playtime
Diamond Member
- Aug 18, 2015
- 55,562
- 47,961
- 3,645
It wouldn't matter what was in the contract, a judge would still award the woman child support.Because the child, once born- has the RIGHT to be housed, fed, clothed, educated, to be taken care of financially by all who created him/her. Shouldn't that 'care' come from the ones who bumped uglies or should it be the responsibility of the mother along with help from the government? LOL- then you'll be the first one screaming about the nanny sate entitlements going to all those welfare queens.
pathetic.
You're obviously wrong about that. If a woman goes to a sperm bank and has herself inseminated with my sperm, does that make me financially responsible for the child? Nope, and why not? Because I had no part in the decision. The same goes for children conceived the normal way. The woman has all the control when it comes to deciding whether to have a child. The man has virtually none. If a woman decides to have a child, and the man doesn't want to be financially responsible, then why should he be?
that's comparing apples & oranges in a situation like that, because both parties agree to the financial aspect. not so when a child is conceived the 'normal' way.
If both parties agreed in the second example, but then the woman
A contractchanged her mind, a judge would still award her child support, so your claim is wrong.
There is usually a clause that states that can't happen; or if it can- then it too would be stipulated & then both would agree to sign it into contract.
A contract is a legal binding document. It would have to stipulate that IN WRITING. Let's just say (for the sake of argument) you are correct.... then the male would have to read, know, understand that could happen & agree to that 'change' (by written consent). If he doesn't realize that could be the end result... then that's on HIM. Ignorance is no excuse.