We don’t allow mothers to break the law. Why should this one be any different?
Punishment is meant to force people to comply with the law. Same with this law.
If the mother cares about her child she won’t lie.
The tax payers who else?
You know an easier way to solve the problem, if its important to you to know whether or not you have children? Keep track of who you fuck, for at least a few months after you fuck them. Problem solved!
(Of course, my personal theory is that this is currently a purely theoretical exercise for you, which is probably a big part of the problem…)
I couldn’t give less of a shit if you scrap your plan. It’s stupid and will never be implemented in a billion years. I’ll be happy if you’ll just stop hijacking unrelated threads with it.
With what power though? The mother is under no obligation to talk to the father. She is under no obligation to see the father. If the mother wants to hide the pregnancy from the father she can.
Oh yes this thread stayed on target until I got here.
Can we get back to the topic of calling Hauss a tool for trying to skip out on his obligations to his child?
Sure. He’s the one who wants to know, put the burden on him. The mother knows she’s pregnant, so why involve her in his desire for information? He doesn’t have to tell her where he goes when they break up, after all, so why should she be required to hand out info for his benefit?
Becuase its not just for his benefit. Its also for the benefit of the child.
I gave him a heads-up in another thread. Don’t know if he’s seen it yet. But he did claim to be 19, so now we know that.
And yet, amazingly, it’s not a widespread problem. Normal human adults tend to use “social” skills in place of government intervention for a wide variety of interactions.
Your three pages of pro-life ranting (in a thread about child support) followed by five pages defending the rights of a non-existent group of men at the expense of everything else qualify, in my opinion, for one of the worst hijacks I’ve ever seen. You beat out catsix by a mile.
I can’t jump too hard on Treis because when I was 19, I didn’t give a flying shit about anything except working, partying and drinking with no opinions about anything (outside of working, partying and drinking) and at least he/she is trying to form his/her opinions and giving a flying shit about something, regardless if it’s misguided or not. If any Dopers had the same opinions now as they did when they were 19 on this subject…then rip Treis all you want, but I’m gonna refrain.
Now, if Hauss is truely 19, then all I can say is “Live and Learn”, “Suck it up”, and be a part of the kid’s life, financially and physically and don’t make the same mistake again. Welcome to parenthood. That, I can give an opinion on. Hauss, good luck on the rest of your life…I’ll pray for you, the kid and the mom that everything works out in the long run.
Pro-life ranting? Thats odd becuase last time I checked I supported a women’s right to an abortion.
I didn’t read all six pages of rhetoric, but methinks the mods should move this into GD. 
Adam
Oops, seems to be up to 12 pages now. :eek:
Fair enough – I don’t claim to actually know your opinions. I assumed you were pro-life based on your multi-page insistence that abortion is the same as murdering a child. (Personally, I find it chilling that you can view abortion as murdering a child and not be pro-life, but that’s just me.)
How can he be obligated to something that’s not a child yet?
What, is that supposed to be clever?
Nobody’s asking him to be responisble for a fetus, he’s being upbraided for seeking information on how to avoid paying child support or taking responsibility for the child AFTER IT’S BORN. What the fuck is your fucking point or do you HAVE a fucking point?
I’m going to explain why your law is profiling.
First, women are a protected class in this country. That means you can’t descriminate against them, by creating laws that only effects them. The same way you can’t create laws specifically designed for Jews, or Asians or people with one leg. I’m not talking shoe store policy, but Federal Laws. They would be unconstitutional. Think about that for a sec.
Okay…Now your law goes even further, not only is created specifically for women; but it singles out a specific type of woman. One who is just given birth, that’s the “profile”. She is singled out for questioning based SOLELY on her status…ie, a new mother. You understand that women with toddlers, with adolesants, with teenagers could be keeping their children from their fathers, right? So why do you only profile new mothers?
Try this: You have a 10 women in a room, all have children; one has a newborn. You pull out the one with the newborn and question her about her baby’s father. Why did you select her? What makes her different from the other 9, all of which could be hiding their children from their fathers?
Do you see your problem? Any mother with a child could be hiding their children from the fathers, yet you only select one type of person; while allowing the others to continue unchallenged…that’s profiling.
Why do you not demand that every person, not just mothers who have just given birth, provide the name of the other biological parent when they bring children to the hospital?
Don’t you want all those neglected biological parents to be informed?
You don’t question all people or even all women with children…you single out a specific type of woman, who then must fill out a form. A form that only she and people like her are given.
Your law is unconstitutional…try again.
He said in his first post on the subject that he and his SO “didn’t want to kill it”. If he’s opposed to abortion, he should be willing to accept responsibility after the birth.
Hehe. You’re SO easy, Dio 
e- yup. our friend is repsonsible for more than an entire page of this thread.
even catsix isnt that obsessed. and thats saying a lot.
treis: 102 posts. That’s over two pages.
Diogenes: 77. One and a half.
catsix: 34. Less than one.
wring, you’ve only got 14. I have 12, counting this.