>> I think you are refering to the "Fatherly Capacity" clauses, in which a man who is not the biological father, but has raised the kids in a fatherly capacity for some time (at least 2 years) can be held responsible for paying child support...it's an absolutely unconstitutional idea and needs to be brought to the supreme court at this point. <<

I'm completely in agreement. talk about punishing someone for good behavior.

>> But in cases where there is only a pregnancy or an infant and the man is NOT the father and no longer lives or never lived with the mother, there is no grounds for paternity. Even in divorce. <<

thanks for the clarification. although, once that ring is on the finger, the broad can still take half your shit regardless. like the song says, it's cheaper to keep her.

*************think you are refering to the "Fatherly Capacity" clauses, in which a man who is not the biological father, but has raised the kids in a fatherly capacity for some time (at least 2 years) can be held responsible for paying child support...it's an absolutely unconstitutional idea and needs to be brought to the supreme court at this point. Having to pay for children that are not yours simply becuse you are a man..**********

When the state just latches on the nearest warm male body who just happens to be banging the mother and calls him the legal father for support purposes I think you are right that it's unconstitutional and ought to be a banned practice.

However the state has a very powerful argument and it's one that the Supremes have bent the knee to more than a few times in the past.
Public safety & welfare. When the states whips those arguments out the Supremes usually just nod. \

The real lesson: When a woman has children leave her the hell alone. Go no where near her. Stay the hell away. Do not fall for the siren call of her warm wet spot. Just treat her like she's sot HIV , drug resistant TB, and Meningitis. Do NOT touch the chick with the fatherless rug rats.

If single ( and married) men all over the nation would just clue to that one thing the law would change as quick as you can say: "Bob's yer Uncle."
How long do you think the unwed mothers of America would tolerate such a thing? There'd be a whole grass roots movement. They'd of course blame men but Hey if the law is going to saddle you with any where from $500 to $3000 a month Per Rug Rag it behooves you to NEVER muck about with girls that are so stupid as to get themselves knocked up by guys whose names they didn't bother to catch.

Think about it that way:
She is so mindless and galactically stupid that she doesn't even know who jammed her all full of baby batter - - - and too stupid to use birth control.
Do you really want to be caught with her?
AND
The State will jam you up with an E-N-O-R-M-O-U-S monthly bill for all those rug rats till they are out of college or over 18.
Do you really want to be seen standing next to her?

I say no. Treat the stupid chicks like they were plague carriers. Because they ARE~!!!

Vasectomy's for Male Liberation!

woot!

(you do it. I've got a thing... I'll catch you later... MAN POWER, BROTHER!)

Friend of mine got one. Yes, he was moderately-to-severely affected for about that length of time.

But he remarks about his freedom all the time.

Like condoms are so expensive.

Just put something in the water that severely inhibits fertility, and fuck away.

'Course, with all the mix and match, still gonna spread the diseases.

Oh the dreaded, forlorn condom!

*************Why not just enshrine this in some kind of official law, call it the "Male Sex Partner Enslavement Act" that any guy with working testicles can at any point be required to hand over a woman who can prove she is carrying his child (regardless of how she managed it, honestly, dishonestly or through trickery) can force him to hand over at least half of his income or more.************

Well the fact is that you don't have to be fertile. the State does not give a rat's ass whether you have a DNA lab result showing that you are not the father. No one cares about that.
The thing is the ball hit you last, or from where the judge is sitting it looks to him like it hit you last, and that's good enough for the state to saddle you forever with those bastard children's support.

Just stay away from single mothers.

Please note the boobs.

They are indicative of a female personnel.

You could still sue the woman for any of several different things.

If she even tells anyone you impregnated her and you didn't, that stands to affect your reputation.

If you're married, the pregnancy is evidence of adultery, or at the very least some kind of fraud if she says she just used a turkey baster.

If the sperm was not quarantined at a sperm bank, you can also argue that you were exposed to unnecessary medical dangers by the undisclosed 3rd party body fluid entering her system.

You get the idea.

*********So keeping it my pants is moot at this point. I can keep it in my pants, or get the snippy snip procedure, and STILL get the shakedown from some gold digging, unemployable, knocked up, back tatted WHORE.************

If that were the only and worst threat it would be easily managed. Unfortunately you can't manage the courts because the Judges are absolutely immune from prosecution ( for anything at all they do from the bench) and they have the full force of the police power of the state to enforce their orders.

So when a court unfairly ( and it is terribly unfair) saddles you with up to 26 years of child support and college tuition for children, of whom you are not the biological father, there is nothing at all you can do to correct it, short of leaving the Country for the rest of your life.
The court does not care who the biological father is. The court only cares that SOME BODY is footing the bill.
You will do as nicely as that other guy whom the mother refuses to name , can't name, or may even be dead.
None of it matters to the court once it has you in its clutches.

And if you are broke busted penniless or just plain poor: PRISON is the remedy. They court can send you to prison for as long as it takes for you to learn to accept your new slave collar.

This is not the fault of the women. This is the doing of the courts facilitated and spurred on by psychotic feminists who somehow think that this sort of result makes sense and are leaning on legislators to pass paternalistic laws.

But you can fight back in the political arena:
www.time.com/time/magazi...0398,00.html

Read in the middle of that first page how a guy FINALLY tore off the slave collar after hundreds of thousands of dollars.
He can't get his money back
findarticles.com/p/article..._n9435739/

And many states won't give an inch on the issue:
www.mississippifamilylawblog.com/2...ml
www.cnn.com/2007/US/07/1...es/index.html
www.dvorak.org/blog/2007/...ld-support/
www.wjla.com/news/storie.../525145.html
lawvibe.com/dna-proves-n...hild-support/


If you google the issue one of the really ugly things that you'll find is that News Articles on this miscarriage have an ugly tendency to disappear. It stinks of an "agenda" at work.








.

>> I can keep it in my pants, or get the snippy snip procedure, and STILL get the shakedown from some gold digging, unemployable, knocked up, back tatted WHORE. <<

woe be he that layeth down with the skank.