If the state decides that it is better for a child, of no relation to you, to be taken out of foster care and you are now their legal guardian: you would be happy with this turn of events? You have a job presumably, surely that would be better than foster care or an orphanage.
I can certainly see the other side of this argument though, it feels very unfair to saddle a third party with the responsibility to support a child they had no part in making.
I think the importance of the "making" part greatly depends on how long it's been since the making happened. The more time that elapsed, the less important it is, and the more important the child's existing bond to their (assumed) father is. If I suddenly found out my 10 year old didn't happen to biologically come from me, it's not like I'd love her any less. What kind of monster says "Oh, so the kid's not 'biologically mine', I'm going to stop loving them!"
The welfare of someone else’s child doesn’t register very highly on a majority of people’s radars beyond basic humanitarian considerations. How about government provided daycare and forcing the mother to work.
Possession is nine tenths of the law. It's not someone else's child if it's in your house and you need a genetic test to deny responsibility.
This idea that bloodlines are relevant is anachronistic superstition. Several of my friends are not genetically related to their children. It's simply not relevant.
[flagged]
If the state decides that it is better for a child, of no relation to you, to be taken out of foster care and you are now their legal guardian: you would be happy with this turn of events? You have a job presumably, surely that would be better than foster care or an orphanage.
I can certainly see the other side of this argument though, it feels very unfair to saddle a third party with the responsibility to support a child they had no part in making.
Do you have kids?
I remember when my wife was pregnant with our first, I kept half-joking about getting a peace of mind paternity test.
After actually meeting the kid and getting to know our love her, I couldn't think of anything more devastating than finding out she's not mine.
Honestly wouldn't want to know, because losing my little girl would be worse than misallocating resources or whatever the Darwinian theory would be.
3 replies →
I think the importance of the "making" part greatly depends on how long it's been since the making happened. The more time that elapsed, the less important it is, and the more important the child's existing bond to their (assumed) father is. If I suddenly found out my 10 year old didn't happen to biologically come from me, it's not like I'd love her any less. What kind of monster says "Oh, so the kid's not 'biologically mine', I'm going to stop loving them!"
I'd have words with mom, though, obviously...
2 replies →
The welfare of someone else’s child doesn’t register very highly on a majority of people’s radars beyond basic humanitarian considerations. How about government provided daycare and forcing the mother to work.
Possession is nine tenths of the law. It's not someone else's child if it's in your house and you need a genetic test to deny responsibility.
This idea that bloodlines are relevant is anachronistic superstition. Several of my friends are not genetically related to their children. It's simply not relevant.
12 replies →
"Slighted" is doing a lot of work in this sentence, wow.