I was never married nor will I ever be married. The whole institution of marriage doesn't interest me even slightly. Hell, living with a woman doesn't even interest me, so being married is unthinkable. I mean, really, why would I accept a woman in the home when all they will end up doing is ordering me around like a dog? I would would rather they stay where they are and I stay where I am. That arrangement still allows me freedom and I still get everything I want from the relationship.
No, they don't. Spoken by a divorced dad who resents having to pay for his children, I'd guess.
I have listened to men on this website cry about child support for as long as I've been here. And read more than a few of these unfair stories about guys who found themselves in the same position this guy does. I think women who knowingly lie are the lowest of the low. I'm assuming when they DO lie it's because they've finally decided to pick the better man . . . Or, maybe, the real dad walked away. Neither option is pretty. The law should be changed. I think I said that.
In fact, now that I think about it, the woman is always lying because she is always unsure unless she was unconscious when she had sex. So let's call her what she is -- a liar.
Should a guy have a paternity test when he's not married to the mom? Yeah. Why not? If you're going to say he's in love and that wouldn't be nice, then why later should he have the right to change his mind and HAVE a DNA test that exonerates him from Child support?
Part of being an adult is taking care of business. Even when it makes you squirm. What would be more important to a man than making sure a child is his? IOW, there's a part of me that thinks, "Speak now or forever hold your peace."
And just look at his response to you.
It says all you need to know.
I can imagine any woman in his life genuinely trying to show him affection and him going off on her and starting the MRA line...
Being married or not has no effect on infidelity. If a man or woman is willing to cheat when not married then they will be willing to cheat when married. In both situations infidelity rates for men and women are quite high. If we go by the percentages then the majority of men and women will cheat in their lifetime. So is there reason to assume the woman cheated when a pregnancy happens? Well, statistically, yeah, there is a very good reason to believe that. Is it a good message for the man to send that he doesn't trust his partner to tell him the truth? No. Will it go over well in many cases if the man treats her like a cheater in such a way? Probably not. The fact is we want people in relationships to trust each other, not to doubt the other parties truthfulness and always be thinking they're probably cheating on them.
If a man has a reason to doubt her word then I see nothing wrong with getting the test, but to promote men always questioning the word of their partner is a not a good foundation to build a relationship on.
And just look at his response to you.
It says all you need to know.
I can imagine any woman in his life genuinely trying to show him affection and him going off on her and starting the MRA line...
He wasn't married to her when she got pregnant. He wasn't concerned that the child might not be his until he was out the door. I can't think of any reason why he should be exempt from the law.
He should pay.
Complicated stuff. Is he disowning the child? Does he still want to be a part of his life? I can't imagine raising a child as your own for two years and then just severing that connection because it turns out you don't share DNA. My wife had a 1-year-old son when we started dating. That was 10 years ago and we have since had another child together. I love both equally. It is one reason a few years ago I adopted my oldest so my parental rights would be protected. You never know what might happen in a marriage but I know damn well I will always love my kids, and that love has nothing to do with DNA.
But then there are plenty of fathers who have no problem walking away from their own biological children so it shouldn't surprise me that someone like this guy could do the same.
I feel bad for the kid. Doesn't sound like he has any quality parents, father or mother, in his life.
He didn't do it. That's reason enough.
I have listened to men on this website cry about child support for as long as I've been here.
So have I and many of them, Henrin included, believe men shouldn't even be obligated to support children that they do actually father.
So have I and many of them, Henrin included, believe men shouldn't even be obligated to support children that they do actually father.
A man in Oklahoma is hoping to change the law after he has to continue to pay child support for a baby that is not his, according to our affiliate KOTV.
When Thomas’ high school girlfriend got pregnant, he married her. Five months later she had a little boy and he believed he had a son, but their marriage fell apart.
Thomas decided to take a paternity test when the boy was three years old.
“It comes back zero percent. I was in my office and I saw that. I should’ve expected it but I didn’t and it hit me. I’m telling my co-worker how shocked I am that someone could do this to someone,” he said.
The judge ordered Thomas to take another DNA test and he got the same result. The judge first ruled that Thomas was off the hook financially, but then reversed the decision because Oklahoma law says men must question paternity within two years of the child’s birth.
(from this thread
http://www.debatepolitics.com/gener...y-child-support-despite-not-being-father.html
Yeah. He established himself as a caretaker starting before the child was even born and continuing for years afterwards. I am a proponent of heavy child support reform, and men being able to opt out even of a child that actually is genetically theirs, if they establish immediately that they do not consent to support.
But at this point, you have a child's well-being resting on support already offered and established. This child suffers for losing a support structure that their life has always been based around. If he had doubts, he should be questioned paternity from day one, not three years into this child's life.
It's not simply a matter of genetics. By that logic, people who adopt out their kids should pay child support, and no adopted child is ever truly the family of their adopted parents. That's absurd, not to mention insulting.
The reality is, a family is composed of whoever volunteers to support each other, and any dependent members. In this case, he volunteered to support dependent members, and he should continue to provide that support for the sake of the child whose entire family structure now relies on it.
Henrin is in a whole category of his own on this subject.
Or they think just asking the mother have an abortion should let them off the hook if she chooses not to.
I don't usually like applying labels to people, but I'm convinced that this attitude amongst some men is purely misogyny. You can read between the lines in nearly everything one particular member posts, in fact you don't have to, he outright says he just doesn't like women
Agreed, that's usually the case on any topic, however I often find it amazing (in a sad way) at how many guys who claim to oppose abortion (and I'm pro life myself) argue vehemently that once they get a woman pregnant they should get to walk away without obligation. It's like all the arguments they want to foist on a woman about the obligations she should have to a child once conceived should not apply to them.
Yeah. He established himself as a caretaker starting before the child was even born and continuing for years afterwards. I am a proponent of heavy child support reform, and men being able to opt out even of a child that actually is genetically theirs, if they establish immediately that they do not consent to support.
But at this point, you have a child's well-being resting on support already offered and established. This child suffers for losing a support structure that their life has always been based around. If he had doubts, he should be questioned paternity from day one, not three years into this child's life.
It's not simply a matter of genetics. By that logic, people who adopt out their kids should pay child support, and no adopted child is ever truly the family of their adopted parents. That's absurd, not to mention insulting.
The reality is, a family is composed of whoever volunteers to support each other, and any dependent members. In this case, he volunteered to support dependent members, and he should continue to provide that support for the sake of the child whose entire family structure now relies on it.
I don't believe that such a thing is justified. Not only because I think such demands should not be made, but because I find abortion for such reasons to be evil.
I like some women. Most women however have worn out their welcome with me.
Agreed, that's usually the case on any topic, however I often find it amazing (in a sad way) at how many guys who claim to oppose abortion (and I'm pro life myself) argue vehemently that once they get a woman pregnant they should get to walk away without obligation. It's like all the arguments they want to foist on a woman about the obligations she should have to a child once conceived should not apply to them.
Nothing is wrong with my response. Women are terrible to live with and have this strange idea that they get to order their man around when they do. It's not as if this isn't well known in society these days. :shrug:
I'm not pro-life and haven't been for a few years now. :shrug:
I'm not pro-life and haven't been for a few years now. :shrug:
A man in Oklahoma is hoping to change the law after he has to continue to pay child support for a baby that is not his, according to our affiliate KOTV.
When Thomas’ high school girlfriend got pregnant, he married her. Five months later she had a little boy and he believed he had a son, but their marriage fell apart.
Thomas decided to take a paternity test when the boy was three years old.
“It comes back zero percent. I was in my office and I saw that. I should’ve expected it but I didn’t and it hit me. I’m telling my co-worker how shocked I am that someone could do this to someone,” he said.
The judge ordered Thomas to take another DNA test and he got the same result. The judge first ruled that Thomas was off the hook financially, but then reversed the decision because Oklahoma law says men must question paternity within two years of the child’s birth.
(from this thread
http://www.debatepolitics.com/gener...y-child-support-despite-not-being-father.html
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?