A fathers rights

you must face the reality of having two sexes


You do not have any rights over someone elses body


you own your sperm

until you give is as a gift by choice


don't want to have someone else decide

Give no human your sperm
 
no they dont asshole

they will make you pay if you are claimed the father by the female


you have to prove you are not with DNA

and if you at any point claimed the child you may be screwed


If you are never claimed by the female you have no claim

Unless you make one
 
iewitness said:
if a fellow would insperminate a gal without knowing where she stands, he has forefeitted any [falsely so called] "rights"; this is the reason that marriage is the prescribed method of understanding and agreement prior to any insperminating. 2cent. America has become a nation of bastard child "mistakes", and mistakes beget mistakes. people say: "god don't make misakes"; no, people do.
Click to expand...

How do you deal with situations where the gal has stated where she stands prior then changes that stance after?
 
Mott the Hoople said:
If they are married he has rights. If they are not married he has no rights what so ever on the decision. In fact it is irresponsible young men who impregnate young women with no intent what so ever to take responsabiity for their actions that leads to a great number of abortions. If young men not ready to support a family keep their dicks in their pants or use birth control then there would be far less women seeking abortions.
Click to expand...

If the young women aren't ready to be pregnant, they should keep their legs closed or use birth control despite what the one she spreads them for doesn't want to do. Unless she's raped, he can't put it in her without her FIRST spreading her legs.

Interesting that you mention responsibility for one's choices and actions. If she gets the choice and the responsibility for supporting that child falls on her and the sperm donor, why do the taxpayers get the bill when she can't afford that choice?
 
evince said:
you have been answered

but you don't want to know what chicks think huh
Click to expand...

I want the chics that make the decision to not have an abortion but have the child to start supporting the results of that choice or get the sperm donor that helped her produce it to do so. Those of us that didn't impregnate her don't have one ounce of responsibility to support her children yet we're the ones that constantly get the bill for it.
 
evince said:
no they dont asshole they will make you pay if you are claimed the father by the female you have to prove you are not with DNA and if you at any point claimed the child you may be screwed If you are never claimed by the female you have no claim Unless you make one
Click to expand...

Incorrect.

Men who are not the biological fathers of children have been forced to pay child support for those children.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
It's the law. Unless he's married to the woman he has no legal rights.
Click to expand...

So the law, may not be fair. If a man can’t decide to keep a child, or, if does not want a child. Should he not have some legal recourse?

For instance: The man is young, he doesn’t want his life ruined, so he says “I should be able to sign away responsibility for this child completely to the mother, so that I have no legal responsibility for it”. Isn’t that the same thing as a young woman saying “I’m too young, and I don’t want the responsibility of having a child, so I’m going to abort it.?
 
God bless America said:
Incorrect.

Men who are not the biological fathers of children have been forced to pay child support for those children.
Click to expand...

i just checked my states legal parameters for non biological parents. They can be held financially responsible during separation, if they have acted as the parent for longer than a certain number of years, have provided healthcare, and shelter. Upon finalization of a divorce they are no longer legally responsible. I imagine there are variations from state to state in family law.
 
domer76 said:
Doesn’t even need to be wrestled away, Jethro.

“HAYDEN, Idaho - A woman was accidentally shot and killed by her two-year-old son at the Wal-Mart in Hayden, Idaho, Tuesday morning.”

The FACTS are, shit-for-brains, is that one is more likely to be injured by their pissant little popgun, than to be protected by it. The element of surprise, Barney Fife, is in the favor of the assailant.

Fucking Rambo wannabe.
Click to expand...

then you better take them away from all those cops and federal agents before we have a catastrophe of blood and murder, right?
 
J Craft said:
i just checked my states legal parameters for non biological parents. They can be held financially responsible during separation, if they have acted as the parent for longer than a certain number of years, have provided healthcare, and shelter. Upon finalization of a divorce they are no longer legally responsible. I imagine there are variations from state to state in family law.
Click to expand...

You are correct.

A divorced father of two was in for a big surprise when his young sons informed him that his ex — whom he had only recently separated from — had a child with another man. But shortly after, he had an even ruder awakening when he received a letter stating that he owed $8,500 in back child support for the kid — on Father’s Day weekend, no less. It turns out that it’s legal, thanks to a Michigan law drafted in 1956 called the Paternity Act.


https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/29/child-support_n_3672474.html

Most of the married couples involved in situations where the husband is not the biological father of a newborn in the home are soon divorced. Often, after divorce, the husband who was not the father fights to be released from the obligation to pay child support for a kid who is not his biological offspring. Many of these situations lead to costly court cases that last many years. Many men who try to not pay child support in these situations have historically been forced by the courts to continue paying. Most courts rule that if the husband signed the birth certificate and began a father relationship with the child, then he must continue that relationship, at least from a financial perspective, even if he did not know that the child was fathered by someone else at the time he signed.

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865610961/Unknowingly-raising-another-mans-child.html


A child support court in Texas ruled that Gabriel Cornejo, 45, had to pay child support to his ex-girlfriend who had recently given birth because she vowed that there was no way he wasn’t the rightful dad. Cornejo only found out about the child support payments when a deputy served him court papers claiming that the state of Texas lists him as having another child. He soon met the minor for the first and only time – describing her as a “wonderful girl” – but after taking a DNA test, learned she was not his after all. Cornejo’s ex-girlfriend and the state still want the $65,000 in back payments. Texas’ family code, chapter 161, states that even if one is not the biological father, they still owe support payments that accrued before the paternity test proves otherwise.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/07/23/texas-man-ordered-to-pay-65g-in-child-support-for-kid-that-isnt-his.html


The National Law Journal reported that "paternity fraud is rampant in the United States." Paternity fraud involves a woman's claiming, dishonestly, that a particular man has fathered children with her. By making such fraudulent claims, a woman is able to collect child support payments from a man who had nothing to do with siring her children. Indeed, even after a man has successfully disproved paternity, using DNA tests, courts have sometimes required the non-father to continue to pay child support. Many states do not permit a man to disprove his presumed paternity, even if DNA evidence would positively establish that a child is not genetically his. The "presumption of paternity" therefore acts as a legal command requiring married men to be fathers to their wives' children (except in exceptional circumstances) rather than as a device for arriving at the truth. Another way to put this is to describe the rule in question as an irrebuttable presumption.


http://supreme.findlaw.com/legal-commentary/paternity-fraud-when-men-are-forced-to-support-their-ex-wives-illegitimate-children.html
 
CFM said:
How do you deal with situations where the gal has stated where she stands prior then changes that stance after?
Click to expand...

my point is that marriage before breeding instead of making bastards like wild animals is the right thing to do.
 
iewitness said:
my point is that marriage before breeding instead of making bastards like wild animals is the right thing to do.
Click to expand...

I agree wholeheartedly but not everyone operates the way you and I do.

My point was that people change their minds. What one says beforehand without being in a situation can change when they actually find themselves in that situation. The one that impregnates her could have the understanding based on what she said only to have her change it AFTER the fact. Does that mean his rights are based on her inability to make up her mind?
 
J Craft said:
Questions:

intersting discussin on fathers rights. I was having this discussion with some young, millennial aged, men. The discussion centered around what rights a father should have when a young woman is considering abortion.

Should the the father have a say in the abortion decision? If not, why not? If not, should he be able to refuse support if he doesn’t want to keep the child? If not, why not?

while I don’t believe abortion should be allowed in any situation, apart from a threat to a mothers life, I did/do believe these young men ask valid questions.
Click to expand...

What the hell has it got to do with them?
 
all this thread, along with several others, is that most of you fucktards are all about YOUR freedom while completely disrespecting the rights of anyone else but YOU. it's how liberty died decades ago. the only thing happening now is you fucktards quibbling about how much you should have left while you employ a mercenary force to take away the rights of those you disagree with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top