[JMJ333]

And I already said I wasn't arguing from a legal standpoint. Legally, the courts will side the way of your argument. Doesn't mean that a man should walk away and leave that child like he never knew her. That's punishing the child for the sins of the mother. An ugly thing to do.

Gotta run..

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Legally, the courts will side the way of your argument.

Well, that's where I think that you are hearing a little more "me me me" than is actually going on here. The courts do not side with "my" side of the argument. As is illustrated above, they force the faithful man to subsidize his unfaithful wife. I could be wrong, but I believe that is what has ETH outraged.

After all -- Charity is a Moral Good;
...but Forced Charity is neither charity, nor a moral good.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

All the same, Merry Christ-mas season and my best to you and yours. God bless

[SC Swamp Fox]

I know that you and I have agreed to disagree, but...

Legally, the courts will side the way of your argument.

But they haven't been! That is our problem!

The law currently makes the husband responsible for any child conceived during the marriage, regardless of paternity as determined by DNA testing. We want those laws changed, that is our whole point.

Morally, nothing will have changed. If it wasn't for these boneheaded laws turning men into nothing more than a welfare check dispenser, maybe more men would be willing to step up, and do the right thing with these children.

I think we agree, on the morals of this issue. The question is, what should the LAW be?