Subject:
|
Re: Family values?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 5 Jan 2001 19:03:12 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
254 times
|
| |
|
|
Maggie Cambron wrote:
> 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.
This statement....
> 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?
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 "planting" in his wife, yet the BIOLOGICAL
father, who's been planting OUTSIDE of his marriage (or within another's) should
NOT be responsible?
That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. You're saying that infidelity
should be rewarded over fidelity.
> > 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?
Legally for another's child? I don't THINK so! If you marry someone that already
has children, you aren't forced to support them unless you adopt, so why should it
matter if those children fathered by OTHERS were born before/during/after the
marriage?
> > 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.
Why should it be limited to a year? That just encourages women to be liars for 366
days. That law encourages deception.
> 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.
Amazing that you can think this. Stripping the rights of men for no good reason.
--
| Tom Stangl, Technical Support Netscape Communications Corp
| Please do not associate my personal views with my employer
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Family values?
|
| (...) I certainly don't believe that infidelity should be rewarded. The conflict arises because while people SHOULD act responsibly, unfortunately that doesn't always happen. And if we are dealing with consequences of an act of irresponsibility that (...) (23 years ago, 6-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
|
|
|
|
