March 22, 2006, - 2:49 pm

NYTimes “Ethicist”: Lie About Father’s Identity, OK to Dupe Dads

This week, The Detroit News a/k/a “The Detroit Spews” ran a piece on “Duped Dads,” men who were defrauded into thinking they were the dad and forced to pay child support even after discovering the truth.
This is nothing new. State laws and courts all over the country have unfairly required men to pay for children that are not theirs, supporting and encouraging the paternity fraud.

What is new and outrageous is that the New York Times “ethicist” has advised that this is ethical. Huh? In his syndicated column, Randy Cohen advises to conceal the truth from a duped dad:

What makes someone a parent is a continuous relationship with the kids, not the mere exchange of genetic material. If I were to learn suddenly that my college-age daughter had been exchanged in her cradle, I’d love her nonetheless.
What’s more, his coming forward would force a confrontation that both parents might wish to avoid. It is not unusual for people to determinedly ignore evidence of infidelity that is obvious to everyone else. There are things people choose not to know, and such information should not be foisted on them.

No-one is saying duped dads should stop caring about the children that are not theirs. But they shouldn’t have to be financially ripped off because someone else defrauded them.
One man in the Detroit Spews story, Michael Williams, is being forced to pay thousands for SEVEN! children, even though he learned that FIVE! of them are not even his. That’s an outrage.
More outrageous is that a New York Times so-called ethicist is advising the continued perpetration of this fraud. Something tells us he’d have a different view if he, too, were paying for five of someone else’s children to the mother who slept around with their fathers.
We guess that’s the breaks when the previous position of this joke of a nationwide “ethics advisor” was writing jokes for the David Letterman show.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

7 Responses

I’d expect something like this from Maureen Dowd or some other battle axe feminazi, but from this pussy, it makes me want him to turn in his membership to the male gender.

Dairenn on March 22, 2006 at 9:11 pm

I’m not at all surprised if he works for the New York Times and worked for Letterman. They should add “Situational” in front of the “ethicist” title.

The_Man on March 22, 2006 at 9:20 pm

That’s his title ethicist? What about Mr. Manners? I know what Ms. Manners would say – he doesn’t have a financial obligation. At least I think that is what she would say. I would have thought all these disputes would be DNA confirmed or denied, end of story. Isn’t it nice having people deciding your future and obligations for you?

John Sobieski on March 22, 2006 at 11:08 pm

The ETHICS of your Republiscum never ceases to amaze me!!! Whether you’ve been duped or not, IF you’re married to someone the children are part and parcell of that union…has somethang to do with the SANCTITY of marriage.
So if Joseph divorced Mary that slut should not get chile-support for Baby Jezeus in your opinion?

EminemsRevenge on March 23, 2006 at 10:57 am

Okay…I think I got this now…
If you’re left wing or “progressive”, you are an “ethicist”
If you lean to the right, or are conservative, you are “judgmental”.
Does that about cover it?

Blaise on March 24, 2006 at 3:02 pm

ìEthicistî = Secular Humanist.
DONîT THINK even-handed and progressive. Think GOAT, educated pagan, and ATHEISTñ
Course, that might be preferable to some Catholic politicians who are basically pagans with PATCHES of Catholicism.
The State should IMMEDIATELY assume the child support obligation the second a man discovers his offspring is ìoffî.
The State is responsible for the care and well-being of its citizens BEFORE GOD until such time when TRUE JUSTICE, which still needs to be legislated, is in place. TRUE JUSTICE means society availing itself of all available means (bye, bye individual rights) to locate these crooks and make them pay their debt to society (location fees), to THEIR KIDS (child support) and additionally to society (jail) if they refuse or canít pay.
But that would seem TOO HARSH a burden to bear for your local BLEEDING HEART LIBERAL who wishes to remain a PERPETUAL ADOLESCENT so long as OTHERS pay for his actions and not him.
Hey EminemsRevenge youíre a pretty funny guy with that slur against Mary. Not even a Muslim would say that.
Oh I forgotÖyou likely come from that religious background that doesnít REALLY understand Mary. Isnít really comfortable with her EXALTED stature specifically, and the feminine in general. Course if you knew the Old Testimony, you would know the significance of her TODAY even without the benefit of the New Testament.
Oh well, I guess ignorance is bliss

The Canadien on March 24, 2006 at 10:07 pm

The Canadian:
Maybe you could point out to me where the STATE has any obligation to financially support the offspring of irresponsible mothers. May I suggest you look to our Constitution which does not mandate the STATE to support the offspring of mothers whom stray to another man’s bed.
The problem here is that starting with our President LBJ, the federal Government has supported illegitimate births with food stamps, housing, free education and health care. Before his great society programs, Mothers were held responsible for their actions. They had to support their offspring or put them up for adoption.
The STATE is trying to force fathers to pay for kids that they have proved not be responsible for. I suggest the solution is to force the mothers to pay and maybe they would not be so willing to spread their legs for every Tom, Dick or Harry.

ScottyDog on March 26, 2006 at 12:21 pm

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field