At first it was disheartening to think that there is such enthusiasm for denying a child who turns out, through no fault of his own, not to share the ersatz papa's DNA.
Uh, no, it's not that men are enthusiastic about denying a stranger's child, it's that the men themselves, and their REAL children if any, are being denied their RIGHTFUL support from the man's hard-won income.
Once it's been established that a man is not biologically related to a child, his MORAL (as opposed to 'legal') obligation to that child is no more or less than that of any other random stranger's child. If he choses to adopt the strange child, or to give money for it as an act of freewill charity, he is free to do so... but the non-bio child or its slutty mother has no moral claim on the man.
Why is this incomprehensible to you?
How would you react if, for instance, a lesbian named you the "father" of a child and used the 'legal' system to rob you of half your income? Admittedly, that's a farfetched possibility, but false paternity accusations against men are NOT farfetched, they are common. However, perhaps the only way I can get you to understand the fundamental justice issue here, is to paint such a farfetched scenario that would place you in the position of the men you mock. What is your answer? How would you feel about being deprived of half your income (or more), for a child that couldn't possibly be yours?
What is your counterargument? I'm waiting.
that you've made NO attempt to address
There is also to be considered the bond between "father" and child, which might actually be better (just entertain this notion for a moment) *maintained* than rejected with anger. A friend that's been a friend for years might just be worth holding on to, even between adult and child. Both "father" and child may end up very hurt, and if you can come up with an effective way to punish the offending woman, I'd be happy to entertain it. But few come to mind. Giving custody to the father entirely has been suggested, an idea I like, but is unlikely to fly in the present climate.
Discontinuing support is reasonable, and probably essential in court, but this thread is animated by animus, not a hunger for simple justice. (Which is why I keep coming back to the rationale.) And just how far does the recompense go? Back to birth? Shall we calculate all the Huggies purchased, when there might be a few baby's hugs enjoyed as well? The spectacle of rejecting children publicly is MOST distressing. "You're not mine, and I want it all back." Crueler than being orphaned, and it doesn't exactly signify that the cruelty is truly the woman's fault. The point is, the child can be spared that cruelty at will. In the Merchant of Venice, Shylock said, "A deal's a deal, I want my pound of flesh." When the money is in the "father's" pocket, what else will he have besides bitterness?
The last energetic argument I had with Buddha on this subject involved an Australian case concerning a father suing for return of Christmas gifts and McDonald's outings. When I logged on to FR, I saw BB's first thread and thought, "What, again?" but decided to Let it Be. Even when I encountered his plans to start a new site called "Dontmarryher.com". Then another thread! Curiosity beckoned. Just what inspires such energy?