# DNA testing of paternity should be automatic at birth



## LongWalk

If parenting is purely a matter of choice, i.e., the decision on whether or not to have abortion is a woman's choice, and same sex parents can choose to be parents with anonymous biological parents donating sperm, eggs and adoption babies, why aren't fathers offered information about the newborns who are supposedly theirs?



> It is, Smith says … a double standard that allows mothers and caseworkers to use DNA to prove paternity but prohibits men from using that same evidence to escape its obligations. But child-welfare experts counter that a child shouldn’t be punished by losing the only father she has ever known — or the financial security he offers — just because he’s upset that she doesn’t share his genes. … Child-welfare advocates say that making biology the sole determinant of paternity in cases like Smith’s puts the nonbiological father’s interest above the child’s. … ‘Is it my kid?’ is irrationally important to the cuckolded husband,” says Carol McCarthy … of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers. … Why is it that we imbue genetic relationships with a potency that borders on magic? -


See more at: Overcoming Bias : Require Baby Paternity Test


----------



## GusPolinski

LongWalk said:


> If parenting is purely a matter of choice, i.e., the decision on whether or not to have abortion is a woman's choice, and same sex parents can choose to be parents with anonymous biological parents donating sperm, eggs and adoption babies, why aren't fathers offered information about the newborns who are supposedly theirs?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is, Smith says … a double standard that allows mothers and caseworkers to use DNA to prove paternity but prohibits men from using that same evidence to escape its obligations. *But child-welfare experts counter that a child shouldn’t be punished by losing the only father she has ever known — or the financial security he offers — just because he’s upset that she doesn’t share his genes. … Child-welfare advocates say that making biology the sole determinant of paternity in cases like Smith’s puts the nonbiological father’s interest above the child’s. … ‘Is it my kid?’ is irrationally important to the cuckolded husband,” says Carol McCarthy … of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers. … Why is it that we imbue genetic relationships with a potency that borders on magic?*
> 
> 
> 
> See more at: Overcoming Bias : Require Baby Paternity Test
Click to expand...

Give. Me. A. F*cking. Break.

The bottom line is that every man deserves the right to determine FOR HIMSELF precisely what it means to be a father. Or not be a father.

PERIOD.

Want someone to provide for affair babies? That's fine. _Go after the POS's that father them._


----------



## ConanHub

The brain dead statements contained in that article are actually beneath my contempt.

How about I get a piece on the side and knock her up?

Doesn't matter who the bio mom is right?

Mrs. Conan should have to be held responsible for another woman's child?

Not even worth a load of disease ridden bvllshyt!

With that moronic thought process you could pawn off nearly anyone's kid on anyone else that had a relationship with one of the bio parents and had finances to grab.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Mr. Nail

ConanHub said:


> With that moronic thought process you could pawn off nearly anyone's kid on anyone else that had a relationship with one of the bio parents and had finances to grab.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Historically this has always been true. The deepest pocket pays has been the case.

Back in the 80's I took a college course in Human physiology. In the unit on genetics the professor spent an hour reading news reports of celebrity paternity suits, where by blood type alone it was impossible for the accused to have been the biological father. The blindfolded woman swung the sword at the money every time.

The sooner the determination is made the less confusion for the family.


----------



## thread the needle

If you want a test get tested. The last thing we need is another mandatory government or employer test that invades privacy. 

Disclaimer: I agree with you that the system sucks. I just disagree entirely with your solution. 

No one is going to collect my DNA, my wife's or my children's without my permission or tell me any of my loved ones have to offer it. 

Phuck that ignorance. 

Big brother can shove it while we decide for ourselves what we want. 

Mandatory invasions my a$$

Be very careful what you what you wish for even of the cited article is equally as disgusting


----------



## TAMAT

I am in favor of having the Mother sign a legally binding document stating who the father is or that it is uncertain.

This would need to be signed before the “father” signs his paternity document, or at any time during the pregnancy.

Tamat


----------



## NobodySpecial

TAMAT said:


> I am in favor of having the Mother sign a legally binding document stating who the father is or that it is uncertain.
> 
> This would need to be signed before the “father” signs his paternity document, or at any time during the pregnancy.
> 
> Tamat


Useless. Not worth the paper it is written on. It is completely unverifiable and without remedy if falsified. Where is the big fire? Don't marry a lying sack of **** who won't even come clean about parentage. That seems cheaper all around.


----------



## TAMAT

NS,

Yes without legislation requiring the Mother to sign a paternity form would do nothing. 

At least in my state I had to sign a paternity form, I don't know if is the same in other states.

Tamat


----------



## NobodySpecial

TAMAT said:


> NS,
> 
> Yes without legislation requiring the Mother to sign a paternity form would do nothing.
> 
> At least in my state I had to sign a paternity form, I don't know if is the same in other states.
> 
> Tamat


What does said form DO?


----------



## TAMAT

NS,

1st, keeps BHs from signing the paternity paper when the child is possibly not his. 

2nd eliminates financial responsibility when the wife lied on her form and DNA shows that the child is not the husbands.

3rd allows the husband to recover 1/2 the marital moneys spent on the child from the OM.

Tamat


----------



## norajane

thread the needle said:


> If you want a test get tested. The last thing we need is another mandatory government or employer test that invades privacy.
> 
> Disclaimer: I agree with you that the system sucks. I just disagree entirely with your solution.
> 
> No one is going to collect my DNA, my wife's or my children's without my permission or tell me any of my loved ones have to offer it.
> 
> Phuck that ignorance.
> 
> Big brother can shove it while we decide for ourselves what we want.
> 
> Mandatory invasions my a$$
> 
> Be very careful what you what you wish for even of the cited article is equally as disgusting


I agree. I'll add that I also don't want to be subsidizing everyone else's paternity tests through my insurance payments. I don't have kids, and I already subsidize everyone's births - don't need more to subsidize.

Anyone can get a paternity test. No one is stopping you.


----------



## toomuchlove87

This is an odd topic... as far as paternity goes, it should be by law provided information to the father just as it is to the mother. By that I mean the mother is under law to inform all past lovers that she is pregnant or had the baby, at which time, the man "men" can decide whether they want to know if it is theirs or not. This gives them the choice to submit their DNA voluntarily, and makes no demands of either side. 

However, forcing someone to give up their DNA, or become a father to a child is a little out there. Sad to say it, but if we went back to waiting to have sex after we were married, this wouldn't be a problem. (maybe). 

I think the least that a woman can do is inform the man she slept with, or men, that she is pregnant or had the baby. Preferably they would know when she was pregnant, not after the baby is born. Just my opinion.


----------



## NobodySpecial

TAMAT said:


> NS,
> 
> 1st, keeps BHs from signin






TAMAT said:


> g the paternity paper when the child is possibly not his.


How does this achieve this? Is there some magic this form that a liar is going take more seriously than the birth certificate? I can't see what is solved.



> 2nd eliminates financial responsibility when the wife lied on her form and DNA shows that the child is not the husbands.
> 
> 3rd allows the husband to recover 1/2 the marital moneys spent on the child from the OM.
> 
> Tamat


So the cheater spouse has to be honest and the other spouse has to step up. Check.


----------



## ConanHub

toomuchlove87 said:


> This is an odd topic... as far as paternity goes, it should be by law provided information to the father just as it is to the mother. By that I mean the mother is under law to inform all past lovers that she is pregnant or had the baby, at which time, the man "men" can decide whether they want to know if it is theirs or not. This gives them the choice to submit their DNA voluntarily, and makes no demands of either side.
> 
> However, forcing someone to give up their DNA, or become a father to a child is a little out there. Sad to say it, but if we went back to waiting to have sex after we were married, this wouldn't be a problem. (maybe).
> 
> I think the least that a woman can do is inform the man she slept with, or men, that she is pregnant or had the baby. Preferably they would know when she was pregnant, not after the baby is born. Just my opinion.


The problem is you have agencies that don't care who the father is and just goes to raid some guy's finances regardless of paternity.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Ripper

Two solutions:

1. Mandatory paternity testing at birth. The government already decides custody and who pays, might as well determine paternity right up front. I'm already taxed out the ass anyway, I would rather pay for this then some politicians pet project.

-OR-

2. Actually charge women for committing paternity fraud. You know, have an actual consequence for recording a lie on a state document and ruining people's life. Jail or at least massive financial penalties/reparations would clear up some of the issues.

You will see option #1 long before option #2. Although the most likely course of action at this point is prohibiting paternity testing all together. France already has it banned. Who cares about a few men getting screwed. Its for the good of "society".


----------



## Truthseeker1

Ripper said:


> Two solutions:
> 
> 1. Mandatory paternity testing at birth. The government already decides custody and who pays, might as well determine paternity right up front. I'm already taxed out the ass anyway, I would rather pay for this then some politicians pet project.
> 
> -OR-
> 
> 2. Actually charge women for committing paternity fraud. You know, have an actual consequence for recording a lie on a state document and ruining people's life. Jail or at least massive financial penalties/reparations would clear up some of the issues.
> 
> You will see option #1 long before option #2. Although the most likely course of action at this point is prohibiting paternity testing all together. France already has it banned. Who cares about a few men getting screwed. Its for the good of "society".


Paternity fraud should be a felony where the penalties have real teeth ..perhaps jail time...the woman should have a felony on her record...you will never see that though...


----------



## toomuchlove87

That is very wrong. And needs to change.


----------



## tech-novelist

LongWalk said:


> If parenting is purely a matter of choice, i.e., the decision on whether or not to have abortion is a woman's choice, and same sex parents can choose to be parents with anonymous biological parents donating sperm, eggs and adoption babies, why aren't fathers offered information about the newborns who are supposedly theirs?
> 
> See more at: Overcoming Bias : Require Baby Paternity Test


Because patriarchy.

(Note to the humor-impaired: this is sarcasm)


----------



## LongWalk

One of the key purposes of marriage as an institution was to protect men from raising other men's children. Monogamy was a commitment that married women undertook, not always willingly, since a lot marriages were arranged. Women were prisoners of marriage in many societies. If they had 7 children and their husband cheated all they could do is fight. Divorce was not an option. Besides divorce was economically impossible in agricultural societies.

Today women are free to marry whom they please. They are free to divorce as it suits them. So why are men supposed to provided economic security to raise other men's children when the technology exists to routinely identify unsound marriages early on?

It is ironic that men have no legal say in woman's decision to abort a fetus. A man can say that the couple don't have the money, stability or commitment to take the responsibility. But the woman the final say. That is already a lot of autonomy. Why not give men a way out of fatherhood when it is not their child?


----------



## Married but Happy

LongWalk said:


> ...
> 
> It is ironic that men have no legal say in woman's decision to abort a fetus. A man can say that the couple don't have the money, stability or commitment to take the responsibility. But the woman the final say. That is already a lot of autonomy. Why not give men a way out of fatherhood when it is not their child?


I would take this one step further. Anywhere women have the right to abortion (whether or not they choose to do so) without the father's consent, a man should have the right to opt out of fatherhood and all financial responsibility (unless they are both married to the woman and the father of the child). I am definitely in favor of women having the right to choose what to do with their own bodies in any circumstances, and believe men should have the similar rights to opt out of parental responsibility when they are either a) not the father (married or not), or b) not married to the woman.


----------



## LongWalk

In other words parenting is not an accident of sexual drive and biology but a social construction.

Ironically, I think most self described feminists (both male and female) would oppose having men take a more active role in the decision to be a parent.


----------



## Clay2013

Ripper said:


> Two solutions:
> 
> 1. Mandatory paternity testing at birth. The government already decides custody and who pays, might as well determine paternity right up front. I'm already taxed out the ass anyway, I would rather pay for this then some politicians pet project.
> 
> -OR-
> 
> 2. Actually charge women for committing paternity fraud. You know, have an actual consequence for recording a lie on a state document and ruining people's life. Jail or at least massive financial penalties/reparations would clear up some of the issues.
> 
> You will see option #1 long before option #2. Although the most likely course of action at this point is prohibiting paternity testing all together. France already has it banned. Who cares about a few men getting screwed. Its for the good of "society".



I would like to see both done. I think woman far to often trick men in this cruel way. They not only destroy the men but the children lives as well. As far as France they also have no problem with men and woman cheating so of course they would pass this law. Where else in the world can the prime minister bring his wife and mistress to a government meeting and have them sitting side by side. 

Even if neither one of these things can be in law I think men should just demand it be done regardless. 

C


----------



## LongWalk

Men should demand? As in via a men's civil rights movement for equality that draws on the gay civil rights movement?

It will never happen. Men who would raise up this demand would be the subject ridicule. The wives of the activists would give them hell on behalf of womankind.

In fact, if a newly married man or woman at a wedding asked his spouse if they meant the vows during conversation later in the evening, say at the reception, there would be big trouble. Actually, if a woman asked in a sweet way as if seeking reassurance, the groom would probably not get angry. But if a man asked the same question, there would be trouble, although the question is completely legit given that 50% of marriages fail.


----------



## Clay2013

Maybe demand was a poor choice of words to use. 

I think there are several ways of dealing with this and avoiding the kind of things your talking about. 

1. Do the test without there knowledge. 
2. Talking about it up front like a adult and don't accuse anyone of anything. 

If you wait until the night of having the kid and say it I am sure its going to cause you problems but honestly with all the kinds of things going on in this world it can't be that much of a shock to ask for it. 

I tested my two kids two years ago. It was cheap and easy to do. 

To this day there mother still does not know.

C


----------



## NobodySpecial

Can someone answer me why in the world someone is sticking it in someone whom they don't trust? Do people really walk around fearing that their spouse is screwing around on them?


----------



## naiveonedave

NobodySpecial said:


> Can someone answer me why in the world someone is sticking it in someone whom they don't trust? Do people really walk around fearing that their spouse is screwing around on them?


People have been having sex with untrustworthy people since the dawn of time. It is hard to know how trustworthy people are until you have evidence they are not.

Just spend time on CWI and you will understand.


----------



## Married but Happy

Just because you trust someone doesn't mean they didn't screw someone else - and then try to screw you too. Sometimes when you're paranoid, "they" really are out to get you!

Besides, you can trust them only to learn a devastating truth later.

Trust - but verify, if you want certainty and peace of mind.


----------



## Thor

I'll be having my grandchildren tested. Well, my son's children. My daughter's children's maternity isn't likely to be in doubt!


----------



## SimplyAmorous

LongWalk said:


> It is ironic that men have no legal say in woman's decision to abort a fetus.





> *Married by Happy said:* Just because you trust someone doesn't mean they didn't screw someone else - and then try to screw you too.


 A good friend of ours.. her son was at our house weeks ago.. met this lady.. had sex the 1st night they met.... he was seeing her about a month.. he really liked her.. she comes up pregnant (so she says).. he was all excited....I'm thinking.. "My Gawd _____ [email protected]#$"... but yeah he wanted to be a dad.. in this way, I was happy for him... 

Last time he was here.. he tells us she told him it might not be his.. then never talks to him again, that was it.... for all we know.. she might pawn this kid off on another guy, or just kill it.. ... sorry.. I think women get away with far too much with men too trusting.. 

Well he was very foolish sleeping with someone he has no clue of her character to begin with...he's learning!


----------



## Catherine602

There's no law against DNA testing of all putative offspring so why should the State get involved?. 

There another consideration. You have to see this issue in terms of the cost to the taxpayers and not a moral issue. If DNA testing has a high probability of transferring the burden of child support to the public then there will be little support. If mandatory DNA testing were coupled with a more vigorous enforcement of child support collection, it might gain some traction. If not, it will be seen as economically disadvantages to assist men in walking away from offspring. That's not fair to men who are duped but there is an easy remedy. Every man should get his putative child DNA tested.


----------



## Catherine602

Men who conceive children after unprotected sex are not a victims. They are fathers just like their partners are mothers. Fathers and mother's are equally responsible for their offspring. Why should one get sympathy and the other responsibility? It's culturally acceptable to shame and castigate a woman who gets pregnant after uncommitted sex and sympathize with the man for his bad luck. This knee-jerk reaction does nothing to promote harmony and understanding between men and woman. 

Fatherhood cannot be considered important sometimes and not at others. It either is or it isn't. Fathers and mothers are equal in every way no matter what the circumstances of their child's birth.


----------



## larry.gray

Married but Happy said:


> I would take this one step further. Anywhere women have the right to abortion (whether or not they choose to do so) without the father's consent, a man should have the right to opt out of fatherhood and all financial responsibility (unless they are both married to the woman and the father of the child). I am definitely in favor of women having the right to choose what to do with their own bodies in any circumstances, and believe men should have the similar rights to opt out of parental responsibility when they are either a) not the father (married or not), or b) not married to the woman.


I'll take that further. If women get an out of motherhood by abortion, then men should get an out even if he's the father.

Anything else is a double standard. Go on, let a feminist say "If he doesn't want to be a dad, don't have sex." Even though they will argue for women to not be held to that standard.


----------



## tech-novelist

larry.gray said:


> I'll take that further. If women get an out of motherhood by abortion, then men should get an out even if he's the father.
> 
> Anything else is a double standard. Go on, let a feminist say "If he doesn't want to be a dad, don't have sex." Even though they will argue for women to not be held to that standard.


Of course they will say that. Women get all the choices in reproduction and men don't get any. Anything else is patriarchal and misogynistic!


----------



## larry.gray

Catherine602 said:


> There's no law against DNA testing of all putative offspring so why should the State get involved?


Because the state puts the name of the father on the birth certificate, and there are significant implications of getting the wrong name on the certificate. Testing makes sure the right name is there.


----------



## MarriedDude

Catherine602 said:


> Men who conceive children after unprotected sex are not a victims. *They are fathers just like their partners are mothers.* Fathers and mother's are equally responsible for their offspring. Why should one get sympathy and the other responsibility? It's culturally acceptable to shame and castigate a woman who gets pregnant after uncommitted sex and sympathize with the man for his bad luck. This knee-jerk reaction does nothing to promote harmony and understanding between men and woman.
> 
> Fatherhood cannot be considered important sometimes and not at others. It either is or it isn't. Fathers and mothers are equal in every way no matter what the circumstances of their child's birth.


But that is the question....if they ARE NOT the father...should they be responsible? 

Thats the current question....So...Do you believe that DNA testing should be completed as a matter of course...so that the true father can take his equal share of the responsibility?


----------



## MarriedDude

Quote:
It is, Smith says … a double standard that allows mothers and caseworkers to use DNA to prove paternity but prohibits men from using that same evidence to escape its obligations. But child-welfare experts counter that a child shouldn’t be punished by losing the only father she has ever known — or the financial security he offers — just because he’s upset that she doesn’t share his genes. … Child-welfare advocates say that making biology the sole determinant of paternity in cases like Smith’s puts the nonbiological father’s interest above the child’s. … ‘Is it my kid?’ is irrationally important to the cuckolded husband,” says Carol McCarthy … of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers. … Why is it that we imbue genetic relationships with a potency that borders on magic? -



No words....


----------



## Catherine602

That supports all men getting DNA testing of their putative children to ensure that the right name is recorded. There is no law preventing this therefore, no law is needed to enforce something that men are free to do.


----------



## MarriedDude

Catherine602 said:


> That supports all men getting DNA testing of their putative children to ensure that the right name is recorded. There is no law preventing this therefore, no law is needed to enforce something that men are free to do.




Uh huh....way to not answer.

Politic much?


----------



## Catherine602

MarriedDude said:


> But that is the question....if they ARE NOT the father...should they be responsible?
> 
> Thats the current question....So...Do you believe that DNA testing should be completed as a matter of course...so that the true father can take his equal share of the responsibility?


I already answered your question. You want a target for your bitterness and that is too bad for you. If you want a conflict, you will have to find someone else. Why should I argue against a man getting DNA test done on his putative children if he wants? That's his right. Unlike the mother, he can't really tell that he is the father. He only has the trust between him and his partner to guide him. Sometimes trust is misplaced. 

Do you see any reason that a man cannot have DNA testing now, even though there is no law in place?


----------



## LongWalk

Men do have choices in reproduction, just not as many.

But there several key aspects of family law worth noting. When a woman has a child she can demand CS on the child's behalf while denying the father any parental role. In theory a father can go to court and eventually gain sole custody from a crazy mother who is bent on alienating a child to hate its father. But such cases are rare. Many men give up because there are so few penalties when a mother refuses to obey court ordered visitation. To be sure women sometimes know that some men are bad news and want nothing to do with them for a reason. But this does not justify the routine anti-dad court decisions.

Paternity testing and obligatory CS are conceived to increase pressure on men to marry. Often the decisions is not well thought out on either side. A guy who is on the hook for CS may just figure that he might as well marry his child's mother. That will give him a sex partner and maybe even some status as a parent. So lawmakers figure marriage is good. Fair enough. But why prevent fathers from escaping children who are not theirs?

Automatic DNA testing at birth would destroy some marriages and increase abortions. Automatic testing would be an additional cost in the healthcare system but hardly a really significant one. It would lead more women to marrying the men they which sexually attracted them rather than the those who could pay for a child's upbringing. Automatic testing would cause some women to be more circumspect in having unprotected sex. Automatic DNA testing would probably lower respect for women or at least make more men question women's honesty. It would also raise the sex ranking of women who had few sex partners.

Anyway this legal reform is never going to happen.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Catherine602 said:


> Men who conceive children after unprotected sex are not a victims.


Ha ha.. believe me.. I think he was an A** too.. not a victim.. and hopefully he wont be so foolish next time... 

Neither one of them was responsible !


----------



## Catherine602

larry.gray said:


> I'll take that further. If women get an out of motherhood by abortion, then men should get an out even if he's the father.
> 
> Anything else is a double standard. Go on, let a feminist say "If he doesn't want to be a dad, don't have sex." Even though they will argue for women to not be held to that standard.


Women are already admonished not to have sex outside of a committed relationship. Men are encouraged to spread their seed. If the seed lands on an egg and it develops into a child then the seed spreader is a father and the bearer of the child is a mother. Both are responsible for the child. 

If a man does not to be a father he should not spread his seed. He can still have sex but he needs to forgo the actual release of seed until he is prepared to be called daddy.


----------



## larry.gray

Catherine602 said:


> If a man does not to be a father he should not spread his seed. He can still have sex but he needs to forgo the actual release of seed until he is prepared to be called daddy.


Well then you get to pick from a few options.... Are you:

Opposed to abortion except for rape or to save the life of the mother. After all, there is no need to have elective abortions if women won't accept a man's seed until she's ready to be a mother.

A misogynist who thinks women are incapable of living up to the same standard you espouse for men.

A misandrist who hates men and revels in the double standard you're espousing?


----------



## tech-novelist

larry.gray said:


> Well then you get to pick from a few options.... Are you:
> 
> Opposed to abortion except for rape or to save the life of the mother. After all, there is no need to have elective abortions if women won't accept a man's seed until she's ready to be a mother.
> 
> A misogynist who thinks women are incapable of living up to the same standard you espouse for men.
> 
> A misandrist who hates men and revels in the double standard you're espousing?


I'm waiting with bated breath for the answer...


----------



## MarriedDude

larry.gray said:


> Well then you get to pick from a few options.... Are you:
> 
> Opposed to abortion except for rape or to save the life of the mother. After all, there is no need to have elective abortions if women won't accept a man's seed until she's ready to be a mother.
> 
> A misogynist who thinks women are incapable of living up to the same standard you espouse for men.
> 
> A misandrist who hates men and revels in the double standard you're espousing?


Tick tock.....
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## MarriedDude

larry.gray said:


> Well then you get to pick from a few options.... Are you:
> 
> Opposed to abortion except for rape or to save the life of the mother. After all, there is no need to have elective abortions if women won't accept a man's seed until she's ready to be a mother.
> 
> A misogynist who thinks women are incapable of living up to the same standard you espouse for men.
> 
> A misandrist who hates men and revels in the double standard you're espousing?


Tick tock.....
_Posted via Mobile Device_
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Catherine602

larry.gray said:


> Well then you get to pick from a few options.... Are you:
> 
> Opposed to abortion except for rape or to save the life of the mother. After all, there is no need to have elective abortions if women won't accept a man's seed until she's ready to be a mother.
> 
> A misogynist who thinks women are incapable of living up to the same standard you espouse for men.
> 
> A misandrist who hates men and revels in the double standard you're espousing?


Thank you for allowing me the privilege of participating in a discussion of such erudition. 

This post may reveal much about you than you think. The mind's narrow confines are wonders, no? You surprised me, I have read many of your posts and cannot believe that I misjudged you by such a wide margin. I would not have expected this from you. MarriedDude, yes, but his state of anger and distress is situational and therefore temporary. 

If you were interested in a discussion, you could have challenged my assumptions by asking me about how I thought abortion fits into what I wrote, you could have expressed your disagreement with what I wrote and pointed out how you felt it was disadvantageous to men. I would have engaged you and perhaps changed my mind about some things. 

I participate in theses discussion to learn, understand and change my thinking. I realize that I don't know every point of view and why they exist. Discussion in a safe environment with a group willing to exchange ideas without insults helps understanding and change. 

This is clearly not the goal of all people here. Actually Larry, your post and others like it, makes me appreciate and value the type of man I have for a husband. It was pure dumb luck to have him. 


No --- you answer whatever you call what you wrote. You know the answer, so you pick and then post a rebuttal on what you wrote. Get all like-minded followers to post rebuttals in support of what you know.


----------



## MarriedDude

Catherine602 said:


> Thank you for allowing me the privilege of participating in a discussion of such erudition.
> 
> This post may reveal much about you than you think. The minds narrow confines is a wonder, no? You surprise me, I have read many of your posts and cannot believe that I misjudged you by such a wide margin. I would not have expected this from you. MarriedDude, yes, but his state of anger and distress is situational and therefore temporary.
> 
> If you interested in a discussion, you could have challenged my assumptions by asking me about how I thought abortion fits into what I wrote, you could have expressed your disagreement with what I wrote and pointed out how you felt it was disadvantageous to men. I would have engaged you and perhaps changed my mind about some things.
> 
> I participate in theses discussion to learn, understand and change my thinking. I realize that I don't know every point of view and why they exist. Discussion in a safe environment with a group willing to exchange ideas without insults helps understanding and change.
> 
> This is clearly not the goal of all people here. Actually Larry, your post and others like it, makes me appreciate and value the type of man I have for a husband. It was pure dumb luck to have him.
> 
> 
> No --- you answer whatever you call what you wrote. You know the answer, so you pick and then post a rebuttal on what you wrote. Get all like-minded followers to post rebuttals in support of what you know.


Anger and distress?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Catherine602

Yes MD and you can't stay there forever.


----------



## MarriedDude

Catherine602 said:


> Yes MD and you can't stay there forever.


By all means, please elaborate...

What anger?

Distress over??
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## BetrayedDad

Catherine602 said:


> Thank you for allowing me the privilege of participating in a discussion of such erudition.
> 
> This post may reveal much about you than you think. The minds narrow confines is a wonder, no? You surprise me, I have read many of your posts and cannot believe that I misjudged you by such a wide margin. I would not have expected this from you. MarriedDude, yes, but his state of anger and distress is situational and therefore temporary.
> 
> If you interested in a discussion, you could have challenged my assumptions by asking me about how I thought abortion fits into what I wrote, you could have expressed your disagreement with what I wrote and pointed out how you felt it was disadvantageous to men. I would have engaged you and perhaps changed my mind about some things.
> 
> I participate in theses discussion to learn, understand and change my thinking. I realize that I don't know every point of view and why they exist. Discussion in a safe environment with a group willing to exchange ideas without insults helps understanding and change.
> 
> This is clearly not the goal of all people here. Actually Larry, your post and others like it, makes me appreciate and value the type of man I have for a husband. It was pure dumb luck to have him.
> 
> 
> No --- you answer whatever you call what you wrote. You know the answer, so you pick and then post a rebuttal on what you wrote. Get all like-minded followers to post rebuttals in support of what you know.



tl;dr

I got nothing, Larry. That makes too much sense and exposes the hypocrisy of it all. So I'm going to do my best to dodge you question a la Neo from the Matrix style.


----------

