Subject:
|
Re: Family values?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 6 Jan 2001 21:19:49 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
312 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tom Stangl writes:
> Maggie Cambron wrote:
> >
> > 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.
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 cannot be undone, then the action that causes the least
harm should be taken. I agree that the man is taking the hit in this case,
and he definitely has my sympathy, but the greatest consideration should be
given to the child.
>
> > > 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?
If you have been operating all along under the assumption that you were the
child's biological father, you have been assuming the legal rights and
responsibilities that go along with that role. And, in Ohio at least, if it's
been over a year, you ARE the legal father. And it should matter because if
you were to marry someone who already has children, these children would not be
under the impression that you are their father, so they wouldn't face the
trauma of being rejected by the man they believed from birth to be their father
if you suddenly withdraw financial and/or emotional support.
>
> > Dave Schuler wrote:
>
> > > 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.
Certainly a year is an arbitrary amount of time, but it gives the man a chance
to act if he feels any suspicion about the circumstances. And if he does
discover he is not the biological father of the child, he can cut all ties
while the child is still young enough not to have the emotional scars from
being abandoned by the person he or she has always believed was his or her
father.
>
> > 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.
On the contrary. As an action taken to preserve the well-being of the child, I
consider it a very good reason.
Maggie C.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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 (...) (24 years ago, 5-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
|
|
|
|
