Subject:
|
Re: Family values?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 3 Jan 2001 23:27:59 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
236 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Maggie Cambron writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tom Stangl writes:
> > > Blood boiling because the "fathers" rightly think they owe nothing, or that
> > > the courts still force them to pay?
> >
> > Or blood boiling because these fathers find it so easy to suddenly detach
> > themselves from children they've thought of as their own for years with • little
> > regard for their emotional and financial well-being?
>
> At the same time, though, what if the alleged father has biological
> children of his own, and the financial burden of providing for someone
> else's child has an adverse impact on the man's own children?
Maybe he shouldn't plant the seed if he can't tend the garden. No really, the
same could be said for the biological father of the child in question. He may
not even know he is the father to this child and may have a family of his own.
Is it fair to him and his family to suddenly have to support someone he
certainly never bonded with and probably didn't even know existed, particularly
when another man has taken on the role of father since birth and when the child
would think of him as a stranger anyway?
> You refer to these men as "these fathers," but in fact they are not.
Biologically no, but legally, and to me in fact, yes. Otherwise an adoptive
father wouldn't be a father, would he?
> I believe that the majority of cases involve no deception, but for the sake of
> argument, what recourse does a man have to prevent any woman with whom he's
> had relations from assigning him the duties of fatherhood? Is this truly
> better for the children--that someone be duped into acting as a father?
I agree with you that that kind of deception is detrimental to both children
and father. So I have to say I support the current law in Ohio which gives the
father a year to determine paternity and be absolved from responsibility. But
I think that if the father foregoes a paternity test and commits to the
relationship, then it is grossly unfair to the child for him to try to back out
of his paternal obligation years later, even if it becomes obvious (as in the
case in which the father couldn't possibly have sired the child with cystic
fibrosis) that he is not the biological father.
Maggie
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: Family values?
|
| (...) But isn't this precisely the crux of the matter. This is why sex outside of marriage is morally wrong. Because it causes all manner of hurt and confusion on so many levels (as illustrated in the article). It is not considered wrong because (...) (23 years ago, 4-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Family values?
|
| (...) Agreed, but in the case above he's required to tend both his own garden and the garden of some other, deadbeat gardener. That's where I have the problem. (...) I wasn't very precise in my statement. Of course fatherhood isn't simply a matter (...) (23 years ago, 4-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Family values?
|
| (...) This statement.... (...) And this statement... Conflict. So you're saying the NON-biological father SHOULD support the child, strictly from a legal marriage contract (that generally assumes fidelity), he should support them because he's been (...) (23 years ago, 5-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Family values?
|
| (...) At the same time, though, what if the alleged father has biological children of his own, and the financial burden of providing for someone else's child has an adverse impact on the man's own children? You refer to these men as "these fathers," (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
48 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
