(new window) to display all references, or click each individual reference below.
(Note: Each link opens a new popup window)
|Ezek 3:9; 3:17-21|
You've really impressed me with that aneswr!
5oPFuH <a href="http://wczkdwdpynkd.com/">wczkdwdpynkd</a>
wu9Eg5 <a href="http://nlezspgungfg.com/">nlezspgungfg</a>
p6MAcA <a href="http://uuamerwwcqrg.com/">uuamerwwcqrg</a>
I would normally yield to your suprieor knowledge, but since we've got nothing else to argue about, I'm just going to stubbornly insist I'm right and keep spamming the thread until Amp goes mad and starts having fever dreams about Obama being a murderer.Yes, the doctrine has nothing to do with modern paternity tests, because the doctrine was formulated before those tests were invented. My understanding and I base this on stuff I heard from pre-law girlfriends 20 years ago so my grounding on the matter is obviously unchallengable is that the doctrine evolved in an attempt to balance the stability of families and the welfare of children, in a technological and social environment where empirical demonstrations of biological paternity were difficult, expensive, and limited (blood tests that can rule out Potential Daddy X, but not establish definitively that Potential Daddy Y was the dude).All of those factors have changed, in some cases radically. Paterfamilias is now a quaint anachronism, honored perhaps in the implicit sexism of the officers of the court (sometimes benefiting women, sometimes men) but no longer a serious element of policy. If I show up at my divorce hearing and demand more time with my daughter because it's my right as the divine spark of the Hayes gens, I'll be laughed out of court and rightly so. Similarly, we no longer have an environment where keeping families together at all costs is a consensus social value; the old argument in favor of presumptive marital paternity was at least in some measure intended to let women gloss over infidelities for the sake of the kiddies' happiness and well-being; in 1920 it would be challenging for Runaround Sue to go out and get a job to keep her bastard family afloat, and it was thought better to stick Responsible Ronnie with the duty if Runaround Sue decided to make an honest woman of herself. Today Sue can get a job. And of course, the technological landscape is radically different. If paternity challenges are likely to be messy and inconclusive for example, by proving that Responsible Ron ain't the daddy but offering no tool to prove that Interloping Ian is then the likely outcome is that the kiddies lose a parent and become half-orphans. Yes, Responsible Ron's interests ought to be safeguarded but Ron had the option to not marry the skank, so he was not without remedy. Kiddie-needs-a-daddy trumps Ron-shouldn't-pay-for-Ian's-baby, when there's no mechanism to put Ian on the hook. So let's not allow the can of worms to be opened; there will be few good outcomes and on net the most helpless parties in the case will be harmed.But that isn't true anymore. Sue knows who she slept with, barring stranger rape, and if she wants support for her brood she can name the potential fathers and it can be established scientifically, inexpensively, and conclusively which one of the lucky donors won the egg toss. The balancing act which once militated for a closed can of worms, is now quite capable of untangling each and every worm and assigning definitive paternity to every last wriggler. Since we CAN put Ian on the hook and let Ron off, the kiddies will have a daddy and now Ron's right to not pay Ian's baby bill is enforceable without harm to innocents. Let Ian and Sue raise their kid; it's their kid, and we can show it.The pool boy is welcome, and after he sues you for custody under the new enlightened regime, the child support check he wrests from your greedy lawyer earnings will be even more welcome. Time for you to face the consequences of your wantonness!