Mike should sue the bio mother and father for ALL the child support he paid and the court should immediately relieve him from his current payments - AND he should retain joint custody of the girl.

If this was about a car and not a child, the people who engaged in the fraud would be criminally liable.

The financial dispute is between the bio parents and the cuckold. Just because the court recognizes the bond between the cuckold and the child, shouldn't mean that he should have to pay for being the victim of the bio-parent's fraud.

and never seen an ugly one...

The idea of "trimming" it sounds like a cosmetic surgeon scam to me.

I think the word for a guy that thinks labia are ugly is "gay."

I'd rather be with a woman whose bits are responsive, who enjoys what I have to offer and is confident enough to communicate what she wants, *especially* if I'm not doing it for her.

Ladies, please don't fall for this obvious scam. Vulvi are beautiful in all their manifestations!

Mostly I couldn't resist the pun.

saltlakeslim: "Then I owe it to them and the animals they killed to take advantage of the opportunity that their sacrifice affords me, no?"

You don't owe them shit - your "morals" are a fantasy you attempt to impose on on a history of life eating life for literally billions of years. Unfortunately, a fair number of people with your persuasion want to impose it on other people - via humane slaughter laws, protesting circus animals, using animals for medical research and the rest if the usual PETA nonsense that gets tacked onto environmentalism and gives it a bad name.

I don't care what you think of me and of course I couldn't care less about you. I'm close to several vegans - I cook for my friends in ways I hope they enjoy and they don't want to take away anybodies birthday for eating meat. I (and the vegans I respect) don't think someone is "better" or "worse" for what they eat or don't eat - I just think the "holier than thou" attitude added to a weak and fantasy based "morality" is at best deluded and at worst arrogant. The right has the Dominionists and the left has the VegeTaliban. I count them as about equal in value.

"I think it is pretty obvious that animals can experience pain and attempt to avoid it. On that basis alone I think that killing them unnecessarily is cruel, and therefore immoral."

There is nothing unnecessary in killing them - we generally don't eat them alive and you have to cut up most animals to eat them. Most veggies too.

If you're a plant, then you can live a little more lightly than if you're an animal, but we're mammals so we kill to live. There is plenty of debate around the awareness of other living things - a cat has no empathy and plays with it's food because it's good practice for future catches and kills. If it did have empathy there would soon be no more cats since they're obligate carnivores.

As en ex-vegetarian (five years in the 80s) I know what does and doesn't work for my body and brain. I function on higher levels all around with some variety of meat protein in my diet and some amount of grains.

But mostly I see this "moral" vs "immoral" argument over meat and animal "rights" as sanctimonious bullshit fantasy. I think it's based in guilt about being human - and to try to make an argument against eating animals as something "moral" just degrades other moral efforts that have some basis in fact.

The bottom line is that we're all food, we'll all experience pain and die. Other mammals that are bred to feed us are retarded versions of their ancestors who were better (but not quite enough better) at putting up a fight before they were eaten. And because someone in *your* ancestory did that, the human species survived to grow a system that could afford you the time to think up a "moral" framework that says killing animals for food is bad.

In love all kinds of food - from "cruelty free" fruit fallen from the tree to force fed goose liver.

I eat (and sometimes sleep) with vegans and Atkins diet near obligate carnivores. I get along.

Here's where I draw the line though: there is not an omnivore species (aside from humans) who gives a flying fuck about the "cruelty" involved in killing the other animal that it's about to eat.

Brains like ours are expensive in terms of protein. Agriculture, the invention that lets people like Portman eat a vegan diet, is only about 12,000 years old. Before then it was fruits, nuts, berries and creatures with faces.

This notion that animals that we are going to eat have some kind of inherent "rights" is not only self-evidently wrong, but also self-defeating, for the human species.

Sure, with 6 billion humans on the planet, depleting the soil through heavy agriculture and grain fed animals is going to bite us. But the solution to human overpopulation is pretty straightforward in the era of birth control: don't make more humans. (Since it appears that the current Hollywood hobby is making more and more babies, maybe we could hear from some non-breeders on the issue.)

Humans are successful because we are omnivores. We have some challenges that will ultimately be unpleasantly self-correcting if we continue to expand our numbers, but fantasizing about the "rights" of the animals we eat is just sad anthropomorphism. If the cows, pigs, chickens, fish, lamb and other creatures that I eat have feelings while they're alive, well, they don't by the time I'm eating them.