| 'L.A. Times Covers CA Paternity Fraud Bill' | Login/Create an Account | 5 comments |
Search Discussion
|
|
|
|
The Fine Print:
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them.
Mensactivism.org is not responsible for them in any way.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday April 16, @11:07AM EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
Roberts, of the Center for Law and Social Policy, said the group agonized over the issue. It ultimately concluded that after a child's second birthday, the harm of losing a father would outweigh the harm of a man paying to support a child who was not his own.
For whatever reason, when I read this statement it struck a nerve. It really bothered me. How could this group conclude that it is acceptable for a married woman that has committed adultery to be justified in commiting paternity fraud? I came up with several answers. Nevertheless, one sticks out in my mind.
My education informs me that this commission is using an amoral form of utilitarian reasoning to justify their recommendation. They know that the woman has committed an immoral act. They know it is immoral for the husband to be burdened with child support. They know it should be illegal for the woman to commit paternity fraud. They are fully aware that there should be natural consequences arising out of the act of adultery. Yet, they use the “best interest of the child” argument to nail the innocent husband. They simply claim that he should “suck it up.”
Then it occurs to me that I know of several of my childhood friends (age 10-16) that were molested by the neighborhood wives. I recall that there is a myth that these women are doing these boys a favor by molesting them. It occurs to me that they must have gotten pregnant with a child in many instances. It occurs to me that there must be a large group of female molesters that are avoiding punishment. I ask my self, "why are women's groups so opposed to seeking justice?" The statistical studies prove that there is a large segment of women molesting boys. So, why aren’t they being prosecuted?
Finally, the only possible answer comes to me. These feminists must have a significant percentage of members that molested children. There is no other possible reason. This paternity fraud and DNA testing will have the effect of exposing 10’s of thousands of women as the child molesters that they are. That is why I believe we are getting such strong resistance from the feminist. They must have closet child molesters that will be exposed by anti-paternity fraud legislation. These women don’t want the true father of the child to be revealed. Why? Because they must be child molesters.
Warble slaps himself on the head. Dugh! I should have realized that sooner.
Warble
|
|
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.... to support universal DNA testing at birth (or within a reasonable time frame thereafter). Seems like a good reason not to allow a "no comment" on the Father ______ section of the birth certificate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Okay. It's in the best interests of the child.
So, this kid turns eighteen, then what? Mom has a house, a car, a good job from thye schooling she took. After all, that support is not accountable - and that's where it usually goes, when it's not being thrown away in a pile of glass bottles, in a pipe, up a nose, or in a vein.
At that time, it's payback time. The defrauder then - at triple indemnity - pays this back. There are leins placed on property, a conviction that prohibits moving, and so on.
Why not? "The Child" is raised. No further harm can come there. Kiddy is protected, the designated father is protected, and "Maw" is accountable. It seems so logical.
But, that can't happen, because it is not about the child.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
