Posted on 02/12/2007 11:18:56 AM PST by PercivalWalks
Is this about Chelsea's real father?
I wonder how many people here will favor forcing a non-biological duped "dad" to continue paying child support for a kid that isn't his. Because it's for the children, of course.
Legally, Fatherhood is based on blood, unless the Father adopts. It makes sense to give a duped "Father" that right.
I notice there is no mention of any type of reimbursement to the "duped dad" for expensives and child support already paid.
Seems to me that most female freepers support sticking it to duped guys.
Is there anything to make the mothers cough up back payment to reimburse the men for this civil wrong?
Oh wait, the women are innocent "victims" in all this.
Now this p!sses me off. Again, no matter what, the man is the PERP.
Never mind that some evil, conniving c*** lied like a rug and cheated the guy, now its STILL his fault because he doesn't like being cheated!
How about this as part of the bill, any woman who KNOWINGLY lies about paternity should get FIVE HARD YEARS in the slammer, bunked up with Big Butt Betty the lezzy.
This stuff would come to screeching, grinding halt, yesterday.
This is simply an appeal to guilt, and to "political correctness".
This is and should remain an individual choice.
"Noble" or patsy. What a choice!
And then there's question of the real criminal in the whole process.
The problem is that many mothers refuse to permit the father (duped or not duped) to have visitation or they are sharply limited. Courts are very reluctant to tackle this issue and it creates great bitterness.
It's been awhile since I've seen a thread on this topic here, but I remember some being in support of forcing continued child support.
What they don't realize is that by forcing a duped dad to pay child support, that is effecting his ability to have children of his own that he can support. So not only is he forced to pay for another man's kid(s), he's being forced into a decision where he either doesn't have his own kids or makes his biological children get by with less.
People who would support something like that make me sick. Mush minded simpletons, driven only by their soft headed emotional thought process.
Such decisions for "nonbiological children" may also be laying the groundwork for getting same sex couples to pay "child support" after separation.
True enough, but what bothers me even more is that the biological father is getting off free-- while some other man pays for the rearing of his child. To read some arguments, you'd think that removing the obligation of the "duped dad" would leave the child without financial support. Just because the husband isn't the biological father does not mean there isn't a biological father out there!
This is one aspect studiously avoided in these discussions, because it involves work and unpleasantness and the recognition that, in most cases, the slimeball "mother" knows exactly who the biological father is.
Typical FemiNazi tyranny and deceit. If he is not the dad, the cuckholded dupe should at least get simple justice.
No way should he be FORCED to do any such thing. However, if he truly wants to have a relationship with the child, including one of financial support, but the mother won't allow anything but the financial support...to heck with her.
In most cases, once a man finds out he is not the biological father the decision should be left up to him. I'm sure many will come up with reasons that I can't think of off the top of my head, which is why I said "in most cases."
"Seems to me that most female freepers support sticking it to duped guys."
Ex-wives are often like government. They want the money, they want it now and they want all of it.
not this one
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.