Subject:
|
Re: Family values?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 4 Jan 2001 03:52:17 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
248 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Maggie Cambron writes:
> > 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.
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.
> > 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 wasn't very precise in my statement. Of course fatherhood isn't simply a
matter of chromosome donation (in fact, that's the least of it). But I'm
saying that a person forced into the role of fatherhood against his will and
through no fault of his own (that is to say, because he didn't donate the
chromosomes) should not be legally bound to support those children against his
will. If he chooses to do so, as in the case of adoption, that's admirable,
but forcing it upon him--and, conversely, on the children--is more harmful than
helpful.
> > 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,
You are absolutely correct. If the man embraces the responsibility of
fatherhood--whether or not he is biological kin--he cannot simply abandon the
child when fatherhood later becomes inconvenient for him. Legally the father
has entered a contract of sorts obliging him to maintain the responsibility he
has accepted. Morally (and let's not start that tired argument again) he has
placed himself in a vital position in the child's life, and it would be wrong
to turn away thereafter.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Family values?
|
| (...) And what's much worse in this case is that one poor fellow is being forced to shoulder the responsibility for a child that is not his- and that the same courts give him no rights to see or have a hand in raising. That makes absolutely no sense (...) (23 years ago, 4-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Family values?
|
| (...) little (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
