A feminist professor reckons that men who have been
subject to paternity fraud should, nevertheless, foot the bills for the
children who are not theirs.
The Case Against Paternity Fraud Laws In
an era in which individuals and couples, heterosexual and homosexual, are
embracing new reproductive technologies to create families, the biological
connection often does not assist in establishing legal parentage for intended
parents. Melanie Jacobs - arguing that paternity defrauded men should
still be regarded as the 'legal' fathers - with all the responsibilities - if they
have not challenged their paternity status within two years.
Notice how this feminist professor keeps repeating the mantra 'in the best
interests of the child' in order to argue her case.
But she would not be using this mantra when it comes to issues surrounding,
In other words, if it is 'in the best interests of the child' to limit a
paternity defrauded man's option to extricate himself from the fraud, then,
surely, it is very definitely 'in the best interests of the child' to refuse to
allow women to divorce their husbands, because divorce removes the real
fathers from the lives of their very own offspring!
How can she insist on forcing non-fathers to be fathers - 'in the best
interests of the child' - while being happy about women stopping real fathers
from being fathers to their very own children?
And the answer to this is very simple.
This woman is not concerned at all about 'the best interests of the child'.
The whole notion about 'the best interests of the child' is nothing more than
a dishonest ruse to bamboozle the public.
Indeed, whenever you hear the phrase 'in the best interests of the child' you
can be fairly certain that the feminists or the government are seeking to
empower themselves at the expense of men.
And Mz Jacobs is a typical feminist who is attempting to deceive the public
about her real attitudes. Her sole concern is to empower women and, in this case, she is prepared to
damage the lives of paternity defrauded men - and the children - in order to do so.
- and, of course, the real fathers.
If this woman truly believes that non-fathers should be
forced into being fathers because this is 'in the best interests of the child'
then she must also believe that it is wrong for the real fathers
to be divorced from their very own children by the actions of the mothers.
But, of course, as a feminist - and judging by her article - we know that she
does not believe this at all.
What this duplicitous woman really wants is this.
She wants women to be able to force non-fathers into being fathers, and she
also wants them to be able to force real fathers into being non-fathers.
Basically, she wants women to do as they please, and for governments to
create laws that would enable them to do as they please, regardless of how badly
men or children might be affected.