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?
That's even WORSE. I honestly feel that wives who do this, should be executed. They've stolen a man's whole life, theirs should taken.
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.
That, of necessity, must be a free-will decision. You can force child support payments, but you can't force visitation on a man who's so angry that all he can see is the adulterer's eyes when he looks at the kid.
Possibly some men might wish to continue interacting with, and even supporting, the child, but I maintain that they're not OBLIGATED to, as the "relationship" began in fraud. Forcing them will only intensify their hatred.
Discontinuing support is reasonable, and probably essential in court
So what's your argument with us, then? Courts are NOT in fact discontinuing support.
but this thread is animated by animus, not a hunger for simple justice.
Contextually, these are not separable issues. When simple justice has been repeatedly denied, animus towards the perpetrators and willing beneficiaries is inevitable.
And just how far does the recompense go? Back to birth
That's not far enough. Many men, myself included, work a LOT harder at educational and economic advancement, than we otherwise would, for the sole purpose of financing a family... our own family, not the milk-man's family. In my own case, my personal needs are simple and could be satisfied by manual labor -- I drove myself through hell to get a Ph.D. in chemistry so I could afford a family. (Surely you don't think that men work so darned hard, because they like their jobs! Most men HATE their jobs. Mine is at least tolerable, and I'm luckier than most.)
If I found out that I'd been cuckolded, I would feel very strongly that a TOTAL restitution was in order -- not just the cost of raising the babies, but the cost of being married to her, and the cost of the education and preparation that I put myself through to afford it all. Plus, substantial damages, in light of the fact that at my age, I have much less chance of attracting a desireable, breeding-age woman and starting over.
If I faced that situation, I would argue that both the mother and the bio-father ought to be paying me.... for the rest of their lives, if necessary. Otherwise, execute them for adultery and hand over all their property to me.
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.
But it absolutely, positively, undeniably IS the woman's fault. Women can 100% prevent this sort of thing. If you don't want your children to suffer it, make d@%# sure that your HUSBAND is the actual father.
Once again I come back to the example of a MAN convicted of fraud (eg, a Wall Street raider) -- nobody sheds a tear over the fact that HIS children will suffer as a result of his well deserved punishment. If you commit a fraud, your family won't be deliberately punished, but they WILL, unavoidably, suffer. And that's a darned good reason not to commit crimes.
When the money is in the "father's" pocket, what else will he have besides bitterness?
He will have the economic ability to afford to remarry and have HIS OWN kids. Call it genetic fairness, Darwinian justice, whatever. (Most likely, he'll include a DNA clause in the prenup next time around, though!)
... another thread! Curiosity beckoned. Just what inspires such energy?
Buddhaboy has a true, unadulterated passion for justice!
Listen, you busy-body, it was all the apparent interest in this subject on Free Republic that inspired me to create a web site, not the other way around. I decided after all the flames and anger my comments generated, that perhaps I had come across a great idea for a discussion forum. When the site is finished, and you are over your snide remarks and accusations, I hope that you will go there and learn something.