It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Aeons
Originally posted by sonnny1
Originally posted by Aeons
reply to post by CobraCommander
It won't stand up in court, because child support isn't about YOU and HER. It is about your child, who is a human being in and of themselves.
Its been tried before. Its lost before. Based on that one minor detail.
Sorry,its about the money.The system doesnt care about the child. The system 9 out of 10 awards custody to the mother,because fathers make more money. The system uses the "excuse" that mothers are better at raising kids. Its about the COURTS AND THE STATES,making money,off children.
70% of men who pursue custody get it. Most men never pursue it, and therefore most of the horror stories you hear are from people who never even went through the motions to do it.
SEVENTY PERCENT.
The "excuse" is because most of the time the children are LEFT with the Mother upon relationship dissolution, proving who the parent with the most child care responsibility is. This is noted, and is used as a basis on which to make decisions.
If you don't understand what is happening, and why, you can't change it.
It is the CHILDREN who have pursued support in most of these cases.
Originally posted by Aeons
Originally posted by CobraCommander
Originally posted by Aeons
reply to post by CobraCommander
Yep. They've lost on that exact point several times now. If the donor can have a name put to them, a child can go for support.edit on 2011/6/3 by Aeons because: (no reason given)
Thank you. Now we really get you.
A woman pumps herself with an anonymous spermcicle and it's STILL the man's fault.
Game set and match hotpants.
It is the CHILDREN who have pursued support in most of these cases.
Originally posted by CobraCommander
reply to post by Aeons
It is the CHILDREN who have pursued support in most of these cases.
And the children who have killed themselves because Mommy wanted what she wanted and didnt care a fook all about what was actually good for a child...
Sperm Bank
Originally posted by CaDreamer
Originally posted by CobraCommander
Originally posted by Aeons
reply to post by CobraCommander
Yep. They've lost on that exact point several times now. If the donor can have a name put to them, a child can go for support.edit on 2011/6/3 by Aeons because: (no reason given)
Thank you. Now we really get you.
A woman pumps herself with an anonymous spermcicle and it's STILL the man's fault.
Game set and match hotpants.
yeah its stupid, a donor by definition is not a father and therefore has no children. just as it is with surrogacy biology is and should be irrelevant in those cases.
Originally posted by sonnny1
reply to post by CobraCommander
NOT COOL...............
Thats in violation of TOS..............
I suggest you take it down.edit on 3-6-2011 by sonnny1 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Aeons
Originally posted by CobraCommander
reply to post by Aeons
It is the CHILDREN who have pursued support in most of these cases.
And the children who have killed themselves because Mommy wanted what she wanted and didnt care a fook all about what was actually good for a child...
Sperm Bank
What on Earth does this have to do with your silly idea about how you can cut your children out legally before they are conceived?
Are you looking for me to defend bad people based on their anatomy? I'll leave that one up to you.
Your bad solutions still don't work. Even if someone's Mommy was a meany.
Originally posted by Aeons
reply to post by CobraCommander
By the feminist agenda?
Children wanting to know their father, even when their mother didn't, is a feminist agenda?
I would think that would be a NATURAL agenda.
Originally posted by CobraCommander
Originally posted by Aeons
Originally posted by CobraCommander
reply to post by Aeons
It is the CHILDREN who have pursued support in most of these cases.
And the children who have killed themselves because Mommy wanted what she wanted and didnt care a fook all about what was actually good for a child...
Sperm Bank
What on Earth does this have to do with your silly idea about how you can cut your children out legally before they are conceived?
Are you looking for me to defend bad people based on their anatomy? I'll leave that one up to you.
Your bad solutions still don't work. Even if someone's Mommy was a meany.
I dont even understand your response. Are you drunk?
Originally posted by CobraCommander
Originally posted by Aeons
reply to post by CobraCommander
By the feminist agenda?
Children wanting to know their father, even when their mother didn't, is a feminist agenda?
I would think that would be a NATURAL agenda.
It is none of that child's business. The father signed a confidentiality CONTRACT. The child can blame the mother for not being able to have a real relationship, not the donor.
EDIT to add:
It is the feminist agenda to even consider having children in that manner.edit on 3-6-2011 by CobraCommander because: (no reason given)
EDIT 2: Nothing natural about artificial insemination.edit on 3-6-2011 by CobraCommander because: (no reason given)
It is a feminist agenda for guys to go spank one out at the sperm bank with porn mags? Wow.