What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

The "I Can't Believe There's No Abortion Thread" Part Deux: Electric Boogaloo

Status
Not open for further replies.
Are these new laws that are being passed, or something that's been around for awhile and just now getting some airplay?
 
I assume these laws probably have something to do with a combination of presumption of parentage to a child born during a marriage (for purposes of legal support obligations) with the antiquated notion that society frowns upon bastard children.
 
SJHovey said:
I assume these laws probably have something to do with a combination of presumption of parentage to a child born during a marriage (for purposes of legal support obligations) with the antiquated notion that society frowns upon bastard children.
Click to expand...

It's religion, period. These people are getting their peanut butter in our chocolate except their peanut butter is arsenic.
 
Kepler said:
It's religion, period. These people are getting their peanut butter in our chocolate except their peanut butter is arsenic.
Click to expand...

I'm not even sure it's that. It's about making women subservient to men. Religion is just the veneer.

I don't see how the state has any right to determine whether two people stay married or not. Fuck that. If one says they want out, it's not up to the state, it's up to the courts.
 
dxmnkd316 said:
I'm not even sure it's that. It's about making women subservient to men. Religion is just the veneer.

I don't see how the state has any right to determine whether two people stay married or not. Fuck that. If one says they want out, it's not up to the state, it's up to the courts.
Click to expand...

The laws that are being complained about have nothing to do with getting married or getting divorced. They are all about establishing who is the legal parent, and thus responsible for support of the child.

You have to remember that most of those laws were written long before current dna testing, etc..., came about, so there were intricate laws designed to establish the burden of proof associated with who is the father of a child. If the child is born during the marriage, or perhaps within a defined period after, the husband is presumed the father, and in order to avoid support obligations, must overcome that presumption. If the child is born out of wedlock, the burden shifts.

That's what those statutes are about.
 
dxmnkd316 said:
I'm not even sure it's that. It's about making women subservient to men.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's Religion in a nutshell.


I get this sickening feeling the US is where Iran - 70s / Afghanistan - '90s were regarding women's rights.

We're probably an election cycle or two from Susie homemaker needing to wear a covering to leave the house.
 
SJHovey said:
The laws that are being complained about have nothing to do with getting married or getting divorced. They are all about establishing who is the legal parent, and thus responsible for support of the child.

You have to remember that most of those laws were written long before current dna testing, etc..., came about, so there were intricate laws designed to establish the burden of proof associated with who is the father of a child. If the child is born during the marriage, or perhaps within a defined period after, the husband is presumed the father, and in order to avoid support obligations, must overcome that presumption. If the child is born out of wedlock, the burden shifts.

That's what those statutes are about.
Click to expand...

And clearly none of that "establishing of who is a legal parent" can be done if the couple are divorced, right? A court has never weighed in on custody rights of divorced people?
 
LynahFan said:
And clearly none of that "establishing of who is a legal parent" can be done if the couple are divorced, right? A court has never weighed in on custody rights of divorced people?
Click to expand...

Of course, that is done all the time. All I'm saying is that these laws (that have apparently just been discovered even though they've likely been on the books for decades) were likely written at a time before rapid DNA testing and when it was necessary to establish certain burdens of proof in terms of establishing parentage.
 
SJHovey said:
Of course, that is done all the time. All I'm saying is that these laws (that have apparently just been discovered even though they've likely been on the books for decades) were likely written at a time before rapid DNA testing and when it was necessary to establish certain burdens of proof in terms of establishing parentage.
Click to expand...
Keep digging.

I’m hoping for an explanation of how the birthing process established paternity before there was DNA testing. And I’ll be extra entertained if you can tap dance enough do it without saying that they wanted to see if that white woman had a black baby.
 
I kind of agree with hovey here. He’s not saying the laws are right, I think they are old. They don’t make sense now but that doesn’t mean they will fix them- in fact they’ll probably double down now that they’re coming to light
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top