Misandrists make it illegal to order paternity testing in France.

[renard_ruse]

What age of the child are we talking about? I really don't want to have to waste my time clicking on the link to read the article.

I think it would depend on the age of the child and how long he/she has considered the man to be his/her father. If its within the first five years or so, definitely the man has a right to know and not have to pay or raise the child. If he's been raising the child to say age 10 or so perhaps not.

 

[badbabysitter]

now he's engaging in a scintilating conversation... with himself

 

[Sean Renaud]

that's what the pro-life crowd tells me too

So what? It's also what the pro-vaccination crowd tells you and they are both correct. The difference being the pro-life crowd has never made a compelling argument for how your abortion is to the detriment of society as a whole. If a truly compelling argument could be made that abortion leads to a worse society over all then I'd side with them. Currently they cannot make such a claim and thus their argument is void because it's void, not because they are saying it.

If someone could prove that say one in one hundred babies went home with the wrong parents I'd say (at least until people start agreeing that the child you raised is yours) that taking the two seconds out to test the guy and prevent those fuck ups is worth him being annoyed at giving blood (as if its the first time he's suffered through the indignity of giving up blood).

Your rights however are null and void when they start becoming a problem for me.

 

[neci]

Then in that case you could absolve men of any responsibility to their kids.

You can't just completely strip men of their rights and then give them all the responsibilities. Throughout history many things have been done to get men to stay with their kids. Now you want to roll all that back? You'd be doing less damage to a country if you nuked it from orbit.

are you in favor of inaccurate birth records?

 

[renard_ruse]

I read the link, it appears this law does shockingly mean that a married man has legal and financial responsibility for any child conceived within or with his wife during their marriage even if it was conceived with another man's sperm. This is another argument that men should not get married (to women anyway).

Men get virtually no legal benefits to marriage but suffer countless legal responsibilities. In most countries there is no longer even a legal expectation that a wife should have regular sexual activity with her husband (if such he can even be called in those cases).

"Marriage" today is simply a financial con to transfer money from men to women and children. Redistributive tax policies aren't enough it seems.

What other type of contract requires outrageous amounts of responsibility while affording next to no legal benefit? Other than "marriage" no moron would sign such a contract.

 

[renard_ruse]

So, carrying this to its logical conclusion if a husband fathers a child with a woman other than his wife is his wife the child's legal mother?

 

[badbabysitter]

In most countries there is no longer even a legal expectation that a wife should have regular sexual activity with her husband (if such he can even be called in those cases).




.

It truly was a sad day when women were given the option to consent to sex

 

[renard_ruse]

It truly was a sad day when women were given the option to consent to sex

You think its normal for a married couple not to have regular sexual relations?

You think its ok that a spouse has celibacy enforced on them because their partner refuses to have intimate relations?

Seriously?

 

[neci]

the french are slutty.

 

[renard_ruse]

It truly was a sad day when women were given the option to consent to sex

You think it would be a truly sad day if men were given the option to consent to handing over most of their paycheck to women.

 

[badbabysitter]

You think its normal for a married couple not to have regular sexual relations?

You think its ok that a spouse has celibacy enforced on them because their partner refuses to have intimate relations?

Seriously?

so if a wife doesnt want to put out, that gives her husband the right to rape her?


seriously?

 

[badbabysitter]

You think it would be a truly sad day if men were given the option to consent to handing over most of their paycheck to women.

you've never lived with a woman or been married.. this much is clear

 

[Sean Renaud]

so if a wife doesnt want to put out, that gives her husband the right to rape her?


seriously?

I hate to side with Renard but it should give the Husband the right to nullify the contract or at the very least seek out other partners without legal repercussions. (Not that I think having sex should have legal repercussions for either sex but that's another debate for another day.)

 

[badbabysitter]

I hate to side with Renard but it should give the Husband the right to nullify the contract or at the very least seek out other partners without legal repercussions. (Not that I think having sex should have legal repercussions for either sex but that's another debate for another day.)

and if the husband has lost interst in sex or has erectile dysfunction

does this also give the wife the right to nullify the contract?

it goes both ways

and what happens if a couple are happily not having sex?

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

Nobody cares what you're a fan of and nobody cares about your view on this or any other issue. Why don't you just go crawl into a hole and die.

Excuse me, who gave you the power to say what *I* care about?

Badbabysitter is being rational and you're not. I think it is more correct to say nobody cares what you have to say, period.

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

and if the husband has lost interst in sex or has erectile dysfunction

does this also give the wife the right to nullify the contract?

it goes both ways

and what happens if a couple are happily not having sex?

Okay as of this post I've fulfilled my limit of posts where I agree with you in a 24-hour period...
























Like hell I have. Logic is logic no matter who speaks it.

 

[Sean Renaud]

and if the husband has lost interst in sex or has erectile dysfunction

does this also give the wife the right to nullify the contract?

it goes both ways

and what happens if a couple are happily not having sex?

I know we aren't close or anything but was I insufficiently clear when I said I didn't think either sex should have reprucussions to having sex? Yes it gives the wife the right to nullify the contract or at least seek satisfaction elsewhere. I know on occasion people want things in writing but I thought I was clear on that.

If a couple are happily married not having sex presumably neither one will want to nullify the contract and thus we have no problem.

Excuse me, who gave you the power to say what *I* care about?

Badbabysitter is being rational and you're not. I think it is more correct to say nobody cares what you have to say, period.

You know it's moments like these that I think you might have a soul. You're far to quick to toss people under the bus and a bit slow to recover us but when all is said and done you don't let your personal feelings get between you and agee with someone.

 

[phrodeau]

Is Le Jerque suing the parents of his adopted children for child support yet?