIVE LOVES SOME BASTARD BRAT THAT CAME FROM ANOTHER MAN'S COCK.
I hope you find out your mother is a whore and a cunt, and that your father beats her to a bloody pulp because she couldn't keep her snatch to him, after he beats the shit out of you because he hates you because you came from some other man's cock.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday September 05, @12:12PM EST (#59)
|
|
|
|
|
Testing at birth is better for the child. You can still put the mother in jail, but at least now the child has a much better chance of being adopted because the child is an infant, and almost no one wants to adopt children older than infants. The child also never bonded with the mother, the husband or siblings. They never know any different, they haven't lost anything.
Why are you so against this, especially since the mother will still go to jail and still lose custody of her other children, if she has any?
By the way, murderers and drug dealers usually don't lose their parental rights. There are parents on death row with children they still have rights to. If women who commit paternity fraud lose theirs, then I want the laws changed so that all felons lose parental rights. It is wrong to say a murderer deserves to keep their children when someone who committed fraud doesn't, especially because murder is worse than fraud. I'd rather have someone steal my money than have someone kill me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday September 05, @12:20PM EST (#60)
|
|
|
|
|
Well, I'm away from my desk...
Guys - how much ya wanna bet this is some womyn - some pheminazi - trolling here?
Any takers? Cash?
The Gonzo Kid - signing in anonymously because this computer won't accept cookies
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday September 05, @12:25PM EST (#61)
|
|
|
|
|
> disagree with you that it is counter productive to administer justice, albeit delayed
What about fathers whose children have grown? If your father finds out you are not his, shouldn't he be entitled to prosecute your mother and recover his money? I think so. Just because she's gotten away with it for 20 or 30 or 40 years doesn't mean she shouldn't be prosecuted and put in jail. She deserves punishment more than someone who got caught after two years, because she stole more money.
I think everyone who feels strongly about this issue should stand up and get themselves DNA tested. We are being hypocritical if we trust our own mothers, but tell everyone else not to trust theirs. We deserve to know the truth, and so do our fathers and the rest of our family.
There are also inheritance issues. If you die and you don't have a spouse, your parents are your next of kin, which means they get all of your stuff. If your mother lied, she doesn't deserve this benefit. Her legal familial ties should be severed.
A mother who lied doesn't deserve to be part of the family. She doesn't deserve inheritance rights, or even to be buried in the family plot. She should spend the last years of her miserable life alone in a jail cell, and let the state bury her in Potter's Field when she finally croaks.
We all need to stop fooling ourselves, especially because many of us have been lied to. Yes, we will tear apart our families with the truth, but isn't the truth about biology more important than family?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday September 05, @12:48PM EST (#62)
|
|
|
|
|
>This person would have us believe that if the parents were both drug dealers that the children
>should be left with the parents.
Problem is, they almost always are. The kids might be put into foster care temporarily, but rarely are the parents' parental rights terminated.
>The person would have us believe that children always experience irrevocable damage when they
>are taken into foster care. NOT!
Problem is, a very large number of them do. Statistics bear this out. Children who live their lives in the system are more prone to drop out of school, commit crimes, use drugs and become teen parents than children who grow up in real homes.
>The fact remains that this civilization accepts removing a child when there is criminal activity.
>This is the societal norm.
No it is not, and if you check the laws you will see that I am right.
>When parents commit fraud they loose parental privileges.
NO THEY DO NOT! There are murderers in prison who still have parental privileges. Terminating parental rights is very difficult.
If you want to argue that women who commit paternity fraud should automatically lose their parental rights, fine, but I will not support this unless ALL felons also lose their parental rights.
What you are proposing is similiar to hate crimes, where one class of victims is more special than another. You appear to support women who committed paternity fraud losing their rights to their children, but you have no problem with murderers keeping their rights.
I think murder is worse than fraud of any kind. Maybe you would rather have someone murder you than steal your money, but I'd rather them take the money. I will not support a law that says someone who committed fraud will have their parental rights terminated, but someone who shot up an office and killed five or ten people can keep their rights and sees their children whenever someone brings them by on visiting day.
If these women lose their rights, then all felons do. If they keep them, then all felons keep them. NO SPECIAL TREATMENT.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guys - how much ya wanna bet this is some womyn - some pheminazi - trolling here?
There is no question but that it's a hate driven pheminazi posting this filth. When they are backed into a corner, they all come out sounding pretty much just like this womyn. There is nothing rational for them to say. They just want to infect everybody with their hate.
B.T.W. This womyn has posted here before. I recognize her style and hate based arguments. I was wondering if this psycho was gone. Guess not.
Warb
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ray,
I agree it should be used later instead of not at all. But I'd prefer to see these potentail problems cleared up right away ... if we did that, logically, I don't see how fraud would be possible unless someone tinkered with the DNA testing somehow.
It seems to me in the vast majority of cases paternity could be cleared up right away, soon after birth. If we could prevent 99% of paternity fraud then that seems like a good plan to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Whoa.... guess I'm outta here. Have fun killing people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What about fathers whose children have grown? If your father finds out you are not his, shouldn't he be entitled to prosecute your mother and recover his money? I think so. Just because she's gotten away with it for 20 or 30 or 40 years doesn't mean she shouldn't be prosecuted and put in jail. She deserves punishment more than someone who got caught after two years, because she stole more money.
If the law was passed I doubt it would be retro-active.
Furthermore, if the law passes, I bet we'll see automatic DNA testing at birth come to pass soon thereafter. So, I doubt you're going to see men getting restitution 20+ years down the line.
The rest of your posts seemed like wishful thinking on various retribution schemes. Why not focus on solutions? Such as universal DNA testing of both parents at birth?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday September 05, @01:37PM EST (#68)
|
|
|
|
|
>I would not take the kids away from Mom, even though she be convicted of parternity fraud.
I am glad someone else agrees with me on this one issue. I still don't think paternity fraud should be a criminal offense, but even if it is made into one, the mother should not lose her parental rights. If murderers keep theirs, people who commit the less serious crime of fraud should keep theirs.
We already have millions of severely damaged young adults pouring out of the foster care system and straight into our prisons, mental hospitals and cemeteries. Why anyone wants to put millions more in the system escapes me.
This whole thread is about the fact that biology is the most important part of the father-child bond. No man in his right mind would want to raise a child that is not biologically his. There's a sappy saying about love making a family and not biology, but that's just not true. Biology trumps "love." So where on Earth are all these loving adoptive homes Warble speaks of going to come from? If you would never want a child that is not biologically yours, what makes you think anyone else will?
>there is something seriously wrong and delusional about a woman who has so little sense
>of justice that she would lie and make some man pay for kids who are not his.
IMO a woman who commits paternity fraud usually does think she's doing what's best for her child. She probably figures it's better for the child to have a father figure rather than not having a father at all, which is what would happen in these cases if the truth were told.
I don't think women who have children think clearly. They often act irrationally out of a primal and misdirected instinct to protect their young. That doesn't mean the guy should have to pay for kids that aren't his, or that he shouldn't get his money back, but we need to understand the pathology behind this. Maybe pregnant women and new mothers can be given drugs so that they act rationally instead of out of primal instinct.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday September 05, @01:43PM EST (#70)
|
|
|
|
|
I agree, especially if we're going to jail these women. If the woman is in jail for life, the child will have to be adopted out, and it's better to do that when the child is an infant. The child would have a much better chance of being adopted, and he or she never bonded with their parents, siblings, grandparents, uncles and so forth. The child would grow up not knowing any better, and not feeling as though they lost something. If there are other children, they would never miss their sibling because they never bonded with him or her.
In addition, if the husband finds this out at birth, he loses a lot less money and has more chance of recovery of any money he did lose. If he bought baby supplies, they can be taken back to the store.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That justice would allow men who are victims of paternity fraud to regain some of the dignity that was unjustly taken from them, and it would be further injustice to deny them their right to that fairness under the law.
Very well said Ray. For whatever reason feminists like Lorianne fail to recognize the need for justice. In their minds men who seek justice in paternity fraud matters just want retribution and vengeance. NOT!
Warb
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You beg "sympathy for the devil" who has committed paternity fraud, but to quote an earlier saying by one of our group I say, "BURN BABY BURN." The deeds of darkness (liars who committed paternity fraud) are finding the light of day, and the attention these criminals are getting is making them very nervous.
It makes the feminists very nervous because these demons have achieved very high positions of power in our culture. If we hold these perpetrators of paternity fraud accountable then many women will fall from positions of power and go to jail. In my opinion, that is the reason that the Women's Caucus in California came out in opposition to AB2240 at the last minute. They became aware that there are female members of the legislature that have committed paternity fraud. Hence they sought to put in the time limits and otherwise weaken the bill to protect their criminal allies who are feminists in power. Feminists know that there are members of the legislature that have committed this criminal act and they are protecting the guilty.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
By the way, murderers and drug dealers usually don't lose their parental rights. There are parents on death row with children they still have rights to. If women who commit paternity fraud lose theirs, then I want the laws changed so that all felons lose parental rights.
I would have to agree with AU in this case. If the laws permit murderous mothers and drug dealing mothers to retain full parental rights then the same laws should apply to mothers that are guilty of paternity fraud. I have no problem at all with this practice. So long as there is equal and comparative sentencing between the genders under the law.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If these women lose their rights, then all felons do. If they keep them, then all felons keep them. NO SPECIAL TREATMENT.
I must say that I agree on this point. They should be treated equally under the law.
Warb
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree it should be used later instead of not at all. But I'd prefer to see these potentail problems cleared up right away ... if we did that, logically, I don't see how fraud would be possible unless someone tinkered with the DNA testing somehow.
I guess that is about as close of an admission by Lorianne that she supports AB2240 that we are going to get. Lorianne is right that there should be a focus on prevention. NCFM, LA worked very hard to get that sort of language into the law. But the feminists groups opposed the language and were successful in removing it.
For an example of how DNA testing can be manipulated just look to the Kerkorian paternity fraud case. In that case Bonder allegedly stole and substituted DNA samples. We also have other reports of labs switching test results at the direction of the state. No matter how hard we try there will be paternity fraud.
That is why we must have criminal laws that prosecute this serious crime that causes so much harm to men and children.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I support the idea of mandatory paternity testing at birth, as long as the man has full control over the disposition of his DNA information, so it's not turned over, for instance, to the government.
Retroactive laws are dangerous. They threaten everyone's security, because they make it impossible to know if one can later be punished for undertaking what is today a legal act. However, the law could be worded so that, after it has passed, any woman who takes so much as a penny in child support from a paternity-defrauded man would suffer the full consequences of the law. If it were then determined that she had been defrauding the man for years, this could be considered in determining sentencing, financial settlement, or both. If, however, she stops taking any child support based on paternity fraud the moment the law is passed, so be it. As far as the government is concerned, she gets away with her vile actions. There's more at stake, when it comes to passing retroactive laws.
Then again, there could be extralegal, social consequences. The names and photos of women found guilty of paternity fraud could be publised in a readily available forum. They would then be seen as the lying thieves that they are and this could affect, among other things, their employment opportunities.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday September 05, @03:02PM EST (#77)
|
|
|
|
|
>Feminists know that there are members of the
>legislature that have committed this criminal
>act and they are protecting the guilty.
Men are also guilty of this. Many men know their mothers committed paternity fraud, yet they protect them in a way they would never protect a wife who did the same thing. None of us know who are fathers really are unless we get tested. For us to be taken seriously, we need to go after mothers with the same gusto that we go after wives and girlfriends.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday September 05, @03:44PM EST (#78)
|
|
|
|
|
Flag on the play, fifteen yad penalty, unnecessary use of Troll!
First mention of any loss of parental rights is in MESSAGE 26 - and it mentions loss of - an enormous difference.
>The fact remains that this civilization accepts removing a child when there is criminal activity.
>This is the societal norm.
No it is not, and if you check the laws you will see that I am right.
Laws checked, laws vary from jursidiction to jurisdiction, depending on the class of crime. At the very least, if jail time is served, it is considered a serious bar to recieving custody.
>When parents commit fraud they loose parental privileges.
NO THEY DO NOT! There are murderers in prison who still have parental privileges. Terminating parental rights is very difficult
Wrong again. Commission of a criminal act resulting in jail time does indeed result in a loss of privileges, as does DWM (Divorced while Male) but that's another story.
Privileges and rights are two entirely different things.
Deliberate Obfuscation!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday September 05, @04:36PM EST (#79)
|
|
|
|
|
If this is true, then you're saying I should rethink my support of this bill. I don't think paternity fraud should be a crime. I also don't think adultery should be a crime. I think paternity fraud is a civil issue that should be settled in civil court.
No, fraud *IS* a crime already. People go to prison each and every day for fraud. What you wish to do is exempt a class of people (women) from being prosecuted for a subtype of this crime.
>taking away children when it is proven that their mothers are little more than criminals.
I do not think these women should lose their parental rights, especially since murderers do not.
Disingenuous deflection. Loss of custody is not the same as loss of rights. Appeal to emotion. Foul!
One problem is that almost no "responsible family with solid values" is willing to adopt a child older than an infant. And almost no one is willing to adopt sibling groups of any age.
A great many people are indeed willing to adopt just these type of children. I was turned down for it as a single father. In addition, the fees and hurdles to adopt these children are immense. Another problem - another fix. Irrelevant.
Almost all of these kids will end up stagnating in the system, torn away from their siblings, their friends and everything else that gave their life meaning, and suffering from severe mental disorders. You can go ahead and claim they'll be all right, but statistics bear out that children who grow up in the system almost never become productive members of society. They usually end up dead or in jail.
Lies, damned lies, and now statistics, eh?
It is better to let the mother keep her rights to the children, but reimburse the husband. You can give the husband custody of his bio children if there are siblings that are his bio children and have the woman visit once a month if you want. The husband gets his money back for the non-bio child and is not made to put any more money towards it, which is the most important thing.
A step in the right direction, to be sure, but it still leaves the old whipping boy "Oh look at the mean old man, abandoning a child he helped halfway to raise." Cleverly done, however. Cleverly done.
That child and that man should be free to develop their relationship on their terms, and true - momma should lose custody of the father's biological children, as she has presented prima facie evidence she has serious moral impediments. Let the burden be on *HER* to do what is best for that child, though.
I do not think men should have to pay for children who are not theirs. I think they should be able to sue the mother and recover the money, using the same laws that apply to other types of civil actions.
Except that fraud is already a criminal act. What do you think this Enron stuff is all about?
And please don't even suggest that mere money is more of a criminal thing than the lives and emotions of people, unless that is where your values lie.
I do not think this should be a crime for the same reason I don't think adultery should be a crime. I think it's a matter of one person hurting another emotionally, and nobody has a right to go through life without having other people hurt them emotionally.
Apples and oranges.
I resent the fact that because I don't support criminalization, I will be labeled a "female supremacist." If you refuse to accept any disagreement, you're going to alienate a lot of people.
It's because it's a moral gimme. And you aren't supporting criminalization, what you are supporting is decriminalization, and a continuance of the status quo of prosecutors refusing to prosecute for it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday September 05, @04:38PM EST (#80)
|
|
|
|
|
Whoa.... guess I'm outta here. Have fun killing people.
Ah yes, the old "I'm losing this argument, so I am going to seize on the excuse of being shocked by what was written by an obvious troll to run away" card.
How cute.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday September 05, @04:52PM EST (#81)
|
|
|
|
|
I would not take the kids away from Mom, even though she be convicted of parternity fraud.
I am glad someone else agrees with me on this one issue. I still don't think paternity fraud should be a criminal offense, but even if it is made into one, the mother should not lose her parental rights. If murderers keep theirs, people who commit the less serious crime of fraud should keep theirs.
Deflection AGAIN! Loss of custody is NOT loss of rights!
We already have millions of severely damaged young adults pouring out of the foster care system and straight into our prisons, mental hospitals and cemeteries. Why anyone wants to put millions more in the system escapes me.
Arguing facts not in evidence! Illogical! Illogical! Illogical!
This whole thread is about the fact that biology is the most important part of the father-child bond. No man in his right mind would want to raise a child that is not biologically his. There's a sappy saying about love making a family and not biology, but that's just not true. Biology trumps "love." So where on Earth are all these loving adoptive homes Warble speaks of going to come from? If you would never want a child that is not biologically yours, what makes you think anyone else will?
What a crock of crap, and a backhanded misandric condemnation.
What happens, pray tell, EVERY STINKING TIME it comes out that woman A has woman B's kid from a mix up and vice-versa? Lawsuits, malpractice, screeching, Katie Couric - no WOMAN wants it either! So chill on the "men" thing, sister. I don't notice any of these women sitting down and having any rational discussions.
The loving and adoptive homes will come from the same place the few million parents currently waiting for children on adoption lists are already.
there is something seriously wrong and delusional about a woman who has so little sense
>of justice that she would lie and make some man pay for kids who are not his.
IMO a woman who commits paternity fraud usually does think she's doing what's best for her child.
First, let's exuse the woman; next thing we have to "understand" her.
She probably figures it's better for the child to have a father figure rather than not having a father at all, which is what would happen in these cases if the truth were told.
Rationalization...
I don't think women who have children think clearly. They often act irrationally out of a primal and misdirected instinct to protect their young. That doesn't mean the guy should have to pay for kids that aren't his, or that he shouldn't get his money back, but we need to understand the pathology behind this.
There's the "understand." Am I psychic or are pheminists just getting predictable?
Maybe pregnant women and new mothers can be given drugs so that they act rationally instead of out of primal instinct.
Might I suggest TESTOSTERONE?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When people start talking about killing and maiming people there is nothing left to discuss. In any case, I didn't tell you what to do. You're free to stay and discuss things with the criminally insane if you like. I'll pass.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When people start talking about killing and maiming people there is nothing left to discuss. In any case, I didn't tell you what to do. You're free to stay and discuss things with the criminally insane if you like. I'll pass.
Yeahsureyoubetcha.
Peculiar isn't it how we get this spate of messages from "anonymous user," and then one from Lorianne anonymously, and then suddenly she logs on - using the same arguments as "anonymous user" - then she "doesn't want to discuss it with us crazy people."
Things that make ya go, "Hmmmmmmmmm."
Okay.
Right.
Um-hm.
Sure.
Whatever you say.
I guess manufacturing your own excuse to get out of an argument you are losing is convenient on the internet.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you for pointing this out, TGK. I've suspected that the feminist, Lorianne, is the lunatic, male-hating anonymous.
Note how the feminist uses the ravings of anonymous to generalize about those who disagree with her. (Judging from this tread it seems like a lot of hateful, violent, sickos on the side of paternity fraud laws. The vengeful, hateful tone of these supporters...)
The feminist is smart enough to know that anonymous doesn't really support men's rights or laws that protect men from criminal actions, and yet the feminist uses the ranting of anonymous to generalize about those who do support rights for men.
I suspect Lorianne and anonymous are the same person. Good call, Gonzmeister.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Men are also guilty of this. Many men know their mothers committed paternity fraud, yet they protect them in a way they would never protect a wife who did the same thing.
B.S. Only the woman can commit paternity fraud. A man cannot claim to be a father because they cannot sign a declaration of paternity form without the knowledge and consent of the child’s mother. However, there are instances where men are at most accessories to paternity fraud. But that cannot happen without the unique knowledge and consent of the child’s mother. But for the actions of the woman there could be no paternity fraud. Paternity fraud is a uniquely female-based crime that only a woman can initiate. It is simply a matter of biology that makes it impossible for the man to be the initiator and perpetrator of paternity fraud. Feminists, in their overwhelming hatred of men cannot admit that single fact. That is why paternity fraud is a litmus test to determine if women and men are bigoted against the principle of men’s rights.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
At the very least, if jail time is served, it is considered a serious bar to recieving custody.
I know. LOL! That is why I advocate that criminal females that have committed paternity fraud should be permitted the same rights as a murderer. LOL! AU got nailed on that one. :)
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you for pointing this out, TGK. I've suspected that the feminist, Lorianne, is the lunatic, male-hating anonymous.
Must say the same thought occurred to me. Though it wouldn't surprise me if a radical feminist asked for help on the MS. board when she saw Lorianne getting creamed.
Warb
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday September 06, @04:44AM EST (#90)
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry, Anon, I've got to go with Lorianne, on this.
I'm not trying to start something, but That WAS a bit strong.
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday September 06, @05:01AM EST (#91)
|
|
|
|
|
Lorianne.
I hope that You and the "Anon" are NOT one and the same. (If you are I just made a fool of myself in the above post.)
Anyway, I like seeing "diverse" oppinions, here. I either learn something or find confirmation in this.
If you really are a "rad-fem", I'll feel bad if it ever turns out to be so. I think you've made some good arguments.
If you and the "Anon" are NOT one and the same, I must say I take a bit of exeption to you calling "us" "the criminaly insane". Most of us here, Includeing myself, Are simply fed up with "duo justice". The fact that we point out that women get a free ride all too often in the legal system and men all too often get the shaft from the same, is NOT an attack on "WOMEN" but an attack on the legal system and FEMINISTS who support it.
If being against in-justice, whether against MEN or WOMEN, is a mark of "criminal insanity", then I'm proud to be NUTS.
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday September 06, @05:19AM EST (#92)
|
|
|
|
|
I knight thee...; SIR KING of TROLL.
I also knight thee, sir Ball of dirt. sir leg of lamb, sir cup of tea, Sir bowl of soup, Sir hall of shame, loin of beef, duke of wellington, creature of Black lagoon, eye of newt, oil of olay, cream of wheat, string of perils, milk of magnesia...Etc, Etc...infinity.
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday September 06, @05:36AM EST (#93)
|
|
|
|
|
Your favorite actors are; Gary TROLLman, James TROLLin, Ester TROLL and Angelina TROLLie.
Your favorite author is; Leo TROLLstoy.
Your favorite short-story is; For whom the bell TROLLS.
Your favorite TV rerun-show is; Rat paTROLL.
You voted for Bob TROLL for president.
Your favorite cartoon is; TROLL-position.
Your favorite TV shows are; TROLL train. and TROLLing for dollars.
When you play foot ball, you make a feild-TROLL.
When you play golf, you make a TROLL-in-one.
And your favorite cookies are; TROLLhouse cookies.
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday September 06, @05:42AM EST (#94)
|
|
|
|
|
((("I was wondering if this psyco was gone. guess not.")))
Oh, She's "GONE", allright, Warb.
And I mean GONE! REAL gone, if you get my drift.
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"I resent the fact that because I don't support criminalization, I will be labeled a "female supremacist." If you refuse to accept any disagreement, you're going to alienate a lot of people."
"Alienate," that's putting it mildly. I suspect the female scam artists who have perpetrated paternity fraud (along with their ilk) will be more than alienated. Oh my goodness, we are alienating a bunch of tyrannical, radical feminists. What is my reaction to that? GREAT! OUTSTANDING! WONDERFUL! I LOVE IT!
I respect your right to disagree, but I don't respect your subversion of equal justice as it applies to women who commit paternity fraud. These women should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law like any other conniving criminal.
Here's a good topic to put in the female supremacist's book, immediately under the heading, What Female Scams Don't Work on Men Anymore, "THERE'S NO EXCUSE FOR PATERNITY FRAUD!"
You don't want to criminalize women who commit paternity fraud, but I say no sympathy for the deviltry of scaming , premeditating, female, paternity fraud criminals.
I am alienated and outraged by the fact that you and the law do not take a much harder stand on these violaters of human rights.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday September 06, @01:15PM EST (#98)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Totally predictable from you. Attributing anonymous postings to people you don't agree with. The level of discourse here sucks, not the least of which is all these cowardly "anon" posters. But this is a new low.
Too bad for mensactivism.com that they can't have a more civil board where people can disagree strongly but with respect towards each other. The tone and level of discourse here is a problem .... for mensactivism. It cheapens everyone who participates, particularly those whe are intelligent, cogent, thoughtful posters.
But hey, its not my board and I can't do anything about it. If it were my board, I'd clean it up by posting IP addresses or something. But thats up to the webmaster. Obviously, they don't mind people coming on here an lowering the discussion level to unfounded accusations, threats, insults, profanity, blasphemy ... etc etc.
I've always posted under my own moniker (here and on other boards) and taken the heat for my opinions. That more than we can say for the cowardly weasely "anon" posters here, which by my guess is about half of the post, maybe more.
I try to respond to people who have an identity established here such as Thomas, Warble, Nightmist (who used to post a lot) and others. We may not agree but at least these people have the integrity to put a name and a consistent personae behind their posts. That makes them worthwhile reading.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday September 06, @01:17PM EST (#100)
|
|
|
|
|
"Your own mother was probably a fucking whore and a cunt. If you haven't tested your DNA, how the fuck do you know? Why do you trust the bitch whose cunt you dropped out of? She probably lied and she probably deserves you to fucking hate her and kick her ugly whore teeth in for spreading her cunt for some truck driver"
NOW, isn't that special.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Whatever, Thomas. I thought you cared more about this board than to stoop so low.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday September 06, @01:58PM EST (#104)
|
|
|
|
|
She said,
"Biology is everything. NO MAN ALIVE LOVES SOME BASTARD BRAT THAT CAME FROM ANOTHER MAN'S COCK."
My reply,
You are an ignorant, bigoted liar of the lowest order. My nephew is adopted, and my brother and I love him dearly. Your "fighting words," (legal definition), have commited domestic violence against all three of us.
She said,
"I hope you find out your mother is a whore and a cunt, and that your father beats her to a bloody pulp because she couldn't keep her snatch to him, after he beats the shit out of you because he hates you because you came from some other man's cock."
My reply,
Obviously, radical feminists like you have written the book on incitng this kind of behavior, but no thanks. I think I speak for all the good, decent men on this site when I say to you, "radical feminists are perfectly capable of doing their own violent dirty work so aim your prevaricating provocations at your own radical feminist ilk. We brave, peace-loving men choose to have no association with the vile thoughts or actions that you promote."
While your at it, if you are so inclined to violence, why don't you radical feminists put your actions where your big mouths are, and go fight the next war to keep America free so hate monger bigots like you can shoot their big, ignorant mouths off. Invariably, unfortunately irresponsible, big mouth bigots like you have proven only one thing in the wars America has fought, their true depth of cowardice.
I choose to remain anonymous only out of respect for the privacy of my brother and nephew. It is my personal opinion that unexcusable hate behavior like yours should not be tolerated, lest through lack accountablility that hatred should spread, so I would love to give you my name and find out yours.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lorianne:
No need to get sore just because you're losing. Besides, you're only getting a little taste of the abuse that men have been enduring at the hands of the radical feminists for a few decades.
As for myself, I find it refreshing that men are beginning to unapologetically stand up to the wheedling, and self-aggrandizing presumptuousness of arrogant feminists. Come back any time for a roast if you can take the heat. It's been fun having you.
Again, as for me, I was just practicing on you for the next feminist. I very much enjoyed dissecting your oppossing veiwpoints. You stand up for what you believe, and I do respect you for that, even if I disagree with what you believe most of the time.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As for myself, I find it refreshing that men are beginning to unapologetically stand up to the wheedling, and self-aggrandizing presumptuousness of arrogant feminists.
You go boy! Jews didn't owe civility to Nazis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Whatever, Thomas. I thought you cared more about this board than to stoop so low.
Another distortion of the facts by our resident feminist. I accused you of nothing (note the title, "More false accusations.") If I had said that you were the same person as the lunatic anonymous, then I would have been accusing you. I was and remain suspicious that you are one and the same.
I accused you of nothing, but I won't tell you to stop distorting the facts, because I know that would be a waste of my time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for asking me Warble.
It think the 99% of the problem would be solved by the State requiring a father's name on the birth certificate. The named father would then have the opportunity to accept or contest his name being added to a legal document. If he accepts it, he is then legally the father.
I understand and appreciate that this puts the burden on the father to disprove an allegation, however, practically, I don't see any other way to get the correct information. For this reason I support universal DNA paternal/maternal testing for BOTH parents shortly after birth to confirm the parentage listed on the birth certificate.
I do not believe people should be legally stripped of their biological information. Therefore I place the burden on both bio-parents to provide accurate information. Willful "fruad" should be prosecuted. That includes knowingly providing false information or knowingly ommiting information. Both are "fraud", however both would be difficult to prove in court, as you'd have to prove "intent" (not an easy task) in court.
I believe that there are very few cases where a woman refuses to name a father, or doesn't have a clue who the father is. It would be difficult, but not impossible to prove the former. In the case of the later, if the mother KNEW the DNA test was emminent, I believe 99% of mothers would endeavor to provide the correct name right off the bat, or provide a list names of the possible fathers. If she KNOWS that DNA testing is the default procedure, she would have nothing to gain by purposefully naming the wrong father, nor anything to gain by not mentioning that there are other possibilities if she is not sure who the father is. (Just the fact of that DNA paternal testing exists I believe has probably cut down on "fraud" considerably).
I believe this is the key to providing the best outcome for all concerned, particularly the child. We KNOW the child has a father and we KNOW it it is in the child's interest to correctly document its bio-parents. It is also in the State's interest to resolve these matters early rather than later to avoid costly, messy lawsuits down the line. Therefore, if the State is going to be involved at all, it should be involved early in the process, at birth documentation, not 5-7 or 10 years down the line. What good can come from allowing fraud or possible mistakes to go on for years?
If everyone knew up front that a father WILL BE named on the birth certificate and that the father WILL BE legally required to acknowledge his parentage (as women are required to do by default), then there would be much less fraud. And if DNA testing was available by default, so that men could easily and matter of factly verify their paternity, there would be virtually zero fraud. Fraud would be very very rare.
Personally, I'm not convinced fraud is all that prevalent. In the fraud cases that do happen, what I think happens in MOST is that the woman knows there is a possibility that the child is fathered by one of 2 men (3 tops). Then she just takes a guess which one without mentioning that there is this other possibility out there. This situation would be solved virtually overnight if women know that DNA test is likely and imminent as a matter of course, right after birth. This gives her approx 6 months to present the other possibility and alert the putative fathers.
Since these men had sex with her around the time of conception , I believe the men have an obligation to the child to come forward and SEEK to know their paternal status, not wait to be "caught" or proven by the State to be the father. This obligation I believe they took on when they had sex, knowing the default consequence of sex is conception. If they are actively avoiding being identified as the father, this is "fraud" of another type.
Actively avoiding finding out paternal status is only another type of "fraud" against the child. Furthermore it is not in the interest of anyone for parents to not come forward and take responsibility for the possible consequences of their sexual actions. Not coming forward or actively avoiding proving paternity is, in my mind, shuffling one's responsibilties off onto others.
What is "fair" is for everyone to step back and realize that every child has TWO biological parents and that the child deserves to know who their biologicial parents are. No exceptions. Therefore what is fair is that we overhaul our entire believe system regarding children and what obligations we have to them. If everyone was culturally conditioned right off the bat to realize that every child WILL have two parents and that society is serious about making sure that happens, then people (I believe) will respond more with a more responsible attitude from the start.
Changing this mindset won't be easy in this age of anonymous procreation and with the "catch me if you can" mentality that is being presented by many.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loriane,
You said:
"Actively avoiding finding out paternal status is only another type of "fraud" against the child. Furthermore it is not in the interest of anyone for parents to not come forward and take responsibility for the possible consequences of their sexual actions. Not coming forward or actively avoiding proving paternity is, in my mind, shuffling one's responsibilties off onto others."
My Reply:
This is pretty difficult to do when the "all powerful female" has exercised her special entitlement to choose which man to defraud, and not even let the real father know she's pregnant.
Still your message is encouraging, since I assume you are saying we should initiate more state laws like the one recently enacted in Florida, where recently pregnant, bed-hopping, females must post in a newspaper all the men they had sex with who could possibly be the father, before they can put a child up for adoption. This way the dad at least has some chance to come forward and claim his paternity.
It appears in this way you do agree with us and support the rights of oppressed, disempowered men/fathers. I salute you.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I assume you are saying we should initiate more state laws like the one recently enacted in Florida, where recently pregnant, bed-hopping, females must post in a newspaper all the men they had sex with who could possibly be the father, before they can put a child up for adoption. This way the dad at least has some chance to come forward and claim his paternity. It appears in this way you do agree with us and support the rights of oppressed, disempowered men/fathers.
Yes, I do support fathers! I support Rebuttal Presumption of Joint Physical Custody and full rights of fathers in adoption. I even support veto rights for fathers in abortion.
I just don't see how the Florida law is going to get us from here to there on the adoption front. I think it will backfire for fathers, and particularly for children. I wish I had a better plan up my sleeve to offer but at present I'm stumped on this one.
I think the Florida law is dumb (on many levels) but I'm willing to give it the benefit of the doubt and see if it works and doesn't cause more problems for all concerned.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I do support the intent of the Florida law but I don't think it will work as intended. I see a lot of problems with it ... for men as well. Basically it is unenforceable and I am concerned about it on many levels:
1. Assuming no one comes forward after the name is published, how would we know that the names submitted were even plausible? Will the State track down these men and verify that they know the woman? Will they require a DNA test?
2. The men named would have their names in the paper with a presumption of fugitive status.
3. What leverage does the state have? Take away the child? She already wants to give it up for adoption. Will the child be put in foster care instead of go to a loving adoptive home while the State sorts the mess out?
4. I think this law will promote abortion. If we assume the intent of the law is for men who WANT their kid, it seems not to help these men if their child is aborted, right?
5. The law is somewhat sexist in that it seems predicated on men not knowing who they've been with is pregnant and gave birth. It assumes men either anonymously coupled with the woman or it is a one-night stand type of thing with the man leaving town or perhaps an out-of-town fling ... which seems to indicate carelessness on the part of both parties.
6. How would the State prove who had sex with who? Even requiring the disclosure, how would the State prove the disclosures were accurate? Track down all the men named and question them?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I do support the intent of the Florida law but I don't think it will work as intended. I see a lot of problems with it ... for men as well. Basically it is unenforceable and I am concerned about it on many levels:
Unenforceable how? Suzie wants to put the baby up for adoption, then get Johnny to sign the form. Use due diligence in trying to find him. What could be harder?
What's astounding is your philosophical inconsistancy. You preach longly and loudly over how the CHILD has the right to TWO parents - do you mean that, or is it just sophistry? What's even more curious is that you're not arguing it doesn't go far enough - the law, as written, still allows women to post-natally exercise their choice to be a mother - even if Johnny doesn't want to sign, the child becomes his responsibility alone, and Suzie skips on here merry way.
1. Assuming no one comes forward after the name is published, how would we know that the names submitted were even plausible? Will the State track down these men and verify that they know the woman? Will they require a DNA test?
Well, if daddy does turn up later, she's committed perjury and fraud against the state, and the adoption agency who is gettinmg sued can sue momma, and she'll be responsible...for ....
Okay, I think I see what your problem is with this. How silly of me.
2. The men named would have their names in the paper with a presumption of fugitive status.
???? Where do you get this? If my name was in there, I'd be saying, "So? I had my vasectomy years ago." and reach for the financial section.
3. What leverage does the state have? Take away the child? She already wants to give it up for adoption. Will the child be put in foster care instead of go to a loving adoptive home while the State sorts the mess out?
No, the state and the adoption agencies will have a willful and deliberate act of perjury and fraud, in writing, for later actions which may arise. If daddy can't be found, or doesn't come forward, the adoption proceeds.
4. I think this law will promote abortion. If we assume the intent of the law is for men who WANT their kid, it seems not to help these men if their child is aborted, right?
Even married women don't even have to inform their spouse of an abortion. Women hold that trump anyway.
5. The law is somewhat sexist in that it seems predicated on men not knowing who they've been with is pregnant and gave birth.
I'm sorry, I for one didn't come with that clairvoyant/telepathic gene that you women are convinced somehow we have. How would I possibly know you are pregnant unless you tell me? It's verey easy for you to say "It's over, don't contact me" and back it up with a restraining order. If anything, it's too weak in that it doesn't address the CHILD's right to two parents if mommy dearest goes out, gets pregnant with a man she regards only as a sperm donor, and chooses not to involve the father because SHE doesn't NEED a MAN in HER life.
It assumes men either anonymously coupled with the woman or it is a one-night stand type of thing with the man leaving town or perhaps an out-of-town fling ... which seems to indicate carelessness on the part of both parties.
Been known to happen, been known to happen to me. Ran into a woman the other day from a few months back, and neither one of us could remember each other's names.
6. How would the State prove who had sex with who? Even requiring the disclosure, how would the State prove the disclosures were accurate? Track down all the men named and question them?
Assumption of facts not in evidence. The law requires due diligence in notifying these men that a child potentially theirs be notified, and allows the option of serving via publication. It requires that the woman provide truthful and accurate information under penalty of perjury, and the man come forth in a timely fashion and assume sole responsibility, or be considered to waive his parental rights by default.
Nice set of strawmen, though.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"4. I think this law will promote abortion. If we assume the intent of the law is for men who WANT their kid, it seems not to help these men if their child is aborted, right?"
Lorianne:
As the law is presently worded, I agree with your above quote. To spare herself the embarassment, many a woman would secretly have an abortion. I think it would be more in the best interest of the baby (his/her life) to simply, publically and prominently state the circumstances surrounding the sexual liason (time, date, place, other identifying circumstances, etc.) and then request all possible fathers to come forward to DNA verify (or not)the child's father. This posting would probably develope a sizable readership due to the tabloid curiosity (fascination) of the American public. This would also not rob potential adoptive parents of a child. It's not a perfect solution, but I think it's more workable than the present Florida law. However, I for one, am still open to ways to improve it.
Everyone, (baby, woman, and man) should be entitled to equal justice under the law.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gees. There are so many holes and equivocations in Lorianne's arguments that I don't know where to begin. First, it is clear that in all cases Lorianne fails to advocate actively prosecuting a female criminal 10 years or more into a paternity fraud case. She somehow seems to believe that if we are silent about the fraud that the child doesn't get hurt. This is the same lie that radical feminist teach.
It think the 99% of the problem would be solved by the State requiring a father's name on the birth certificate. The named father would then have the opportunity to accept or contest his name being added to a legal document. If he accepts it, he is then legally the father.
We already have this in California, and it has been proven that the problem is not resolved. One problem with this method is the social norm where a man is penalized if he questions paternity at the onset.
For example, if a man who is married wants a DNA test to prove paternity then he is assumed not to trust his wife. So a man cannot request paternity testing without implicating that he lacks trust for his wife. The problem with Lorianne’s argument is that she ignores the fact that both parties must be required to act in good faith.
Note that if a man has a child outside of the marriage he can ask for a paternity test without implicating that his wife or the other woman is unfaithful. That is because there is no presumption of acting in good faith. Further, if the man has a child by another woman it is widely recognized that the male did not act in good faith. That is whey we call this activity as being unfaithful.
B.T.W. The form that you are referencing is the declaration of paternity.
I understand and appreciate that this puts the burden on the father to disprove an allegation, however, practically, I don't see any other way to get the correct information.
Christ! What a bigoted statement! Why in the hell should men be presumed guilty just because they are men? Answer, they shouldn’t. That is why such statements are so bigoted. If a woman is going to make an allegation then the burden of proof should be on her.
In addition, if the mother gets unilateral choice in the decision of whether a child is born then the women should be held accountable to correctly identify the father. Further, the woman should be required to pay for the costs of paternity testing because the man who is correctly identified will be financially required to care for the child. That is only fair.
At about $200 a pop that means the mother may be required to pay $1000 if she has slept with five men around the time of conception. Let women pay for their promiscuity just like men do in the form of child support. It’s time that women accept responsibility for their unique right to unilaterally decide on whether the child will be born.
Willful "fruad" should be prosecuted. That includes knowingly providing false information or knowingly ommiting information. Both are "fraud", however both would be difficult to prove in court, as you'd have to prove "intent" (not an easy task) in court.
Great! Then you would advocate that Ms. Bonder, who has allegedly committed paternity fraud, should be in jail for victimizing Kerkorian and harming her child. Currently, she allegedly takes in about $325,000 per month and is becoming a multimillion air because she was successful in her alleged fraud.
If she KNOWS that DNA testing is the default procedure, she would have nothing to gain by purposefully naming the wrong father, nor anything to gain by not mentioning that there are other possibilities if she is not sure who the father is.
And what exactly is wrong with having the woman just properly fill out the form with the knowledge that she can be criminally prosecuted if she commits paternity fraud? It is interesting that you keep skirting the fact that women are the sole agents that are responsible for paternity fraud. They are specifically asked if there is a possibility of there being another father. The are specifically asked if they had sexual relations with another man within 60 days of the time of conception. Why should women be immune from criminal prosecution if they refuse to fill the form out correctly?
Further, NCFM, LA suggested an amendment that there be mandatory paternity testing if the woman indicated that there may be more than one partner. Yet the feminist opposed the amendment on grounds that they didn’t believe the woman should have her privacy violated, and they claimed that by requiring the woman to answer that question that it would remove the burden from the man to resolve paternity issues early on. Clearly, feminists do not want preventive measures. These arguments are just a smoke-screen to avoid being held responsible for criminal actions.
...if the State is going to be involved at all, it should be involved early in the process, at birth documentation, not 5-7 or 10 years down the line. What good can come from allowing fraud or possible mistakes to go on for years?
You still don’t get it. So I’ll say it again, but for the criminal actions of the woman in failing to fill out the declaration of paternity form correctly there can be no fraud. Not even a man can fill out the form declaring he is the father without the consent of the mother. The mother of the child has absolute control on determining if the form will be filled out correctly. It is only the woman that can prevent paternity fraud. In my opinion, it is therefore bigoted of you to demand that the responsibility be transferred to the man when only the woman knows if there is more than one father. The fact that you keep failing to acknowledge this speaks for itself.
Personally, I'm not convinced fraud is all that prevalent. In the fraud cases that do happen, what I think happens in MOST is that the woman knows there is a possibility that the child is fathered by one of 2 men (3 tops). Then she just takes a guess which one without mentioning that there is this other possibility out there.
This is the same argument that the lesbian groups tried to put forward. They basically stated that only a few men are victims of paternity fraud. If only a few men are victims then there is no need to address the issue. Nevertheless, even if there were only a few hundred cases of paternity fraud, that does not excuse the act. Making these kinds of statements to imply that paternity fraud isn’t somehow a serious crime demonstrates an incredible level of bigotry against men. We might just as well argue that there are only a few bank vaults broken into each year so why prosecute?
Nevertheless, we have reason to believe that approximately 30% of all women having children have relations with more than one man. We also know from the American Association of Blood Banks that of all tests performed that about 30% of the men are proven not to be the fathers. That means that literally millions of men are victims of paternity fraud each year. But of course you imply that women are somehow morally superior in this argument and that therefore, there cannot be such a grand scale of criminal activity on the part of women. What bigotry.
Further, the woman is specifically asked on the declaration of paternity form if there is any possibility of more than one man being the father. She is even given guidelines for making that determination. For example, she is informed that if she has had sexual relations with any other man within 60 days of conception that she should declare that another man may be the father.
Really, it's quite simple. If the woman lies on the form she has committed paternity fraud. It doesn't get any easier than that. She can intend to be truthful and fill it out correctly or she can lie. If she lies then she should be prosecuted for paternity fraud. It's as simple as that.
Since these men had sex with her around the time of conception , I believe the men have an obligation to the child to come forward and SEEK to know their paternal status, not wait to be "caught" or proven by the State to be the father. This obligation I believe they took on when they had sex, knowing the default consequence of sex is conception. If they are actively avoiding being identified as the father, this is "fraud" of another type.
Oh Puuulllleeaaaasseeee! This is pathetic. Again, in my opinion, you demonstrate your bigotry. Christ this is the most bigoted statement yet! Who says that men are waiting to be caught by the state to prove paternity? Only you and the many male hating feminist out there.
No doubt you believe that all men are evil and guilty until proven innocent. In fact you explicitly state this when you write, “I understand and appreciate that this puts the burden on the father to disprove an allegation, however, practically, I don't see any other way to get the correct information.“ This is a self-deluding statement that is common of most all radical feminist.
Why don’t you just say that these men should be paying for the privilege of having had sex with the woman? Why not have laws to make every man post a financial deposit of $200 with the woman prior to any sexual activity with the woman? We don’t do this because most people recognize that this would reduce women to the status of a prostitute. The real answer is that women should be held responsible for their unilateral choice to have a child. Women need to quit trying to shift their responsibilities to men and accept responsibility for their body and their unilateral choice.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gees. There are so many holes and equivocations in Lorianne's arguments that I don't know where to begin. First, it is clear that in all cases Lorianne fails to advocate actively prosecuting a female criminal 10 years or more into a paternity fraud case. She somehow seems to believe that if we are silent about the fraud that the child doesn't get hurt. This is the same lie that radical feminist teach.
This is NOT what I believe. I'm saying that in the end, a paternity test will determine whether "fraud" has occured or not. So, why not do the test earlier rather than later?
Lorianne: It think the 99% of the problem would be solved by the State requiring a father's name on the birth certificate. The named father would then have the opportunity to accept or contest his name being added to a legal document. If he accepts it, he is then legally the father.
We already have this in California, and it has been proven that the problem is not resolved. One problem with this method is the social norm where a man is penalized if he questions paternity at the onset.
There would be no "penalization" if DNA paternal/maternal testing were the default norm, the universal norm in all births. Example: In most states you must have a blood test to get a marriage license. This is in place basically to protect each party from marrying someone with an STD, but the marriage parties are saved from asking each other for the test and arousing the aura of distrust of the other party. It is just "accepted" (I don't know anyone who questions this test) and there are no hard feelings about finding out about the sexual health of your potential mate. This was the same rationale in the old custom of anouncing "bans" weeks before a marriage. It saved the betrothed from asking embarrassing questions and calling the other's character into doubt. It relied on outsiders to come forward if there was any reason why the two should not marry, such as they are already married, etc.
If DNA testing of BOTH parties were just the "norm" and everyone just expected it woul be done, no one would feel slighted by their SO. And ... a woman would look suspicious if she asked the putative father not to take the test. I believe it would put a virtual end to paternity fraud. Is that not the goal?
Why in the hell should men be presumed guilty just because they are men? Answer, they shouldn’t. That is why such statements are so bigoted. If a woman is going to make an allegation then the burden of proof should be on her.
I don't know what you mean. What allegation would a woman make? A woman cannot prove paternity. She can state that there is a possibility that he is or is not the father, but she cannot prove it without his cooperation.
In addition, if the mother gets unilateral choice in the decision of whether a child is born then the women should be held accountable to correctly identify the father. Further, the woman should be required to pay for the costs of paternity testing because the man who is correctly identified will be financially required to care for the child. That is only fair.
Once again, she she cannot correctly identify the father with certainty without a DNA test. Payment is no big deal so I don't see why that is even an issue. Anyway, if the man pays and he turn out not to be the father, it would be very easy to write a law that he is reimbursed. However, if he had sex with the woman around the time of conception, it is not to much to ask that he come forward to be tested.
At about $200 a pop that means the mother may be required to pay $1000 if she has slept with five men around the time of conception.
Srug. Big deal. I doubt many women would be in this situation. And anyway, even if a woman was in this situation, the State can go after her for the cost.
Let women pay for their promiscuity just like men do in the form of child support. It’s time that women accept responsibility for their unique right to unilaterally decide on whether the child will be born.
Sheesh this sounds like retaliation for not aborting to me. What is all this about? I thought the discussion was focussed on paternity fraud?
Great! Then you would advocate that Ms. Bonder, who has allegedly committed paternity fraud, should be in jail for victimizing Kerkorian and harming her child.
I don't know the facts of this case but if it could be proven that she willfully deceived him then yes, she should be punished.
And what exactly is wrong with having the woman just properly fill out the form with the knowledge that she can be criminally prosecuted if she commits paternity fraud?
Nothing. But if she is not sure who the father is, paternity would have to be determined in some way first before the legal form is filled out. If you're asking her to guess who the father is and if she's wrong she goes to jail, this seems like entrapment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Many times people wonder if their letters to the legislature makes a difference. I want to point out that the legislature is quite mindful of the letters that are sent to comment on a bill.
Further, I have first hand experience in influencing the wording of a bill by sending in letters and entering testimony before the California Legislature. You can do the same thing by following the example of leaders like Scott. It was Scott's example that got me started. If figured that if Scott could testify then so could I. The same applies to all of you. Literally!
One of the things the legislature always does in crafting and considering a bill is they present an analysis. It is very important to read this analysis (AB2240). This is where we learn of the proposed amendments and the reasons for the amendments. It is also where we find who is in support of a bill or who opposes the bill.
The men's rights groups have made a fantastic showing on this bill. Further, there have been 92 letters sent and they have been read. Those letters, because of their numbers, are having a significant impact in favor of AB2240. Here is a list of the men's rights groups, equity feminist groups, and others that have supported AB2240 (good job!):
- American Coalition for Fathers and Children
- American Fathers Coalition
- California Parents United, Inc.
- Citizens Against Paternity Fraud
- City of Compton
- Coalition of Parent Support
- Family Equality in Divorce & Unified Parenting (FED UP)
- Men's Health Network
- National Coalition of Free Men (with suggested amendments)
- National Congress for Fathers and Children
- Second Wives Crusade
- American Federation of State, County and Municipal
- Employees (AFSCME)
- Letters from 92 individuals
Here is a list of feminists male hate groups that have opposed AB2240 because (IMHO) it permits fairness to men:
- Association for Children for Enforcement of Support (ACES)
- California Alliance Against Domestic Violence
- Child Support Directors Association of California
- Children Now
- Coalition for Family Equity
- National Center for Lesbian Rights
- National Center for Youth Law
- State Bar of California, Family Law Section (unless amended)
- California National Organization for Women
In my opinion, it is without question that these groups have advocated the continued practice of institutionalized discrimination against men. Many of them are on record as having made bigoted statements against men. It is very important that the men’s rights groups and the equity feminists answer those bigoted arguments that these male hate groups have made. If we don’t answer those arguments, it gives the appearance that the public supports them. It has been my pleasure to observe first hand that their anti-male arguments favoring institutionalized discrimination against men have been answered by us. GOOD JOB! We are making a major difference. No longer will these male hate groups be permitted to pass male hate laws.
I encourage everybody to send a letters to Governor Davis. It will make a big difference in demonstrating that we support fairness for men. A letter does not need to be long. It only needs to be a couple of sentences. Here is a sample of a short letter:
Dear Governor Davis:
I support AB2240 because it puts an end to one form of institutionalized discrimination against men. It allows men to provide for the needs of their own biological children. It allows men that are the victims of paternity fraud, where there is a default judgment, to seek a remedy. It is family friendly and relieves the suffering of innocent biological children that are denied resources because of paternity fraud. Please sign AB2240.
Sincerely,
Your Name
Address
That’s all it takes to have a letter that is counted and that makes a difference. Do not waste your time making phone calls unless you are a lobbyist representing a special interest group. Phone calls from individuals are ignored. This game is about counting letters. Numbers are the only thing that makes a difference.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Warble, I REALLY appreciate all the quality work and time you've put into this whole effort. THANK YOU.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday September 01, @02:28AM EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
Same here. Warb.
Thank you.
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday September 05, @12:05PM EST (#58)
|
|
|
|
|
Before anyone here ever celebrates another Mother's Day, we should all get ourselves tested and find out if our mothers deserve our love or if they are liars and whores who deserve to be hated and thrown into the streets like the whores they are. If you trust your mother but not your wife, you are a fool. Neither deserves trust or love. Your mother is your father's wife, and he deserves to know whether she is a whore he should divorce. If you love your mother without getting a DNA test, you are a fucking pussy no better than the pheminist bitches.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday September 06, @12:41AM EST (#89)
|
|
|
|
|
I only worry about the radical feminist, and if I get too close to them I go to my vetrinarian and get another rabbies shot. If fact, I think I'll go get one now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday September 06, @06:11AM EST (#96)
|
|
|
|
|
The #58 post allows us to see the Troll's psycology.
We can observe in the troll the psycological nature of the 'id'.
The id, the super id and the STUP-id.
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Judging from this tread it seems like a lot of hateful, violent, sickos on the side of paternity fraud laws. The vengeful, hateful tone of these supporters can only hurt the chances of passing what could be reasonable laws.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Judging from this tread it seems like a lot of hateful, violent, sickos on the side of paternity fraud laws. The vengeful, hateful tone of these supporters can only hurt the chances of passing what could be reasonable laws"
Guess again Lorianne, it's not vengance, it's justice. Your use of of the word vengence in this context is a misnomer.
Take the blinders off Lorianne. You're so prejudiced on this issue your dillusional. Your twisted equivocation of the facts coupled with repeated out of context useage of other people's quotes present a rather addled perception of the clear intent of the framers of AB-2240. Through sound documentation they have logically and carefully constructed the premises that foundationally support the legal validity of AB-2240.
I must give you credit for your tenacity in pummeling sound discourse with illogic, but my weariness as a result of your inanity cannot dissuade me from the crystal clear fact (the one you find so objectionable), to wit: "paternity fraud is a major crime." If the law does not hold accountable the women who commit these crimes, then the citizenry, forthwith is clearly informed by that inaction that the goverment seeks to make null and void the equal justice provision of 14th amendment in regards to men's rights on this issue.
Lorianne, I'm not buying for one nanosecond your nonsensical load of wacky facts. I will never accept, or acquiesce to, your twisted subversion of men's rights, wherein you promote your intent to give females a priveleged status above the law. That is just not going to happen, if you argue from now until L.A. freezes over.
Best Regards,
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lorianne, I'm not buying for one nanosecond your nonsensical load of wacky facts. I will never accept, or acquiesce to, your twisted subversion of men's rights, wherein you promote your intent to give females a priveleged status above the law. That is just not going to happen, if you argue from now until L.A. freezes over.
What "whacky facts"? I posted my opinion only, like most everyone else here. I don't have any particular "facts" to present in this discussion, but neither did anyone else. The discussion was mostly emotional and people presenting their opinions.
Furthermore, I said several times I think the fruad should be prosecuted. So I don't seee how you get that I want females to be above the law. Please go back and read my posts and find anywhere where I argued that fraud should not be prosecuted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lorianne:
I apologize that I have incorrectly stated your opinion, and accept your correction of my mistake.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What "whacky facts"? I posted my opinion only, like most everyone else here. I don't have any particular "facts" to present in this discussion, but neither did anyone else. The discussion was mostly emotional and people presenting their opinions.
Yup. And Lorianne and I have disagreed quite strongly on the issue of paternity fraud. Nevertheless, given a child I would have taken having Lorianne represent N.O.W. at the CA Committee of Judiciary any day over that other radical feminists.
At least Lorianne would have negotiated in good faith to seek preventative measures. Now we have to go back next year and do what could have already been done if CA N.O.W. and others would have negotiated in good faith and sought to at least comprimise with us.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday September 06, @06:05AM EST (#95)
|
|
|
|
|
((("Judging from this thread it seems like a lot of hateful,violent, sickos on the side of paternity fraud laws. The vengeful, hateful tone of these supporters can only hurt the chances of passing what could be reasonable laws.")))
Lorianne, What's up with you...?
The only "hateful, violent, sicko" on this thread has been ONE person, the Anon. The rest of the folks here have conducted themselves fine for the most part. Why do you come here and lump every person on the thread as "hateful, violent, sickos" by the (psycotic) comments of ONE person?
Any of us who bothered to pay any attention to this knuckle-head pretty much flamed them for their crude, vulgar and frankly creepy comments.
ONE does not represent the WHOLE, or vise-versa.
I find your generalization curious.
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thundercloud. I agree I did generalize too much. The anon hatemonger is in a completely different category and way off the deepend.
Why doesn't the moderator erase such comments and/or ban the IP of the hateful 'anon' poster? His/her comments totally destroyed the conversation.
I was upset by them when I should have ignored them. Normally, I try not to respond in any way to 'anon' posters but there are so many here I get sucked in sometimes. I apologize.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday September 06, @02:37PM EST (#106)
|
|
|
|
|
I was the one who just fired off a couple of replies to the earlier profane hate speech of the vulger Anon, i.e. "NOW, isn't that special," and "My nephew is adopted." I replied to that person's message, but your communication got sandwiched into the thread.
If that sort of hate speech is left posted I felt it should not go unchallenged. I agree that leaving that kind of ugliness lying around caters to an irrelevant and worthless dialogue that devolves the entire posting. I've seen good discussions ended, because of a troll. To leave them posted for days... ...well take it down or I will be "flaming" on it (anonymously or by my handle, or both).
Good Luck, Lorianne, you are NOW officially a casualty in the war on men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FLAME ON!
I LOVE THE SMELL OF SMOLDERING TROLLS IN THE MORNING. IT SMELLS LIKE... VICTORY!
When radical feminists verbally fire on our positions, returning verbal fire should be automatic.
They have too long enjoyed the priveleged status of their sex as a shield against any kind of accountability, in regards to the abusive and inaccurate statements that they so frequently make.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday September 07, @03:19AM EST (#113)
|
|
|
|
|
((("FLAME ON!")))
Ray.
A fan of the "Fantastic 4" are you? (^-^)
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday September 06, @05:38PM EST (#110)
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks, Lorianne.
The "Anon" got on my nerves too. I also could have been less snippy, myself. So I apoligize too.
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
