Colorado man forced to pay child support despite DNA test results

[Jolly_Penguin]

I still say take all children at birth straight from the hospitals and raise them together by trained and educated caregivers. Nobody grows up rich or poor.

It would take a lot of adapting sure, but once we adjusted to it, it would be far more efficient, fair, and prosperous.

 

[RVonse]

It doesn't matter if the biological father is interested, he needs to pay child support.

What part of "can't be compelled to pay" do you not understand?

So let me get this straight. If I have sex with a married women and the offspring passes a certain statute of limitation, then I am off the hook? What if I am single and rich myself like for say one of D. Trumps sons, will I still be off the hook? Or do I need to married myself in order to get away with this?

 

[RVonse]

I still say take all children at birth straight from the hospitals and raise them together by trained and educated caregivers. Nobody grows up rich or poor.

It would take a lot of adapting sure, but once we adjusted to it, it would be far more efficient, fair, and prosperous.

Everything sounds doable until we get to the part of who is going to be providing the eggs and sperm, and who else is going to be paying for care giving. Especially the part about who is worthy enough to be the sperm and egg donors part. How do you make sure that is handled "fair".

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Especially the part about who is worthy enough to be the sperm and egg donors part. How do you make sure that is handled "fair".

How do you say "white people" without sounding racist by answering that question by saying "white people"? That would be my answer.

 

[Toni]

I still say take all children at birth straight from the hospitals and raise them together by trained and educated caregivers. Nobody grows up rich or poor.

It would take a lot of adapting sure, but once we adjusted to it, it would be far more efficient, fair, and prosperous.

Everything sounds doable until we get to the part of who is going to be providing the eggs and sperm, and who else is going to be paying for care giving. Especially the part about who is worthy enough to be the sperm and egg donors part. How do you make sure that is handled "fair".

Everything sounds 'doable' until you consider that you are talking about raising human beings or even any living being with any sense of self awareness. What Jolly described would be a cruel and inadequate way of raising a litter of puppies, much less an entire society of people.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Why is it cruel? People would not know or care (after this became the new normal) who the birth parents are/were. A lot of adopted people are like that already today. And add to this some genetic engineering that we know is in our future and you may not even have a clear biological mother and father as we know those concepts today.

We would all be raised together and with equal opportunity etc. Why would you prefer the status quo with people being born into wealth and poverty and privilege and lack thereof? It is the current situation that is cruel and unjust. Why should who your parents are decide your starting point in society?

 

[Toni]

Why is it cruel? People would not know or care (after this became the new normal) who the birth parents are/were. A lot of adopted people are like that already today. And add to this some genetic engineering that we know is in our future and you may not even have a clear biological mother and father as we know those concepts today.

We would all be raised together and with equal opportunity etc. Why would you prefer the status quo with people being born into wealth and poverty and privilege and lack thereof? It is the current situation that is cruel and unjust. Why should who your parents are decide your starting point in society?

Because I am familiar with childhood development and circumstances and conditions which foster heathy physical, intellectual, emotional and social development.

Treating human beings as though they are characters in a computer game is conducive to nothing healthy or progressive. What you are suggesting doesn't work for chickens FFS, much less for human beings or society or civilization.

 

[bilby]

Especially the part about who is worthy enough to be the sperm and egg donors part. How do you make sure that is handled "fair".

How do you say "white people" without sounding racist by answering that question by saying "white people"? That would be my answer.

Hmmm. Good question.

Perhaps 'People not from the inner cities', or 'Not people from North St Louis' would get the message across in a completely non-racist way.

 

[Deepak]

Why is it cruel? People would not know or care (after this became the new normal) who the birth parents are/were. A lot of adopted people are like that already today. And add to this some genetic engineering that we know is in our future and you may not even have a clear biological mother and father as we know those concepts today.

We would all be raised together and with equal opportunity etc. Why would you prefer the status quo with people being born into wealth and poverty and privilege and lack thereof? It is the current situation that is cruel and unjust. Why should who your parents are decide your starting point in society?

Because I am familiar with childhood development and circumstances and conditions which foster heathy physical, intellectual, emotional and social development.

Treating human beings as though they are characters in a computer game is conducive to nothing healthy or progressive. What you are suggesting doesn't work for chickens FFS, much less for human beings or society or civilization.

Push posh - we could give each child a Harlow surrogate and they'd do fine

 

[Tom Sawyer]

How do you say "white people" without sounding racist by answering that question by saying "white people"? That would be my answer.

Hmmm. Good question.

Perhaps 'People not from the inner cities', or 'Not people from North St Louis' would get the message across in a completely non-racist way.

Well, we need some way to keep the niggers and spics off the donor list without specifically targeting their race, which would lead to lawsuit problems. For instance, if we have a law enforcement policy where minorities are arrested for minor crimes more often and then deny anyone with a criminal record from donating sperm (unless it's a white person crime like real estate fraud or tax evasion), then we could select the mongrel races out of the gene pool without needing to engage in some constitutionally questionable eugenics program.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Why is it cruel? People would not know or care (after this became the new normal) who the birth parents are/were. A lot of adopted people are like that already today. And add to this some genetic engineering that we know is in our future and you may not even have a clear biological mother and father as we know those concepts today.

We would all be raised together and with equal opportunity etc. Why would you prefer the status quo with people being born into wealth and poverty and privilege and lack thereof? It is the current situation that is cruel and unjust. Why should who your parents are decide your starting point in society?

Because I am familiar with childhood development and circumstances and conditions which foster heathy physical, intellectual, emotional and social development.

Some being raised in wealth and others in poverty and your parents determining your starting point in society fosters healthy physical, intellectual and social development?

Are you saying this because you need somebody to look down on so you can feel good about yourself? I'm not following your logic here. And why are you making references to poultry and computer games?

 

[Toni]

Because I am familiar with childhood development and circumstances and conditions which foster heathy physical, intellectual, emotional and social development.

Some being raised in wealth and others in poverty and your parents determining your starting point in society fosters healthy physical, intellectual and social development?

Are you saying this because you need somebody to look down on so you can feel good about yourself? I'm not following your logic here. And why are you making references to poultry and computer games?

What makes you think I look down on anybody? Or need to? Or have any--ANY--criteria to use to look down on anybody?

I grew up starting off pretty poor. By the time I entered college (paid for by those very rare academic scholarships) my parents had made it to barely middle class, stable only because they managed not to acquire any really bad habits like substance abuse or gambling. I lived poor on my own the first year or two--as in not necessarily being able to eat every day and being not one pay check but one missed work shift away from not making rent.

What cause do I have to look down on anybody? Being poor did not make me less worthy of respect and equal treatment under the law. It did not make me less deserving of good health care or a good education or good housing. I didn't always have all of those things. But I did have a sense of myself, a sense of my value as a human being, a sense that what I did and whether I did it or not, whether I lived or not, mattered to other people, to my family.

I've had--do have, actually, friends and coworkers who are millionaires, and friends and coworkers who struggle to make rent. None is worth more or less of my respect than the other based upon any economic metric.

Perhaps that Mao collar is a bit too right, cutting off the circulation to your brain. Even in mainland China they aren't wearing them that tight any more. Or at all.

Your suggestion that babies be removed from their parents and raised like... Livestock on factory farms is what made the comparison to chickens leap to mind. You seem to believe that people are not actually living, thinking, feeling, social being whose well being and development require interaction with a family. You seem totally ignorant of the affects of being raised in an institutional setting--which is exactly what you are proposing even if it hasn't quite occurred to you that's what you are proposing betrays such an utter and complete lack of understanding of human or even animal behavior that I find it difficult to believe you actually know any other human beings.

 

[laughing dog]

Some being raised in wealth and others in poverty and your parents determining your starting point in society fosters healthy physical, intellectual and social development?...

Toni's response is a reality-based response to your "utopian idealism". It does not condone anyone to living in poverty. It simply points out that the proposal to have people breeding children who are then raised as equals by some state entity is not compatible with known human behavior. Do you have a realistic proposal that alters human behavior to make such a program realistic?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Why do you equate children being raised by expert caregivers and away from biological parents and money legacies to factory farming? I think you may have watched a few too many sci fi movies. You can still do it in "families". You just need to determine the ideal number of children per caregiver and assign them accordingly.

Are you opposed to adoption? If not, this is not all that different.

Or is it an attachment to legacy, inheritance, and tribal identity getting in the way here? Do you find these things important to keep around today? With all that comes with them, ranging from wealth disparity to racism?

Imagine, growing up as a family of 6, headed by a pair of expert care givers trained in raising children, with 4 children of different "races", genders, etc, who don't all look the same, but are raised as siblings. Imagine what that could do to racism later in their lives. If your brother is black, I doubt you are going to be racist against black people. If your sister is latina and your other sister is white, I doubt you'll be racist against them either. And you'll all grow up with equal opportunity and access to the programs and money that you need, because each of these family units will have proper funding not dependent on who the birth parents were, so nobody grows up in a wealth bubble unaware of how the other half lives.

Again, I ask what you keep dodging: Why should who your birth parents are determine where you start out in society?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What part of "can't be compelled to pay" do you not understand?

Well they fucking well should be. And in a lot of cases are compelled to pay by court order.

So long as the wrong guy is on the hook they can't go after the right one.

 

[Toni]

Why do you equate children being raised by expert caregivers and away from biological parents and money legacies to factory farming? I think you may have watched a few too many sci fi movies. You can still do it in "families". You just need to determine the ideal number of children per caregiver and assign them accordingly.

Are you opposed to adoption? If not, this is not all that different.

Or is it an attachment to legacy, inheritance, and tribal identity getting in the way here? Do you find these things important to keep around today? With all that comes with them, ranging from wealth disparity to racism?

Imagine, growing up as a family of 6, headed by a pair of expert care givers trained in raising children, with 4 children of different "races", genders, etc, who don't all look the same, but are raised as siblings. Imagine what that could do to racism later in their lives. If your brother is black, I doubt you are going to be racist against black people. If your sister is latina and your other sister is white, I doubt you'll be racist against them either. And you'll all grow up with equal opportunity and access to the programs and money that you need, because each of these family units will have proper funding not dependent on who the birth parents were, so nobody grows up in a wealth bubble unaware of how the other half lives.

Again, I ask what you keep dodging: Why should who your birth parents are determine where you start out in society?

Since you seem to be so set upon 'experts' raising children, perhaps you should read up a bit on what experts have to say about raising children away from their families, as has been done with many populations. Recent examples include removing Native American children and aboriginal children in Australia from their families to be raised in schools where they would be better suited to the new society. Or children raised in orphanages. Look to places such as India, Eastern Europe, even pre-20th century US. Or boarding schools in Great Britain. Varying degrees of success--and of detachment disorders, among other issues. Varying success and issues with children on the best adoptive homes--some well adjusted and happy, and some who feel something important is missing from their lives.

Try reading just something about child development.

Or even try reading about best practices for raising puppies.

I get the impression you spend little time and less thought on raising children.

Everything else you've written is only lame ramblings of someone who cannot back up a single assertion with anything reassembling data or research. And you claim that *I've* read too much science fiction. Try reading a little actual science. Or if that's beyond your ken, try reading some good sci fi. You'll find my position much better supported in either.

 

[RVonse]

Everything sounds doable until we get to the part of who is going to be providing the eggs and sperm, and who else is going to be paying for care giving. Especially the part about who is worthy enough to be the sperm and egg donors part. How do you make sure that is handled "fair".

Everything sounds 'doable' until you consider that you are talking about raising human beings or even any living being with any sense of self awareness. What Jolly described would be a cruel and inadequate way of raising a litter of puppies, much less an entire society of people.

What has happened to the guy in the OP of this thread is cruel too. I do not agree with it at all, but this does appears to be an acceptable standard of conduct for women now days and condoned by our legal system. So if you agree with a non biological person raising and paying for a child as in the OP, you really should have no problem with what Jolly has suggested.

 

[laughing dog]

Everything sounds 'doable' until you consider that you are talking about raising human beings or even any living being with any sense of self awareness. What Jolly described would be a cruel and inadequate way of raising a litter of puppies, much less an entire society of people.

What has happened to the guy in the OP of this thread is cruel too. I do not agree with it at all, but this does appears to be an acceptable standard of conduct for women now days and condoned by our legal system. So if you agree with a non biological person raising and paying for a child as in the OP, you really should have no problem with what Jolly has suggested.

The man in the OP was actually involved with raising his legal daughter - he established a relationship with her that he wishes to continue. It is nothing at all like the sci-fi nightmare that JP endorses.

 

[Toni]

Everything sounds 'doable' until you consider that you are talking about raising human beings or even any living being with any sense of self awareness. What Jolly described would be a cruel and inadequate way of raising a litter of puppies, much less an entire society of people.

What has happened to the guy in the OP of this thread is cruel too. I do not agree with it at all, but this does appears to be an acceptable standard of conduct for women now days and condoned by our legal system. So if you agree with a non biological person raising and paying for a child as in the OP, you really should have no problem with what Jolly has suggested.

The reason that there is law established naming the husband of a woman who gives birth as the legal father of the resulting child is that there have always been children who are the result of sexual contact between the mother and someone not her husband. The ability to genetically determine paternity is a recent development. So is the ability to conceive a child through artificial insemination, iVF, and so on.

As has been pointed out multiple times in this thread, the legal father is quite happy to continue as the child's father. What is cruel is if the adults decided they should disrupt the relationship between child and legal father.

 

[Toni]

Everything sounds 'doable' until you consider that you are talking about raising human beings or even any living being with any sense of self awareness. What Jolly described would be a cruel and inadequate way of raising a litter of puppies, much less an entire society of people.

What has happened to the guy in the OP of this thread is cruel too. I do not agree with it at all, but this does appears to be an acceptable standard of conduct for women now days and condoned by our legal system. So if you agree with a non biological person raising and paying for a child as in the OP, you really should have no problem with what Jolly has suggested.

The reason that there is law established naming the husband of a woman who gives birth as the legal father of the resulting child is that there have always been children who are the result of sexual contact between the mother and someone not her husband. The ability to genetically determine paternity is a recent development. So is the ability to conceive a child through artificial insemination, iVF, and so on.

As has been pointed out multiple times in this thread, the legal father is quite happy to continue as the child's father. What is cruel is if the adults decided they should disrupt the relationship between child and legal father.