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.
You may find being willfully ignorant acceptable but that’s really not the norm. I do have kids. If I knew they were not mine I would not leave them but I would have kids that were biologically mine. Either ways I want to know.
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.
Why are you trying to play off your limited anecdotal evidence as universal? It has been the most important thing since the dawn of human civilization and continues to be so. What if someone just dropped off a random child at your doorstep and tells you you’re responsible for its upbringing now. I can understand people that want to adopt but that’s a conscious decision they made on their part.
When it comes to "justifiable reasons for leaving your partner, the person you love and trust", infidelity is right up there near the top. You seem to be implying that the victim whose trust was irrevocably shattered should also be saddled with the financial burden which resulted from the act of infidelity. If that's how you truly feel then I'll just leave it at, "I disagree." There's not enough common ground to argue upon constructively otherwise.
Adopting is no big deal. Being cuckolded is generally considered one of the biggest betrayals in the human experience. It's incredibly relevant to know if your spouse is faithful to you!
Step-fathers and step-children are well known vectors of abuse. The Cinderella Effect was verified to produce more abuse from step-relationships up to and including lethal beatings from step-fathers.
Legally it might not be relevant for whatever structural reason, but the reality is that it matters a lot.
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.
As someone else pointed out in the thread.
The question wasn't would you want to know. The question is does a father have a right to know if they want to.
You may find being willfully ignorant acceptable but that’s really not the norm. I do have kids. If I knew they were not mine I would not leave them but I would have kids that were biologically mine. Either ways I want to know.
Oh sure, I totally understand that. I wouldn’t care a bit about genetics in that case.
Imagine a different scenario though. Imagine you are on the point of breaking up, or even already separated, and she is suddenly pregnant.
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...
> I'd have words with mom, though, obviously...
To what end?
1 reply →
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.
Why are you trying to play off your limited anecdotal evidence as universal? It has been the most important thing since the dawn of human civilization and continues to be so. What if someone just dropped off a random child at your doorstep and tells you you’re responsible for its upbringing now. I can understand people that want to adopt but that’s a conscious decision they made on their part.
3 replies →
When it comes to "justifiable reasons for leaving your partner, the person you love and trust", infidelity is right up there near the top. You seem to be implying that the victim whose trust was irrevocably shattered should also be saddled with the financial burden which resulted from the act of infidelity. If that's how you truly feel then I'll just leave it at, "I disagree." There's not enough common ground to argue upon constructively otherwise.
Adopting is no big deal. Being cuckolded is generally considered one of the biggest betrayals in the human experience. It's incredibly relevant to know if your spouse is faithful to you!
5 replies →
Step-fathers and step-children are well known vectors of abuse. The Cinderella Effect was verified to produce more abuse from step-relationships up to and including lethal beatings from step-fathers.
Legally it might not be relevant for whatever structural reason, but the reality is that it matters a lot.
"Slighted" is doing a lot of work in this sentence, wow.