Replies

Here's a story in the Times about DNA testing for immigration purposes. The poor slob in the story found out that only 1 of the several children he always considered his are in fact not his biological children.

DNA Tests Offer Immigrants Hope or Despair

The article discusses his pain, of course He is also seeking to still bring them to the USA to be with him, petitioning as a step-dad. His personal pain is secondary to the care of the children he loves and long considered his.

Yes, he discusses the pain of the unfaithfulness of his wife, but he is a stand up guy and realizes that it's about the children, not him getting his feelings hurt or being a victim, or whining about money or how they aren't his responsibility anymore. Bravo!

Some Freeper males should take note and see how a real man takes care of business!

I am simply stunned that it is not self evident that of course no man should have to pay a nickel for any child that he can prove that he has no genetic relationship with. Some Freeper males should take note and see how a real man takes care of business! A real man will waste the resources generated by the sweat of his brow on another mans child that was deceitfully claimed to be his? A real stupid man, perhaps. A real man will take responsibility for his own actions and will take total responsibility for his chjildren. A real man has no responsibility for someone elses cast off whelps except that which he voluntarily chooses to assume. The injustice of these types of situations is plain to see.

It’s funny you call one man taking care of another’s child “taking care of business.” Perhaps you might try this on a more selective audience.

It seems hard enough to get families to take care of their own children without undertaking some selective pronounced responsibility you advocate of men taking on the business of others.

It strikes me as odd.

Some Freeper males should take note and see how a real man takes care of business!

If his wife were a "real woman" she wouldn't have had sex with a man (or men) not her husband. Were his wife a "real woman" she would have come clean after the infidelity took place and accepted whatever choice he came to concerning their marriage. Were his wife a "real woman" she wouldn't have taken the secret that six of his seven children are bastards to her grave.

Ultimately, a man should not be forced into caring for children who are not his own unless he has taken legal custody of the children. What a man's affections might be for a child and what a child's affections might be for a man should have no legal bearing as to who holds primary responsibility for the child and legal, primary responsibility should rest with the two people who created the child. Claiming that a man deserves to bound into financial servitude for two decades to another person in the "best interests of the child" is not much different than the argument Leftists make that the rich need to be soaked in the "best interests of the poor."

What if the biological father is never found? Then the biological father is simply never found and the child grows up without. Welcome to the club we have plenty of room in the member roster. What if the step/sort-of-kind-of/foolin'-around-with-your-mom daddy decides to give the kid some stuff, then cuts the kid off cold along with the mom? Well, then the guy is kind of a douche, but there is no law against being a douche, nor should there be. If a man who is not biologically decides to be a father-figure to a child, then that should be his decision, reliant upon his own conscience, not what the state decides (because as we all know, the state does no wrong) is in "the best interest of the child."