Another Paternity Fraud case.(30% of Paternity tests prove children fathered by other men.)

Philadelphia Inquirer ^ | 12/23/2002 | By Kathy Boccella

[BuddhaBoy]

Mandatory testing might also increase HONESTY between men and women.

It might also force women to make better choices in the men that they choose to bed down with. A woman looking for a faithful, responsible husband might think twice before knocking boots with the pool boy.

[Post Toasties]

The status quo advocates all try to mislead people by not mentioning that most of these cases are brought on by the woman divorcing the man and breaking up the family in the first place. In that scenario, the man damned well ought to be allowed to determine patrimony and to stop paying child support for children he didn't father. That's only applying the absolute minimum standard of fairness to 99% of these situations, considering the hugely damaging gross deception and great stupidity the wife is guilty of.

The women's rights advocates are also apparently too greedy, incompetent or imbecilic to see that they are wrecking their own agenda of going after deadbeat dads if they don't also pursue the men who fathered children in other mens' families.

[elbucko]

A child without a father is going to be just fine.

This is patently not true. Children without fathers grow up to be troubled adults. If they make it to adulthood.

[End The Hypocrisy]

>>>Some people should not be allowed to breed. It should at least be harder than getting a driver's licence.<<<


I second that notion. Personally, although I think abortion's awful, I think society shoots itself in the foot by banning it.

[notpoliticallycorewrecked]

It seems to me that this is more an issue of making the real father come across with the child support.

In the early 80's I worked for a laboratory that was doing DNA test to prove paternity. The problem that some of these "Moms" had even back then, was knowing who the real father was. You won't believe the low life bums some of these women dragged in claiming they were the "Dad". We had a couple of them that we had to do several rounds of DNA testing before they managed to name the "father". After having the "honor" of taking a blood sample from some of these creeps you wanted to go take a shower with the bleach to make sure that they didn't give you anything.

IMHO if a women is sleeping around on her husband and conceives a child, she is automaticly declared an unfit mother. The child can then stay with the father that has raised them as his or they can be placed in a home looking to adopt. That way these "mothers" will learn one of two life lessons. To either not sleep around or to keep their mouth shut if they do.

[End The Hypocrisy]

>>>It might also force women to make better choices in the men that they choose to bed down with.<<<

That would hopefully alleviate the risk men run by trusting sleazy women to act responsibly in light of the following alarming statistic:


http://www.cnn.com/2002/HEALTH/11/20/herpes.vaccine/index.html

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates about 45 million Americans, or about one in five, have contracted genital herpes, technically known as herpes simplex virus type 2. It is different than type 1, which is a closely related virus that causes similar small, sometimes painful fever blisters around the lips and nostrils in about 80 percent of Americans.

[BuddhaBoy]

It just bothers me that's there's always the double standard...

And what double standard would that be?

Every woman knows that a man will consider sex with with any package containing breasts within reason. The decision to have sex is ALWAYS the woman's to make. If she chooses no; then it is rape.

Women wanted these choices and they got them. Men make no choices with respect to relationships, they are only willing participants. Women file 90% of divorce cases, and have 100% of the abortions. No woman legally has sex against her will, so I would like to know what double standard you are referring to?

[Let's Roll]

Hopefully, that would be temporary as women start to be more careful - either not committing adultery in the first place or consistently using contraceptives.

Also, we might find that with required DNA testing - more children than expected are actually the children of the husband or "official" boyfriend.

[End The Hypocrisy]

>>>The women's rights advocates are also apparently too greedy, incompetent or imbecilic to see that they are wrecking their own agenda of going after deadbeat dads if they don't also pursue the men who fathered children in other mens' families.<<<


By and large, such women's rights advocates are interested in ONE thing above all else: FUNDRAISING. If their agenda suddenly evolves to jeopardize potential donors' or potential poster women's promiscuous pleasures, then that can adversely affect their bottom line.

[marajade]

Its assuming that all of these men who aren't fathers don't currently have families of their own... I can't believe that's the assumption being made...

[BuddhaBoy]

You are right, the backfire has already begun. I have many friends, all successful, great guys. NONE of them have any intention of getting married EVER.

The feminists are responsible for destroying opportunities for many of today's women.

[BuddhaBoy]

I second that notion. Personally, although I think abortion's awful, I think society shoots itself in the foot by banning it.

I agree with you. Abortion is a necessary evil, and it will NEVER be outlawed, period.

What I hope, is that women will take more responsibility for their choices, and if a woman sleeps around, then she does so because she likes sex; not because she is trying to win the lottery.

[marajade]

They aren't getting married because of laws like these? How stupid... Don't men know the kind of woman they are marrying and wouldn't the reverse also be true?

[End The Hypocrisy]

>>>>The decision to have sex is ALWAYS the woman's to make. If she chooses no; then it is rape.<<<

According to some litigious women, she can choose "yes" but change her mind AFTER the fact while trying to extort from the man.

Meanwhile, what's this about 90% of divorces are filed by women. Seriously? So do men simply wait for women to file or something? How can there be such a discrepancy in filing rates?

[shadowman99]

You didn't pick up on the tone. Yes, I know a child without a father will have problems. But society unfortunately is in hard denial of that concept. Most people think a child without a mother is damaged goods and will never have any chance of being normal, but these same people think the father is disposable. How many films have you seen with a single mother that are lighthearted comedies? Too many to count? But every film with a child that lost his/her mother is a molodrama geared towards the Oprah crowd.

• NOW has (successfully) sold the idea that the mother will always love the child more than the father, and the child will always love and need the mother more.

[marajade]

Well in my case it would have been literally true... I would have been better off without the kind of father I had...

[End The Hypocrisy]

>>>You are right, the backfire has already begun. I have many friends, all successful, great guys. NONE of them have any intention of getting married EVER. The feminists are responsible for destroying opportunities for many of today's women.<<<


Traditionally, hasn't it been the women who have manipulated our social institutions to scorn and ridicule gay, as well as merely unmarried, men? How convenient for women's purses that this worked for centuries. But now the feminazis and the gays tend to be in the same political party, and the radical militant feminists can't step on the toes of gays too much or else they risk losing narrowly like Gore did in 2000. But for the Log Cabin Republicans, the GOP might have lost the state of Florida in 2000. The radical feminists really have done themselves in with their intolerant opportunistic abrasiveness.

[Post Toasties]

Huge differences. Both adults know the score. And if the mother (can't ignore her, sorry) has a quarter of a brain, she will have reached some legally binding agreement to provide for at least long term financial support for the daughter regardless of what happens to the relationship.

[dano1]

I know there are exceptions on either side, but the vast majority of these "adults" are behaving badly.

True. The law should make the biological father and mother responsible. It's wrong to force someone who is not the biological parent to support someone else's misbehavior. The experts quoted in this article all failed to mention that what is really in the best interest of the children is that society should encourage everyone to be responsible for the consequences of their actions.

[End The Hypocrisy]

>>>NOW has (successfully) sold the idea that...<<<


Excellent choice of words. Despite claims to the contrary, their agenda boils down to fundraising.