|
Post by lumpy on Mar 10, 2008 23:15:17 GMT -5
This equates to taxing every unmarried woman that has a child...just in case. Why not let the dude on the certificate pay the $165 for a test if he's not convinced the child is his? I'm guessing the number of men trying to play the "I never touched her" card is a bit higher than the number of women naming the wrong man the father. Just a hunch. Why not have them split it? After all, they jot down the father's name on that birth certificate on the word of the mother alone in many cases. I'd guess you might be right with the " I never touched her" guess. My only problem with that rationale is "I never touched her" isn't going to mean dick if your name is on the birth certificate erroneously. You're going to foot the bill if the matter is pressed in court.
|
|
|
Post by Phyxius on Mar 10, 2008 23:40:48 GMT -5
This equates to taxing every unmarried woman that has a child...just in case. Why not let the dude on the certificate pay the $165 for a test if he's not convinced the child is his? I'm guessing the number of men trying to play the "I never touched her" card is a bit higher than the number of women naming the wrong man the father. Just a hunch. Ain't it the truth... Why not have them split it? After all, they jot down the father's name on that birth certificate on the word of the mother alone in many cases. I'd guess you might be right with the " I never touched her" guess. My only problem with that rationale is "I never touched her" isn't going to mean dick if your name is on the birth certificate erroneously. You're going to foot the bill if the matter is pressed in court.
|
|