This is topic Right to abortion = right to sex selective abortion in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/main/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=058333

Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
 
Ross Douthat column

This isn't a problem in the West but surely those developing countries in which sex selective abortion is common all will have major problems down the road as many marriageable men won't be able to find wives, leading to social instability.
 
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
 
I've heard of this, but it's a foreign thing so I can't really say much about it. Still, if you allow abortion, then you have to allow selective abortion. There is literally no difference as the law currently stands, so you'd have a hard time making one legal and not the other. Even if you did, people would just say they were doing it for another reason.

It's a bad reason to get an abortion, but I've seen worse.
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
I previously came across an interview with the author of the actual book here
http://shanghaiscrap.com/?p=6595
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
I was raised prolife, but changed my view to "lesser evil" (i.e. it's not right to force women to have a baby against their will) but this is the kind of thing that makes me cringe. I think Jeff is right, there is no way to use the law to try and stop it, but it is something that should be stopped, as it is wrong and disgusting.
 
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
 
I'll jump on the bandwagon: bad reason to have an abortion, but it's hard to ban it for the reasons stated above. And, it's also wrong to force a woman to carry a baby she doesn't want. Period. As unpleasant as the end result is.
 
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
 
I am prochoice and always have been, but that doesnt prevent me from regreting the loss of life. Stonewolf hit the nail on the head on this one.

I would like to point out that there are also western first world countries where deformity abortions are common as well. There was a bit of a hubbub over the needless abortions of babies with clubfeet in the U.K. Some of you may remember me talking about my own clubfoot some time ago, the idea of a healthy wanted baby being aborted because they are like me is.... antagonistic.
 
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
I agree with SW on this one too. I remember being prolife, and still think my reasons for being prolife were valid, but eventually came to understand that forcing a women to carry a child isn't right either.

But it is things like this that worried me, and why it took so long for me to change sides on the abortion debate.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
My brother in law was born with two club feet...and while I often wish him dead (for being a pathetic looser assbag, who has never seen his niece and only ever seen his nephew twice) that is a baaaaad reason to abort a fetus. That being said, there are some serious, quality of life size deformities for which I don't hold that sentiment.

AH...if you don't mind me asking, is your name a homage to your clubfoot?
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
I can't say I am entirely against the Chinese practice of not permitting ultrasound technicians to reveal the sex of the fetus to parents for this very reason.

There are rogue technicians who perform street ultrasounds so that people can get around that, but those operations are prosecuted. It's pretty much accepted that one of the results of this policy is that in rural areas girls are born and then murdered by the parents, who then try for a boy again.

I'm not OK with gender being a reason for getting an abortion. I don't think we can force people to have children. This is a mess, and my gut response is that just letting it happen is not the correct response.
 
Posted by Emreecheek (Member # 12082) on :
 
Weird. A friend of mine recently brought this up.

I'm still as confused as I was.

An interesting point, though, was whether or not we would react the same way if people were able to ascertain the sexuality of their baby and abort the gay ones. I had a much more visceral reaction to that scenerio, but couldn't find a moral justification unique to it that didn't extend to sex/gender selection.
 
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
 
I think the problem is the blatant sexism, and that sexism would be a problem regardless of the availability of abortions. Blackblade notes that in many cases the girls are actually born and then killed (this certainly has been the case historically, I dunno how common it is now). I don't know that it's fair to say abortion is making the problem *worse*.
 
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
AH...if you don't mind me asking, is your name a homage to your clubfoot?

It is and it isnt, depending on how you read it. My right foot is deformed whereas the Achilles of myth was held by his left ankle when dipped in the river styx, so I always found the comparison slightly improper. My personal reason for the name comes from Achilles of the Bean books, OSC even writes that his bad leg could have been a club foot gone wrong and the early physical description of the character eerily resembles myself. Plus I think the pronunciation is funny "Ahsheels Heel" but maybe thats just me.

Ive only ever known one other person with a club foot and despite knowing eachother for years it was always quite formal and uninteresting. But now that I can analyze much of life with the consideration of just how much pain and inability has been apart of my every action every single day makes me want to try and dissect some of this with another sufferer.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
Does the Achilles in the book pronounce it differently than usual? Usually, Achilles is pronounced Ah-kill-hees.
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Raymond Arnold:
Blackblade notes that in many cases the girls are actually born and then killed (this certainly has been the case historically, I dunno how common it is now).

I haven't decided on an opinion.

But its worth noting that is part of the book's argument actually, that infanticide was never as widespread as sex selective abortion (and that wealthy families with access to it are more efficient at skewing the sex ratio because they substitute "girl boy" for "girl girl girl girl boy" which would be more common with poorer familes).
quote:
But portraying sex selective abortion as an updated form of infanticide disregards the fact that abortion is far more common than infanticide has ever been. (Indeed, several countries where sex selective abortion occurs have no history of female infanticide.) It ignores the fact that no one wants the job of jamming rice chaff down a baby girl's throat, or feeding her the juice of poisonous weeds, or slipping her a liberal dose of sleeping pills—that Indians, like many people around the world, logically see abortion as cleaner and less ethically fraught than baby killing.
On a different note, she also mentions, not particularly enthusiastically, that sex ratios in South Korea actually peaked around 200 before coming back down (and a quick check shows that Hong Kong demonstrates a lower ratio with the mainland as well).
So I have to wonder if the problem will eventually solve itself anyway (although the near future will definitely be no tea party).
 
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
 
Yes. It's pronounced as AH mentions in his post. I believe it was mentioned in the book somewhere... but I don't remember where.

Still, that doesn't stop me from pronouncing it wrong. I mean, I still pronounce Cicero with "s" sounds instead of "k" sounds, too, for example. Even though I know it's wrong. It's just easier and flows better for me.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
I am not saying he is wrong - just curious as to the reason.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Emreecheek:
Weird. A friend of mine recently brought this up.

I'm still as confused as I was.

An interesting point, though, was whether or not we would react the same way if people were able to ascertain the sexuality of their baby and abort the gay ones. I had a much more visceral reaction to that scenario, but couldn't find a moral justification unique to it that didn't extend to sex/gender selection.

I wonder, what was your visceral reaction?

Personally I think it is just as wrong to abort a homosexual fetus as it is to abort a female fetus. I know that a lot of religious people view homosexuality as a sin and perversion, but to me, the true sin is trying to define yourself by other people's standards and not trying to find your true happiness, no matter how it manifests (beyond true psychopaths who enjoy causing pain in others).
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
AH...fascinating...thanks for sharing.
 
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by 0Megabyte:
Yes. It's pronounced as AH mentions in his post. I believe it was mentioned in the book somewhere... but I don't remember where.

If I remember correctly, it came from Sister Carlotta telling Graff that she knew he was reading Bean's mail, because he pronounced Achilles wrong.
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
Yup.

quote:
"Achilles," he said.

"Man with a bad heel," she said. "Killed Hector and dragged his body around the gates of Troy. Also had a thing for a captive girl named Briseis."

"You know that's not the context."

"I know more than that. I know you must have got the name from something Bean wrote, because the name is not pronounced uh-KILL-eez, it's pronounced ah-SHEEL. French."


 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
French. Cool.
 
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
 
The nun at the food bank gave him that name, in referance to his bad leg ofcourse, but seeing as the city had so many differant languages and nationalities she was French and called him Ahsheel. I think she also named Ulysses (the bully Achilles almost killed) as well.
 
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
 
quote:
And, it's also wrong to force a woman to carry a baby she doesn't want. Period.
40 years of fierce debate argues against your "Period." [Razz]

The other side of the debate could just as easily say, "If a man/woman does not want a child, then do not create one. Period." Or, "It's never right to end a human life because it's inconvenient. Period."

That said, I don't find sex selective abortion any less moral than abortion in general. On the other hand, I'd personally prefer more women around then men...such a dilemma.
 
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by 0Megabyte:
I still pronounce Cicero with "s" sounds instead of "k" sounds, too, for example. Even though I know it's wrong.

Preferring Vulgar Latin to Classical Latin is not "wrong". Or do you also say weni widi wiki?
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
Frisco, I'm sure 0Megabyte was speaking their opinion, which can be stated with authority. As to...
quote:
"If a man/woman does not want a child, then do not create one. Period."
...tell that to a rape victim.

So you seriously feel there is no moral difference between someone who feels they honestly can not raise a child well (say a single teenage mother) and a married couple who get the ultrasound back and find a vulva instead of a penis and decide to kill their own potential child and then immediately try to get pregnant again in hopes of an outy and not an inny?

You do know you have to be at least in your second trimester to even tell right?
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
The Douthat article looks like a stretch of an attempt to create a utilitarian argument to revoke the right to have an abortion from women. Won't work — overpopulation could be used on the same lines to undo the utilitarian argument, the 'social instability' referenced is extremely light in comparison, and you can skip right over the issue and talk about how the problem isn't going to be solved by anti-abortionists, it'll be solved by feminists. Parity between the sexes in a culture and the removal of outmoded patriarchal and family income models gets rid of the issue handily.
 
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
 
SW - I actually don't see any moral difference between the knocked up teenager and the parents who want a boy. They're both killing their babies. Morally, I find abortion in all but the rarest incidents, equivalent to murder.

However, I'm still pro-choice because while you may be able to make abortion illegal, you can't stop it all together without horrific social extremes that I highly doubt society will ever permit (as in, locking up every female). You also can't actually make a woman take care of the fetus. You might be able to stop her from murdering it, but not from seriously maiming it for life. And, when it comes right down to it, I'm not always sure which is worse, so I'd just as soon let the mother have the sin on her head as choose for her.

And then there are those few where the mother might die or where the baby has 0 chance of surviving off of machines and I think it would be cruel to make those mothers carry to term just to watch their baby die in front of them.
 
Posted by Emreecheek (Member # 12082) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote:
Originally posted by Emreecheek:
Weird. A friend of mine recently brought this up.

I'm still as confused as I was.

An interesting point, though, was whether or not we would react the same way if people were able to ascertain the sexuality of their baby and abort the gay ones. I had a much more visceral reaction to that scenario, but couldn't find a moral justification unique to it that didn't extend to sex/gender selection.

I wonder, what was your visceral reaction?

I'm gay. Tis a shallow reason, but that's why. It hit a lot closer to home in that scenario. Not a real reason. [Smile]
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by AchillesHeel:
The nun at the food bank gave him that name, in referance to his bad leg ofcourse, but seeing as the city had so many differant languages and nationalities she was French and called him Ahsheel. I think she also named Ulysses (the bully Achilles almost killed) as well.

It wasn't that she was French- she was German. The boy himself was a Francophone Belgian.
 
Posted by KirKis (Member # 12454) on :
 
I am pro-choice but I have a few problems with this.

I am a Gaianist. I believe that purposefully changing the ratios of boy/girl on this earth will eventually lead to negative effects. Sure people might say "well just this one time" but it will add up. If everyone wants a boy and ditches the girls... Well you can finish that sentence yourself.

I'm also for men having rights in regards to having babies. What I mean by this is if a man and a woman decide to have a baby, and after getting pregnant the mother wants to abort, then the man should have some right to keep the baby.

The mother having the only decision that matters feels wrong to me. If the man decides to abort and the woman keeps it... so why not the other way around?

Having a baby takes two. Aborting a baby should take two. If one wants to keep it let him/her.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
quote:
If everyone wants a boy and ditches the girls... Well you can finish that sentence yourself.
I don't see how you can call yourself a "Gaianist" and not consider this a self-correcting problem.
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
quote:
The mother having the only decision that matters feels wrong to me. If the man decides to abort and the woman keeps it... so why not the other way around?
When we develop the technology that will let the man gestate the baby, that will make sense. Until then, a man should not have the right to force a woman to carry his baby in her uterus.
 
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by KirKis:


Having a baby takes two. Aborting a baby should take two. If one wants to keep it let him/her.

I agree with Rabbit on this one. Creating a baby takes two. Perhaps raising a baby can take two, if that's how it works out. But having a baby only takes one person, unfortunately, and it can be a potentially life-threatening situation with serious costs to health and well-being.

So unfortunately the person who doesn't have the baby growing inside them and the person who doesn't have to give birth to it, doesn't and shouldn't get complete control over what happens to the foetus.
 
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
 
Women don't get the right to abort because they don't want the responsibility of a baby. They get it because pregnancy involves a parasite living in their body for 9 months. It is her life at risk, so her choice. If artificial wombs existed, this discussion would be very different.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
DDD: I struggled with this idea, that killing is killing and our babies are worthy of protection, that being said, we morally delineate between all types of killings, from blameless self defense to premeditated murder. Life has a value, but so does quality of life, and the value of life is not "priceless". The value of life needs to be weighed against what would be given up.

If a pregnancy puts the mother's life in serious jeopardy, then the decision to abort seems easy, as the mother's life is a fully devolved life vs the potential life of the fetus.

When it comes to the single knocked up teen, the comparison is not as simple: the pregnancy will drastically change the mother's life, and possibly permanently hamper her ability to secure education which certainly can affect her ability to make a living and support that child. In most cases she will not have the life skills or the maturity to deal with a baby, let alone by herself.

The same comparison is made when the fetus is deformed. Is the cost of this potential life valuable enough when weighed against the quality of life that child will have (we already discussed club feet).

When the other side of the scale is "I want a son and not a daughter" then for me the morality scale stops reading "lessor evil" or "unfortunate but worth it" to "big ol' honkin' evil".

Emreecheek: Am I understanding you right that you are saying that you are very against aborting gay fetuses, but not as much for female ones, although you acknowledge that there is no moral distinction, just that the former is closer to where you live? I'm not sure I understand you.

KirKis: I'm with Rabbit, Bella and scholarette on this one. Give me a new technology which allows the fetus to be grown independent of the mother's body and then I'll agree. Until then, a man shouldn't be able to force a woman to have a baby. What if it was a married couple, and the wife has threatened to leave, so the husband sabotages the birth control to get her pregnant and then forces her to have the child as a way to control her?
 
Posted by KirKis (Member # 12454) on :
 
@TomDavidson - Yes I am a Gaianist. I believe that when we die our energy returns to the planet to come out in some other form be it tree, animal, human, etc. If all humans decide to kill off all female babies and only produce males then the human species will (eventually) die out and so another species on earth will have to produce enough to house all of the former human energies. Our species will starve.

@Rabbit, Bella, Scholarette, Stone - I'm not too familiar with the up-to-date technology however I would guess that there would be something that would allow doctors to take the fertilized egg from the mother and put it somewhere else so that it can still live. Sure it might cost more money but what i'm trying to say is that men should also have rights to their baby.

The two parties involved decided to create a baby. If both of them want to abort then fine. If one of them wants to abort then steps should be available so that the one that wants the baby can keep it.

It seems as if I made it seem like I wanted the mother to be forced to carry full term? If that is so, that is not what I meant. How can I be pro-choice if I am forcing this decision on someone? There are other ways to go about this. Let us think outside the box so that everyone can be happy.

Otherwise lets just burn me at the stake for thinking that a man should be able to keep his unborn child when the mother does not.
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
quote:
@Rabbit, Bella, Scholarette, Stone - I'm not too familiar with the up-to-date technology however I would guess that there would be something that would allow doctors to take the fertilized egg from the mother and put it somewhere else so that it can still live. Sure it might cost more money but what i'm trying to say is that men should also have rights to their baby.
You are wrong. I know of no cases where an embryo that has implanted in the uterus (which happens with in the first few days after fertilization) has been successfully transferred to another host. This is not a technology that is currently available at any cost. If it were, it would completely change the abortion debate.
 
Posted by KirKis (Member # 12454) on :
 
http://articles.nydailynews.com/2003-10-15/news/18246302_1_egg-new-technique-fertilized

"Then they scooped the tiny pre-embryos out of their shells and placed them into another woman's."

I would think something along those lines?

@Rabbit - And besides, when you say that "You are wrong." you mean that you are 100% sure that there is No-possible-way that I could be right?

Your next line says you "know of no cases". Which means there could be a case out there that you don't know. This does not make me wrong.
 
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
I know of no cases where an embryo that has implanted in the uterus (which happens with in the first few days after fertilization) has been successfully transferred to another host. This is not a technology that is currently available at any cost. If it were, it would completely change the abortion debate.

Why would it necessarily change the debate? What if the transfer procedure were as dangerous as childbirth? Wouldn't that still justify retaining abortion as a safe alternative for ending a pregnancy?
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
quote:
Your next line says you "know of no cases". Which means there could be a case out there that you don't know. This does not make me wrong.
This would be a very major medical advance. When it happens, its going to make front page news. Chances that it exists and I haven't heard about it are close enough to zero to ignore.
 
Posted by KirKis (Member # 12454) on :
 
I think what Rabbit meant was that it would change the sides of a lot of people. Knowing that there would be a way for a man to keep his baby if he wants would bring a lot of support for men everywhere.

Sure the procedure could be dangerous. Specially because its a new idea. I am sure that one day there will be a safe method of doing this. We can still at least talk about it, right?

@Rabbit - You could have not heard about it because right now the technology is considered to be similiar to cloning. Or at least it is close enough to warrent it being buried news.
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
quote:
"Then they scooped the tiny pre-embryos out of their shells and placed them into another woman's."

I would think something along those lines?

I don't know how much biology you know, but this is not at all along the lines of what you are talking about. In this study, the egg was fertilized in-vitro (a test tube baby). After fertilization, the genetic material was transferred to another egg to make a viable zygote. The zygote was then allowed to divide for several days and transferred to a uterus where, if it implanted and became an embryo.

This isn't that much different than the common in-vitro fertilization. We've had technology for decades that has allowed a zygote formed in vitro from one mother's egg to be implanted into another woman's uterus.

This has absolutely no relevance however to abortion. A woman isn't pregnant until the zygote implants in her uterus, so every abortion takes place after implantation. Once an embryo has implanted in one woman's uterus, it can't be moved to another woman. We don't have that technology and it is not even closely related to the technology you referenced.
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
quote:
@Rabbit - You could have not heard about it because right now the technology is considered to be similiar to cloning. Or at least it is close enough to warrent it being buried news.
No. I had heard about it. It isn't what you think it is.
 
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by KirKis:
I would think something along those lines?

The technology isn't there yet, not even for non-human species. But progress is being made in testing an artificial uterus for goat embryos, as well as one for mice. You might like to keep an eye on the Wikipedia page for Artificial Uterus. It has links to the goat and mouse experiements.

I think the best page on the topic so far is iO9's "Where is my uterine replicator (a.k.a., artificial womb)?" Not much has changed since it came out in 2008, but it's a well-written summary with very cool links. And pictures!
 
Posted by KirKis (Member # 12454) on :
 
Unfortuantely, I do not consider myself an expert - at all - on this topic. Perhaps I just saw what I wanted to see in the article. Though I still think there has to be a "safe" way for this to happen. To take the egg away from the uterus...

So when I saw the article talking about taking it "out of the shell" and placing it into "another woman's" I thought that perhaps that can be done even after it attaches to the wall.

How long does it normally take for the zona pellucida to disappear?
 
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
 
Depends on what you mean by "disappear." The zona pellucida starts to dissolve within one week after fertilization of the egg, but you can find the glycoproteins that make it up in the developing embryo (i.e., the protein of it gets reused in other ways by the developing organism, so parts of it are still there -- but not as a "zone" all to itself).
 
Posted by KirKis (Member # 12454) on :
 
So if, in the first week, a method existed that could snatch the zygote before it fully attaches to the wall... then something like this could exist?

Oh and I apologize since it seems I have derailed this thread.

I seem to be doing that a lot lately... [Grumble]
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
quote:
Why would it necessarily change the debate? What if the transfer procedure were as dangerous as childbirth? Wouldn't that still justify retaining abortion as a safe alternative for ending a pregnancy?
Right now, once a woman becomes pregnant the life of the child is inseparably connected to her until it is old enough to survive outside the womb. If she can not or will not carry the fetus until it is viable outside the womb, it will die. Those are the only options. Adding a third option would change the debate. It wouldn't automatically make all abortions unjustifiable, but it would certainly change the issues substantially.
 
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by KirKis:
So if, in the first week, a method existed that could snatch the zygote before it fully attaches to the wall... then something like this could exist?

This has layers of complications that may be surprising. For example, most women do not know they are pregnant before the zygote implants. The type of hormone in the bloodstream or urine that is assessed in a pregnancy test takes time to be made, and certain things (like implantation) have to happen first.

The reason why we know so much about what happens in the first few days is by what was learned through in vitro fertilization studies (when the egg is fertilized "in a test tube").We don't really get a look at human zygotes that early.
 
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by KirKis:
So if, in the first week, a method existed that could snatch the zygote before it fully attaches to the wall... then something like this could exist?

That would be a wonderful invention, but it would also rely on the couple knowing that they had conceived only a couple of days after conception, before implantation could occur.

Potentially, I could see this being turned against women with - 'Oh, you didn't remember to take the (should such a thing ever be possible) insta-conception test after you last had sex? Too bad, it's your fault. Your boyfriend says he's pro-life, so you'll have gestate the baby yourself now.'

By the way, has anyone heard about this? The idea that laws created to protect pregnant women are being turned against them disturbs me.
 
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:
Why would it necessarily change the debate? What if the transfer procedure were as dangerous as childbirth? Wouldn't that still justify retaining abortion as a safe alternative for ending a pregnancy?
Right now, once a woman becomes pregnant the life of the child is inseparably connected to her until it is old enough to survive outside the womb. If she can not or will not carry the fetus until it is viable outside the womb, it will die. Those are the only options. Adding a third option would change the debate. It wouldn't automatically make all abortions unjustifiable, but it would certainly change the issues substantially.
I still don't see how it would change the debate, inasmuch as I understand what is meant by that. I don't understand why the idea that "it's a woman's body, so it should be a woman's choice" would be materially impacted by the availability of a new technology for ending pregnancies (one that had the added result of not ending the life of the fetus in the process).

It would certainly open up new options to a woman, but if the heart of the issue is a woman's autonomy over her own body then I don't see how it would change the debate. If instead the debate were over the appropriate role of government in balancing a woman's autonomy with the negative consequences of her actions on others, then I would agree. But I don't think that that's what the debate is about (at least under the standard pro-choice/pro-life platforms).
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
Yeah, the mom having the choice and the dad not having the choice is (at present) an insurmountable problem of biology — as well as her ownership of her body. It's her decision whether to carry a baby to term in her body.
 
Posted by KirKis (Member # 12454) on :
 
Unfortunately this causes 'some' women to go out-of-their-way to have babies for child support even when the men tell them from the beginning that they didn't want kids. This reminds me of a case in the northeast where this actually happened.

The woman got the man drunk and seduced him. Of course she got pregnant and now collects child support from him. He went to court to try and fight it... failed.

It also reminds me (on a more personal note) of a woman I used to work with while I was younger. I remember she had 6 kids from all different men.

It is problems like this that make me (as a man) cringe at the thought that we have no rights or any means to protect ourselves in these extreme circumstances.

Of course you also have your dregs who just want out of child support... just like you have women who write random names of men down on the birth certificates. My father was one of these men. Of course after going to court he found out that the woman's stepfather was the actual father of the baby... but still, these things do happen.
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
quote:
This has layers of complications that may be surprising. For example, most women do not know they are pregnant before the zygote implants. The type of hormone in the bloodstream or urine that is assessed in a pregnancy test takes time to be made, and certain things (like implantation) have to happen first.
One could reasonably argue that the woman isn't pregnant until the zygote implants. There isn't any signal that lets the woman's body know that the egg has been fertilized until it implants.

I don't imagine that catching the zygote before it implants and transferring it to another host would ever become a viable alternative to abortion. Even if we had technology to reliably locate and capture a zygote before it implanted, we'd need a reason to go looking for them in the first place. Short of scanning every sexually active woman for zygotes during the week after ovulation, I don't see how this might work.
 
Posted by KirKis (Member # 12454) on :
 
Unless the scanner was built into your matress and would alert you if it detected it even as you lay down sleeping.
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
I prefer just using the damn birth control rather than buying mattresses with scanners [Wink]
 
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
 
I don't see why men who don't want kids can't do the same thing women have been told for centuries- don't want kids, don't have sex. Take some responsibility for your actions. Or go to India and get yourself that experimental male birth control (it is in phase 3 trials I believe).
 
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
One could reasonably argue that the woman isn't pregnant until the zygote implants.

Oh, for sure. My language was not well-considered there.
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
quote:
It would certainly open up new options to a woman, but if the heart of the issue is a woman's autonomy over her own body then I don't see how it would change the debate.
That may be the heart of the issue to the pro-choice camp. It is certainly not the heart of the issue for the pro-life camp.

quote:
If instead the debate were over the appropriate role of government in balancing a woman's autonomy with the negative consequences of her actions on others, then I would agree.
This has been the center of every abortion debate I've ever participated in.

quote:
But I don't think that that's what the debate is about (at least under the standard pro-choice/pro-life platforms).
I don't know what you consider the standard pro-choice/pro-life platforms. There is an entire spectrum out there ranging for the hard core Catholics who think its better for the Mother to die than to abort her child to those who think unfit mothers should be required to have an abortion. In my experience, most everyone falls somewhere in the middle where abortion is some times morally acceptable and sometime not.

I think the core debate is over the appropriate balance between a woman's right to autonomy and the fetus' right to life.

Right now, it is impossible to separate the two issues. A technology that made it possible for the woman to transfer the fetus to another person, with no greater risk than having an abortion, would change the equation for the vast majority of people in that middle ground.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
It's not that hard to get the gender you want (although not foolproof 100% either) by simply using the technique of timing sex and ovulation. And the best part is, you can have a son without expensive, time consuming, inconvenient, morally evil unnecessary abortions!
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
quote:
It is problems like this that make me (as a man) cringe at the thought that we have no rights or any means to protect ourselves in these extreme circumstances.
Don't be ridiculous. You can choose not to have unprotected sex with women who would pull that kind of crap. You can choose not to have any sex with women you don't trust. It's pretty simple. The number of cases where men were tricked into impregnating a woman and then forced to pay child support are rare enough that they still make the news. This really isn't a serious problem.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
I think the core debate is over the appropriate balance between a woman's right to autonomy and the fetus' right to life.

Right now, it is impossible to separate the two issues. A technology that made it possible for the woman to transfer the fetus to another person, with no greater risk than having an abortion, would change the equation for the vast majority of people in that middle ground.

+1
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:
It is problems like this that make me (as a man) cringe at the thought that we have no rights or any means to protect ourselves in these extreme circumstances.
Don't have sex with women who would pull that kind of crap. It's pretty simple.
You mean, don't trust scamming, premeditated liars? Oh, that's easy.
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
It's not that hard to get the gender you want (although not foolproof 100% either) by simply using the technique of timing sex and ovulation. And the best part is, you can have a son without expensive, time consuming, inconvenient, morally evil unnecessary abortions!

Sex selection techniques that are at all reliable are very expensive. Timing sex with ovulation is barely better than random.
 
Posted by KirKis (Member # 12454) on :
 
@Rabbit - If you saw my first scenario I wrote I said the man was drunk and seduced. The man said he did not want kids when he first met the woman. It was her intention to have the baby regardless of what he wanted. After quite a few drinks it would be pretty simple for a woman to achieve this outcome.

If a man does this to the woman and the woman gets pregnant she can just have an abortion. if this happens to a man by the woman, however, well... tough luck.

That is what I am talking about.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
Rabbit...you may be right, I don't know the stats...it worked 100% for me and my wife, but that is hardly indicative of a wide based study.
 
Posted by ambyr (Member # 7616) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by KirKis:
@Rabbit - If you saw my first scenario I wrote I said the man was drunk and seduced. The man said he did not want kids when he first met the woman. It was her intention to have the baby regardless of what he wanted. After quite a few drinks it would be pretty simple for a woman to achieve this outcome.

Do you have a link to a legal brief or court decision from the case? I'll be blunt: I don't believe it happened. I'll be happy to retract that given evidence.

(Also, I quibble with your latter point; while pregnancy is certainly a possible outcome to any sexual encounter, it's not in fact "pretty simple" to ensure. Ask any married couple that's been "trying" for months.)
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
To be clear, don't think the case of women getting impregnated intentionally against the wishes of the father with the goal of collecting child support is a widespread enough problem to be a serious concern. I just don't think "don't trust liars" is a good answer.
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
Rabbit...you may be right, I don't know the stats...it worked 100% for me and my wife, but that is hardly indicative of a wide based study.

You have two children, one girl and one boy. The chances of that happening randomly are roughly 50/50 so its impossible to say whether timing with ovulation worked, or you got lucky.
 
Posted by KirKis (Member # 12454) on :
 
@ambyr- Sure I can look for a link when I have the time. I remember I was working at the Pentagon, taking a break, when I came across the article. I tried to generalize it as much as possible since I don't remember the details. I remember he made a big fuss over it and it turns out there is an organization for men rights with regards to abortion.

You can quibble all you wish. My first wife (when I was 18) told me she couldn't get pregnant. She told me a doctor said her tubes were too narrow so she couldn't have a baby. She also told me (on our wedding night) that we had to "consumate" our marriage by not wearing a condom. Of course we did... and she got pregnant. (was the only time we had sex without condom btw) 1 month after the baby was born... She left me and took the baby. I had to fight hard to get rights to my baby.

Yes I was 18, and stupid. I trusted in what she told me because I didn't know better. Now I get to see my baby once a month and 1 week in the summer (next week actually yay!) but it took years to get to this point.

There are many other men out there in a similiar situation that I can share with you if you want proof that this actually happens... More than you think, too.
 
Posted by ambyr (Member # 7616) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
To be clear, don't think the case of women getting impregnated intentionally against the wishes of the father with the goal of collecting child support is a widespread enough problem to be a serious concern. I just don't think "don't trust liars" is a good answer.

I agree with this (both points).

Also, since no one's said it yet: the point of child support is to provide for the child, not for the custodial parent. Is this abused sometimes? Yes. Is the solution in those cases to deny support to the child? No, it's to prosecute the custodial parent for misusing the child support.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
Silly Rabbit, (I've been waiting to say that), we wanted a boy first and a girl second, we tried for a boy, and got a boy, we tried for a girl and got a girl, I know that's not a lot of data, but it is hardly inconclusive either.

As to this...
quote:
You have two children, one girl and one boy.
Thanks for reminding me, I had forgotten. [Razz]
 
Posted by KirKis (Member # 12454) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
To be clear, don't think the case of women getting impregnated intentionally against the wishes of the father with the goal of collecting child support is a widespread enough problem to be a serious concern.

When would you consider it a widespread enough problem to be a serious concern? When it is on the news often? When all your friends are going through it? When they make a sitcom about it?

Are there statistics that show how much of the population is going through this?

This sort of thing shouldn't be happening at all. Isn't there something that can be put in place to protect people going through this?

Lives are ruined due to this sort of thing. Don't believe me? I have proof of what something like this can do to a person. I can share with you if you'd like.
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
Silly Rabbit, (I've been waiting to say that), we wanted a boy first and a girl second, we tried for a boy, and got a boy, we tried for a girl and got a girl, I know that's not a lot of data, but it is hardly inconclusive either.

As to this...
quote:
You have two children, one girl and one boy.
Thanks for reminding me, I had forgotten. [Razz]
It's totally inconclusive. You had a 50% chance of having a boy first. If you'd had a girl first, you wouldn't have been trying for a girl the second time so the two aren't statistically independent.
 
Posted by ambyr (Member # 7616) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by KirKis:
This sort of thing shouldn't be happening at all. Isn't there something that can be put in place to protect people going through this?

The laws to protect them are already in place; the men can prosecute the women for rape.

And yes, America's culture makes successful rape prosecution difficult. There's a tendency to blame the victim. There's a tendency to deny that having sex with someone who's too drunk to consent is rape. Reversing those attitudes is going to be difficult and painful and time-consuming, but it doesn't require focusing on men's rights; it requires focusing on human rights, and understanding that the end result will help both men and women.
 
Posted by KirKis (Member # 12454) on :
 
@ambyr - When I said *this* I didn't mean the rape. That, anyone can understand... I meant the fact that she IS pregnant. The courts can't force her to abort (nor would I want them to). The man might have been raped but the woman now carries his child.

There is nothing to protect him from this. He is now a father whether he wanted to or not.

EDIT: not related to my previous example but...

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1173414,00.html
 
Posted by ambyr (Member # 7616) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by KirKis:
@ambyr - When I said *this* I didn't mean the rape. That, anyone can understand... I meant the fact that she IS pregnant. The courts can't force her to abort (nor would I want them to). The man might have been raped but the woman now carries his child.

There is nothing to protect him from this. He is now a father whether he wanted to or not.

I thought you meant having her misuse the child support to support herself, rather than the child--in which case, her being jailed and without custody would seem to take care of things.

There is nothing to protect him from being a father, no. Trying to solve that through law is like trying to declare pi 3.

As far as the article you linked goes, sorry, in that case I'm with scholarette. In your initial example the man was raped; in this example the man consented to have sex. They're not comparable.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
KirKis...there are outlets in the law for trying to get custody of your children (I know you know that) and I agree with ambyr about the solution...seek prosecution of the mother. As to when will it be a big enough problem? I don't know, this is an issue you are bringing into the discussion, why not try and bring some stats too?

Rabbit...I disagree.
 
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ambyr:
quote:
Originally posted by KirKis:
This sort of thing shouldn't be happening at all. Isn't there something that can be put in place to protect people going through this?

The laws to protect them are already in place; the men can prosecute the women for rape.

Except what Kirkis described is not rape. He was OK to have sex, he just wasn't OK to have a baby. But the fact is, babies can be a consequence to any heterosexual sex, protected or not, with persons supposed to be barren or not. The odds change, sure, but it can almost always happen.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
quote:
Feit argues that within a short window of time after discovering an unplanned pregnancy — he has proposed a month, but thinks a week might even be more appropriate — a man should have the right to terminate his legal and financial obligations to the child. "I'm not talking about fathers opting out of obligations that they've committed to," Feit says. "I mean early in pregnancy, if contraception failed, men should have a choice, and women have a right to know what that choice is as they decide how to proceed."
From the article that Kirkis posted.

I disagree with this...Anna said it well:

quote:
He was OK to have sex, he just wasn't OK to have a baby. But the fact is, babies can be a consequence to any heterosexual sex, protected or not, with persons supposed to be barren or not. The odds change, sure, but it can almost always happen.
"But I don' wanna" is not good enough reason to be able to relinquish your responsibilities.
 
Posted by ambyr (Member # 7616) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anna:
Except what Kirkis described is not rape. He was OK to have sex, he just wasn't OK to have a baby. But the fact is, babies can be a consequence to any heterosexual sex, protected or not, with persons supposed to be barren or not. The odds change, sure, but it can almost always happen.

KirKis's original example:

quote:
Originally posted by KirKis:
The woman got the man drunk and seduced him.

is rape. I'm not really interested in arguing this point again; we just went over it a couple weeks ago, at great length.
 
Posted by KirKis (Member # 12454) on :
 
@Stone - Trying to get custody is no easy feat. In my situation I could only obtain what I got and this was after years of fighting in the courts and A LOT of money spent. All this because my ex did not want me in my child's life. She had everything until I had to fight it out in court.

Seeking prosecution... thats all we are able to do. Sure the woman might go to jail. The woman is still pregnant and you still become a father against your will. You have to live your life knowing that you have a child out there. I just don't know how they can live like that... if it were me i'd feel obligated and want some form of custody... then again I wasn't opposed to having a child so I have no idea how it must feel to have one against my will.

I don't have stats on this. Until this discussion I really had no reason to look up the stats. I'm sure that organization I linked earlier might have some of those answers. All I can bring to this discussion is my own personal experiences, experiences of people I know, and articles that I read years ago.

EDIT:
quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
"But I don' wanna" is not good enough reason to be able to relinquish your responsibilities.

Jeez let me finish typing will ya?! lol...

I agree with this!!

EDIT EDIT: Sorry, when I posted the link I said that it wasn't related to my previous example. Dregs that try to get out of paying Child Support... I do not support.
 
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ambyr:
quote:
Originally posted by Anna:
Except what Kirkis described is not rape. He was OK to have sex, he just wasn't OK to have a baby. But the fact is, babies can be a consequence to any heterosexual sex, protected or not, with persons supposed to be barren or not. The odds change, sure, but it can almost always happen.

KirKis's original example:

quote:
Originally posted by KirKis:
The woman got the man drunk and seduced him.

is rape. I'm not really interested in arguing this point again; we just went over it a couple weeks ago, at great length.

I was talking about his own case; from what he said, he was willing to have sex with his wife as long as he thought she was barren. The fact that she was not (and lied about it, or not, we'll never know) is irrelevent; that does not make it rape.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
KirKis, I'm a bit confused about exactly what you are proposing. Could you please elaborate?
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
Come on ambyr and Anna, let's get really deep into a rape debate then endlessly repeat ourselves and then we can claim the other person is saying things that they never did and we can get all up in arms about semantics and then make up a scenario where the male is named Bob and then argue about Bob...it'll be fun! [Taunt] [Big Grin] [Razz] [Cool]
 
Posted by KirKis (Member # 12454) on :
 
Ok i'll try to sort this out since I feel like I confused everyone.

I posted my situation with my ex based on Ambyr's post about "Also, I quibble with your latter point; while pregnancy is certainly a possible outcome to any sexual encounter, it's not in fact "pretty simple" to ensure. Ask any married couple that's been "trying" for months."

This was to prove that not everyone has to actually "try" to have a baby. If my ex's whole point was to have my child then she did it pretty easily. She was able to have my child, leave me, then attempt to write me out of being a father. She is one of those crazy ones where she didn't want money, just the baby.

I had to fight in order to actually have fatherly rights. Which was one heck of a fight btw.

Other than my own I gave the example of a man being raped for the baby... as well as the link showing a man who seemingly tries to get out of child support.

What I am proposing is protection for men that are used and abused so a woman can have a baby. Either by women who want the baby just for extra income (in my example of the woman having 6 kids from different men for the income)or by forcing the man to stay with the woman when he would be trying to leave her (I have an example of this too... one of my good friends Andrew).

Of course the most extreme situation would be a man being raped. Though in all these situations there is nothing (besides sending woman to prison) that would prevent the man from fathering a child.

I hope this clears up my point a bit. Sorry about that.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
Thanks, it does help a bit...but what I meant was, what changes to the system do you propose to help men in those situations?
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Financial: Place the child support in a trust for the support of the child and have it be administered by a trustee.

Force a relationship: Men leave women all the time. No law forces a man to stay, and this isn't remedial by law.

If you're looking for some kind of society okay that makes it acceptable for a man to abandon his children, that doesn't sound like it is in the best interest of the child.
 
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by katharina:
Financial: Place the child support in a trust for the support of the child and have it be administered by a trustee.

And where does the money to pay the trustee come from?
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
From the person who doesn't trust the mother to spend it on their kid correctly. If someone is insisting on greater oversight, they get to provide the oversight.

If there is an established history of neglect by the mother, then...she shouldn't have custody anyway.
 
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
 
For the people who said they were barren, well, sometimes a dr will tell you that and be wrong. My mom had a hysterectomy and they were amazed she had carried my siblings and I due to the damage. Three out of four were oops babies that she could tell exactly when she conceived because it was the only time she hadn't used protection. The non oops baby (born in the middle) took 2 years of trying and some fertility treatment. I had surgery and was told that I should assume I would have infertility problems and yet got pregnant right after I went off the pill twice. My sister on the other hand has similar problems and has had miscarriages and years of infertility. As long as there is a chance, even once can be enough. If you really don't want a kid, get snipped. Or again, get on that Indian male birth control trial. Right now, it looks miraculous.
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
quote:
My mom had a hysterectomy and they were amazed she had carried my siblings and I due to the damage.
???

I'm amazed as well.
 
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
 
sorry- when she had a hysterectomy, they couldn't believe she had carried a child because she was so damaged. She had her problems before laproscopies so it wasn't until they opened her up that they saw how bad she was. We were born pre-hysterectomy. [Smile]
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by scholarette:
sorry- when she had a hysterectomy, they couldn't believe she had carried a child because she was so damaged. She had her problems before laproscopies so it wasn't until they opened her up that they saw how bad she was. We were born pre-hysterectomy. [Smile]

For a moment I had to question everything I thought I understood about hysterectomies. Your mom sounded like some sort of ultra child bearing machine.
 
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
I got what you were saying the first time. Then again, I am a nurse. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
I did too and I am not a nurse.
 
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
 
quote:
I don't see why men who don't want kids can't do the same thing women have been told for centuries- don't want kids, don't have sex. Take some responsibility for your actions. Or go to India and get yourself that experimental male birth control (it is in phase 3 trials I believe).
And here I thought I had you pegged as Pro-Choice. [Razz]


quote:
Don't be ridiculous. You can choose not to have unprotected sex with women who would pull that kind of crap. You can choose not to have any sex with women you don't trust. It's pretty simple. The number of cases where men were tricked into impregnating a woman and then forced to pay child support are rare enough that they still make the news. This really isn't a serious problem.
But the whole rape thing isn't really a direct comparison to abortion. Even in consensual sex, the man has no choice.

For a man to have the same rights to their life as a woman, they'd have to be able to stop paying child support for any reason or no reason at all.

I think it's pretty hypocritical that the Pro-Choice crowd (as a whole, not on Hatrack) is so silent on this topic.

quote:
"But I don' wanna" is not good enough reason to be able to relinquish your responsibilities.
Word. But in our society, it pretty much is. If we can make it someone else's problem, we will.
 
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
 
What is so wrong with the "don't have sex if you don't want a baby" mantra??? It's extremely clear cut and very easy to follow! The number of times a man has been tricked into being a father without having consensual is very small. (I believe there have been a couple of women collecting semen after other types of ejaculation, but not many, and the likelihood of that succeeding is tiny.)

It's also why I'm not willing to let the teen mom off the hook when it comes to an abortion. She made the decision to risk her future the minute she made the decision to have sex. She has options to successfully parent her child if she's willing to work hard enough, and she has the option of placing a healthy infant for adoption (as long as she keeps herself healthy during the pregnancy).

I don't have any sympathy for people who end up pregnant when they don't want to be (unless they were raped), because the simple truth is there is no such thing as an accidental pregnancy. There are surprise pregnancies, but that's different. There is always an act of volition involved.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
I hear you tripleD...but the reality of the situation is that if abortion is outlawed, then they will still happen, but instead of a doctor in a clinic, it will be...a non-doctor in a less sterile and health conscious place.

As to a possible single teenage mother vs a married couple seeks a son, I just do not agree that they are both doing the same amount of evil. I can forgive the teen (I was once young and stupid too), but those married couples just disgust me.
 
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
 
If a man doesn't want children, there is a simple procedure for that -- one that is much cheaper and less invasive than permanent birth control solutions for women.

Then you can go around being a big ol' man-slut to your heart's content, with few consequences.

Biology creates certain inequities. I believe in bodily agency (that is, the right of the individual to decide what to do to/with their own body. Since biology dictates that fetuses are inseparable from their mothers in the beginning... I may not like it, and I may not think it is the moral choice, but abortion is a matter of bodily agency.

If you don't want children, do what you need to do to/with your body to prevent having them. If you do want children and you're a man, it shouldn't be that hard to find someone to commit to raising a child with you, but if you let things get past the point where your own bodily agency can change the outcome... Well, it is what it is.

While I suspect that abortion is rarely the best moral choice, I'm personally against the government making decisions about anyone's bodily agency. (That, and stridently pro-life men (in the sense of legally restricting another person's bodily agency) are creepy. Especially the slutty ones. [Razz] )
 
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
 
Frisco, I am pretty pro-choice actually but I don't view abortion as opting out of care for kids. I view it as autonomy over body and health. I think in the best interest of the child, the man cannot be let off the hook. I think once baby is born, if mom wants to sign over for adoption, if the father is known and wants the baby, then the mother should pay child support, just like the man would have had to.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by scholarette:
I think once baby is born, if mom wants to sign over for adoption, if the father is known and wants the baby, then the mother should pay child support, just like the man would have had to.

+1
 
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
 
quote:
While I suspect that abortion is rarely the best moral choice, I'm personally against the government making decisions about anyone's bodily agency. (That, and stridently pro-life men (in the sense of legally restricting another person's bodily agency) are creepy. Especially the slutty ones. [Razz] )
I will try not to take that personally. [Razz]

That said, I'm all for body autonomy. It's the killing of the OTHER body that squicks me out. It's not like a fetus is a tapeworm--it's something YOU put there.

And I still think it's strange that people find it okay to force a man to give up part of his life for a child he doesn't want, yet can still fight so hard to make it so women don't have to be held to the same standard.

But then many things in this world baffle me, so I try not to lose too much sleep over it. [Wink]
 
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
 
Frisco, once the baby is out of the woman's body, I am perfectly good forcing her to be held to the same standard.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
quote:
And I still think it's strange that people find it okay to force a man to give up part of his life for a child he doesn't want, yet can still fight so hard to make it so women don't have to be held to the same standard.
Part of his life? Paying for a child you create is just being responsible, not "giving up part of your life". As to "the same standard" sending a check and having to carry a baby in your body and then push it out through an orifice are hardly "the same standard"...the next you time you go to write a check, slice open the area from anus to below your scrotum, give up all your preferred eating habits for nine months, gain forty pounds, puke up your food for about three months and then give yourself stretch marks and then we will talk about "the same standard".
 
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
 
quote:
slice open the area from anus to below your scrotum
I'm no expert, but I really thought there was already an opening there for most women.

Hobbes [Smile]
 
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
Paying for a child you create is just being responsible, not "giving up part of your life". As to "the same standard" sending a check and having to carry a baby in your body and then push it out through an orifice are hardly "the same standard"...the next you time you go to write a check, slice open the area from anus to below your scrotum, give up all your preferred eating habits for nine months, gain forty pounds, puke up your food for about three months and then give yourself stretch marks and then we will talk about "the same standard".

AMEN!

Frisco, weren't you the one who thought it was ok to schedule heading out of town on a pleasure trip a few days after the birth of your child? I'm reminded of the difference between involvement and commitment, and how it relates to a bacon-and-eggs breakfast.
 
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hobbes:
quote:
slice open the area from anus to below your scrotum
I'm no expert, but I really thought there was already an opening there for most women.

Hobbes [Smile]

Often enough, the opening is not big enough, and a cut or a tear are necessary to get the baby out. I don't know of many first mothers who gave birth vaginally and didn't need stitches.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
It's strange to me when men vs. women in terms of abortion starts to involve men's rights (that term, quite frustrating, though of course I'm the one who introduced it specifically). It's important to remember, I think, that when it comes to child care in this county, especially when mother and father are considered individually...men don't do so well. Take a look at deadbeat dad rates here in the old USA, or even late-paying child support. I mean, many times I've heard the notion like you expressed, Frisco, that it's strange or even unfortunate that there isn't equality of responsibility-mandated, enforced responsibility.

Even when there *is*, if given the chance (that is to say, not actually living with the kid and mom), dudes will in alarming proportions skedaddle.

Yeah, there *is* some inequality here-man and woman have sex, results in pregnancy, from that point on barring unexpected problems it will be the mother who decides whether or not there's going to be a child to be responsible for.

That's unequal. In many individual cases it will even be unfair. But...well, biology ain't symmetrical. Sometimes there will be differences. As it is, when both parties want the kid, the mother will bear an enormous (like, incredibly crushing majority) of the responsibilities and burdens. That's unequal too, and even unfair in the sense that the world ain't fair.

And then, after the birth...well, chances are women are gonna do more than their 'fair share' of the child rearin' gig too. Unfair and unequal. I'm talking overall, not for the ideal, egalitarian male that is so often spoken of in defense of these observations of unfairness.

I mean, how badly do dudes *really* want to go into this 'the gender split is unfair!' angle?
 
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
Well said, Jeff.
 
Posted by KirKis (Member # 12454) on :
 
Good Morning!

I feel like there have been so many times where a man just wanted to "skedaddle" out of child support and all responsibility that it has "tainted the water" for the rest of us having rights.

When a couple, in the heat of passion, decide to have sex they should both face the responsibility of having a child. This is your typical situation. My problem is in the non-typical situation.

If you are military you see this happen a lot. Fathers and Mothers alike getting their daughters to become pregnant with a soldier.

Obviously the rape situation was discussed before but thats another situation where the man has no protection when it comes to responsibility when it comes to the child.

There are women who attempt to "sabotage" the condoms. I feel like i've heard of this before but I don't know anyone that has actually gone through it. I'm sure it has happened somewhere before but we need protection here too!

Women who write down the man's name on the birth certificate. This doesn't happen as often as the others but it does (happened to my father).

*Even if you take a DNA test the courts can STILL hold a man responsible.* This is what my Lawyer told me when I was taking a DNA test to make sure my daughter was mine.

So really what i'm proposing is some sort of protection for these situations and others like it. Not for the "oops, we shouldn't have done that" but for the non-typical sitautions.

Of course, proving this in court might be difficult. Though still "something" should be done!

[ July 01, 2011, 07:47 AM: Message edited by: KirKis ]
 
Posted by Anna2112 (Member # 12493) on :
 
This is sort of a tangent, and I'm a lurker. So that's two points against me. But anyway:

I think that custody should be a question of what's best for the children. And that requires much more detailed attention than the system for divorce is currently able to give. @KirKis, I don't mean to be antagonistic, but is your child really benefiting from seeing his/her father for a week once a year? I can't imagine any world in which that's not an incredibly traumatic and complicated thing for the child to experience. I'm not saying it's your fault, but it still sucks for the kid. And I'm not sure what you should or could do to remedy the situation.

And increasingly now, there are groups that support the father in custodial disagreements. In my parents' divorce (anecdote warning!) I know my dad found a lot of advice from those groups, and I think that the judge was encouraged to grant him more time than he should have really had (in my opinion) because of those groups. Which had pretty disastrous results for my father and his relationship with his children in the long run.

And I'm pro-choice because I believe that there's no way to properly regulate who should or shouldn't be able to get an abortion, and because I believe in autonomy over your own body. There. Back on topic.
 
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
 
quote:
Frisco, weren't you the one who thought it was ok to schedule heading out of town on a pleasure trip a few days after the birth of your child? I'm reminded of the difference between involvement and commitment, and how it relates to a bacon-and-eggs breakfast.
Oh, how time plays tricks on our memory, especially when we're trying to prove a point. [Razz]

It was a 2-day trip that was scheduled and paid for long before the pregnancy, and it was when he was about 5 weeks. And I willingly canceled it. [Smile]

That said, I still think people are throwing out red herrings when it comes to child support vs. birth.

I'm speaking from a broad, moral opinion. Whether it's $700 a month for 18 years or 9 months of extreme displeasure and stretch marks, my point remains that we give women an escape from responsibility, and balk at the notion that a man be given even a similar right.

And just so nobody's confused, I don't think *either* party should be excused from the responsibility, unless the child was put there by force.

I just don't really get the moral reasoning behind giving an escape clause to one sex and not the other. I get *why* we do these things, just like I understand *why* we allow abortion. But not how we make it just.

There are very few things that I can't debate both sides of to myself. This just happens to be one of them. *shrug*
 
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
 
Anyway, to rerail, my stance against abortion in general is why I don't find sex-specific abortion any less moral than any other (except in cases of rape or major health risk to the mother).

Whether you just ran out of apples or oranges, you're still not having fruit for breakfast.
 
Posted by KirKis (Member # 12454) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anna2112:
@KirKis, I don't mean to be antagonistic, but is your child really benefiting from seeing his/her father for a week once a year? I can't imagine any world in which that's not an incredibly traumatic and complicated thing for the child to experience. I'm not saying it's your fault, but it still sucks for the kid. And I'm not sure what you should or could do to remedy the situation.

Well I also see her on Webcam every tuesday for no less than 30 minutes so I get to talk to her and see her on the computer so she can tell me how school is going etc.

The whole reason why it was so hard for me to get what I got was because of the mother. She started making lies that I had to defend in court. I won't get too much into it but... it was a very nasty process. I am glad that she didn't put my daughter in the middle of it... At least she is a good mother to my daughter!

Oh and I don't know if I mentioned it or not but I see her every first weekend of each month and one week during the summer (and Webcam every tuesday). I actually head out shortly to go pick her up! I have to drive 2 hours each way but well worth it!
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
quote:
I'm speaking from a broad, moral opinion. Whether it's $700 a month for 18 years or 9 months of extreme displeasure and stretch marks, my point remains that we give women an escape from responsibility, and balk at the notion that a man be given even a similar right.
You are drawing and equivalence that simply doesn't work. Being required to make child support payments and being required to carry a baby in your womb are not comparable. Once the baby is born, the woman and man are held to the same level of reponsibility.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
I think I get were the other side of this discussion is coming from...

The woman decides if she will carry the baby or not...and the man does not get a say about it.

If she decides to abort, the man's responsibilities are done. If she keeps the baby, he is on the hook for child support. Regardless of the wishes of the man to have or not have a child.

I think Rakeesh is right...the biology is not even, and so the result is unfair, yet I'm okay with it. Anyone who said life is fair wasn't paying attention.
 
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Yeah, that position's not coherent. The common justifications for abortion (not that you have to agree with them, just realize that they are used) have no symmetry with men. Having the same rights does not mean "being able to rearrange things so each outcome is as parallel as possible", it means having the same protections, but possibly different outcomes insofar as those protections are triggered by different circumstances. The circumstance of pregnancy is one circumstance that is not parallel in men and women, and thus we don't expect there to be an exact parallel realization of rights for men.

There's no need for pro choice people to address your argument in public discourse, because it isn't much of an argument.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
I'm trying to give issues like these a fair amount of consideration in my mind, but this is in spite of the fact that Men's Rights Advocacy is, at present, a festering cesspool of inane depredations and barely-veiled misogyny, where most of its adherents wallow in their own gender-orientated victim complex.

It's really, really possible for men to get completely screwed by the system for virtue of being men, and there are numerous stories abound of the system being preferential the mother to the detriment of the child, but it's very hard to postulate a less-bad system that will actually be less bad in practice.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
quote:
...Men's Rights Advocacy is, at present, a festering cesspool of inane depredations and barely-veiled misogyny, where most of its adherents wallow in their own gender-orientated victim complex.
[ROFL] Don't hold back Samp, tell us how you really feel.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hobbes:
quote:
slice open the area from anus to below your scrotum
I'm no expert, but I really thought there was already an opening there for most women.

Hobbes [Smile]

Anna's right about what I mean, it's called episiotomy.
quote:
Episiotomy is done as prophylaxis against soft-tissue-trauma. Vaginal tears can occur during childbirth, most often at the vaginal opening as the baby's head passes through, especially if the baby descends quickly. Tears can involve the perineal skin or extend to the muscles and the anal sphincter and anus. The midwife or obstetrician may decide to make a surgical cut to the perineum with scissors or scalpel (episiotomy) to make the baby's birth easier and prevent severe tears that can be difficult to repair. The cut is repaired with stitches (sutures). Some childbirth facilities have a policy of routine episiotomy.[2]
My aunt didn't have one when birthing my cousin and basically blew out her parts...nuff said. I hesitate to offer any other personal anecdote...as they are...personal.
 
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
Frisco, I apologize for misremembering the details. But I suspect you're spinning a few as well. Especially that "willingly" bit. [Razz]
 
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
 
I am all about equality. I would strongly support any man's right to remove any parasite from his body, regardless of how that parasite got there. That is the equivalent right.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
quote:
I'm speaking from a broad, moral opinion. Whether it's $700 a month for 18 years or 9 months of extreme displeasure and stretch marks, my point remains that we give women an escape from responsibility, and balk at the notion that a man be given even a similar right.
Well, not quite. What happens is that women, in addition to having much greater responsibilities, burdens, and risks while the pregnancy goes on, *also* have an additional 'chance to escape responsibility'. If we're gonna frame this in justice for both sexes, why should men have an exactly equal 'escape clause' during this period? They're doing either much less or none of the work (as far as dealing' with the pregnancy angle).

If they want an escape clause, they've got it: behave differently earlier. Once things get goin', though, there will be some divergence when biology necessitates that the split will be so big.

There's no injustice-to the man-in him not having a say at that point. None of what's happening affects his body, only his future-and he shoulda thought of that before setting that future in motion.

Much like the woman should've, too-but with her we get into a whole tangle of problems that simply don't exist for the dude. Problems like telling a person what will be done with their body, problems of compelling someone to undergo a hugely burdensome process with not a few risks, etc. Just like men don't have an 'escape clause', they don't have *that* either.

Is there an injustice going on in a lot or abortions? Well as a matter of fact, I think there's a very real chance that the answer is 'yes'. But men aren't the wronged party.

----------

quote:
I feel like there have been so many times where a man just wanted to "skedaddle" out of child support and all responsibility that it has "tainted the water" for the rest of us having rights.
Let's be clear: we've got rights. We just don't have *exactly the same rights* at all points in time, along with not havin the same responsibilities. That seems pretty consistent to me.

What *has* been tainted is this rhetoric in which men as a group are the aggrieved party here. As a group, they're just not-no more than a woman is an aggrieved party if she feels it's unfair that she has to do the huge share of the work in pregnancy.
 
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
Being required to make child support payments and being required to carry a baby in your womb are not comparable.

Perhaps you could explain to us how they significantly differ? Granted, you can't draw a perfectly straight line between the two, but when it comes to rights and responsibilities, the two are adequately similar.

quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
If they want an escape clause, they've got it: behave differently earlier. Once things get goin', though, there will be some divergence when biology necessitates that the split will be so big.

There's no injustice-to the man-in him not having a say at that point. None of what's happening affects his body, only his future-and he shoulda thought of that before setting that future in motion.

Biology necessitates a whole list of things the pro-choice crowd chooses to completely disregard. Why be so selective in choosing what should happen according to biology?

Common sense suggests women, knowing the many costs associated with pregnancy and other factors relating to it, would realize the huge incentive of behaving differently earlier. Theirs are the lives which will be most drastically altered by pregnancy therefore you think they'd accept more readily a larger portion of the onus of pregnancy prevention.

As for 'None of what's happening affects his body, only his future-and he shoulda thought of that before setting that future in motion,' the forced payment of child support certainly does affect a man's body, unless he can make money instantaneously and by mental projection alone. A man can't demand the woman abort the child nor can he abort fiscal responsibility for the child. You're claiming a man's choice should end at intercourse which simply isn't just. I don't see how the pro-choice reconcile the blatant two-faced nature of their stance.

And how does your argument differ from a pro-lifer's use of the 'she shoulda thought of that before she spread her legs' argument? Women have an escape clause too: nine months after conception they can put the child they detest so much up for adoption.

Personally, I don't think the man's responsibilities should be voided any more than those of the woman. Both had sex knowing the possible consequences and neither merits a legal sanction to shirk their responsibilities.
 
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
 
quote:
Frisco, I apologize for misremembering the details. But I suspect you're spinning a few as well. Especially that "willingly" bit. [Razz]
Any more personal attacks we need to get out of the way? What you know about that period in the life of my son and I is the contents of one thread on Sakeriver. While you may not realize it, there is much that goes on in my life that I do not post in online forums. [Smile]

quote:
There's no need for pro choice people to address your argument in public discourse, because it isn't much of an argument.
There's no need for *them*. They really don't care, I suspect. But if they're arguing from a platform that people should be able to choose whether or not they want to become a parent, it definitely does fall in a similar category. I understand *why* the Pro-Choice movement doesn't care about the issue, but I still don't find it moral, just by their own standards.

I see lots of people dismissing the point because there's no completely direct comparison, but they're really not addressing what I'm saying.

To reiterate, I don't think either sex should be able to shrug off the responsibility. But since we live in a society where I can't even take a shower with my microwave without some label yelling at me to STOP because some moron sued General Electric...

quote:
Let's be clear: we've got rights. We just don't have *exactly the same rights* at all points in time, along with not havin the same responsibilities. That seems pretty consistent to me.
After conception, men don't really have many rights. Unless you get in front of the rare judge who will give you custody. Pay 30% of your income for 18 years or go to jail. While women can abort, or give a child up for adoption, and their responsibilities for that child's life are over.

..............

It's very difficult for me to debate this, since I'm against it in the first place. But in the process of arguing this on principle, I get assigned motive based on my sex, I find. Maybe I need to make a female board name so people won't be biased. [Razz]

At least I don't get accused of being some closet religious nut, like I do when I have this discussion on Atheist forums. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
 
I am pretty sure in some states at least if a woman wants to give up her kid for adoption but the birth father wants the kid, she has to pay child support. Unfortunately, adoption laws are different in every state (as are rules about custody) so inequality may exist in some states that doesn't in others.

The big problem for men is that they are conflating rights. A woman has a right to her body. It is not a right to discard the responsibility to a child (though the right to her body has a side affect of that). A man also has just as much sovereignty over his body. That is why pro-choice people don't defend men's rights on this. Both men and women have equal rights to their own body. If a man wanted child support from a woman who wanted to give the kid up for adoption and the courts ruled against that man, I bet a whole lot of people would be standing up for the man.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
quote:
Perhaps you could explain to us how they significantly differ? Granted, you can't draw a perfectly straight line between the two, but when it comes to rights and responsibilities, the two are adequately similar.
Is this a serious question? The one involves a 24/7/270 commitment of one's physical body, that is at best often...well, uncomfortable (hello understatement!). In all cases it involves risk, pain, discomfort, and could even result in death or not inconsiderable injury. *And* the pregnant party *still* has to be doing work to support herself. What's the man chipping in during those nine months, midnight runs for pickles and ice cream? (Assuming he is involved, and since we're talkin' men-in-general that's not at all a given.)

Then after the pregnancy, the mother is *rarely* going to be dealing with child care exclusively via child support checks. You're some sort of conservative, thus you know throwing money at a problem doesn't solve it, right?

The idea that child support payments are similarly onerous as *pregnancy* is, well, pretty strange. Does it indicate a vast ignorance of pregnancy, or a bitterness of child support payments? I'm struggling to imagine a mindset where the two are 'adequately similar'.

quote:
Biology necessitates a whole list of things the pro-choice crowd chooses to completely disregard. Why be so selective in choosing what should happen according to biology?
Things such as?

quote:
... the forced payment of child support certainly does affect a man's body, unless he can make money instantaneously and by mental projection alone. A man can't demand the woman abort the child nor can he abort fiscal responsibility for the child. You're claiming a man's choice should end at intercourse which simply isn't just. I don't see how the pro-choice reconcile the blatant two-faced nature of their stance.
Alright, lemme be more clear: affect his body akin to pregnancy. But then somehow you think forced child support and pregnancy are equivalent, so that won't be persuasive I expect.

As for justice and two-faced arguments...men cannot carry and bear children, remember? Greater burden, different rights. Pretty straightforward. I don't have the right to break into someone's house and threaten them at gunpoint because of a crime. A cop might. Different rights.

quote:
And how does your argument differ from a pro-lifer's use of the 'she shoulda thought of that before she spread her legs' argument? Women have an escape clause too: nine months after conception they can put the child they detest so much up for adoption.
First of all, I wonder how much your choice of words indicates about your attitude towards women in general?

Second, you're changing the discussion. I'm not talking about what is just *overall* (my personal opinion is that we don't actually know *when* it's unjust to abort), but rather to the question of justice between men and women. Women have different rights because *things happen differently* for them. Very, very differently.

Men don't have to cut back on a variety of substances during pregnancy, women do. Men aren't going to have swollen body parts during pregnancy, women do. Men's bodies aren't at risk of death or injury during pregnancy, women's are. Etc.

Again, as a conservative this is supposed to be the kind of thing you like: legislating as things actually *are*, not mandating some sort of artificial equality at the outset.
 
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
 
quote:

Originally posted by The Rabbit:
Being required to make child support payments and being required to carry a baby in your womb are not comparable.

quote:
Originally posted by capaxinfiniti:
Perhaps you could explain to us how they significantly differ? Granted, you can't draw a perfectly straight line between the two, but when it comes to rights and responsibilities, the two are adequately similar.

I have no idea if the poster was serious, but this made me laugh out loud. Because... no.

Although I'd love to see someone paid to say 'Breathe! Push!' to some poor guy as he writes out his checks every month.
 
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
 
quote:
Men's bodies aren't at risk of death or injury during pregnancy,
How many pregnant women have YOU known?! [Razz]

quote:
Alright, lemme be more clear: affect his body akin to pregnancy. But then somehow you think forced child support and pregnancy are equivalent, so that won't be persuasive I expect.
I don't think anyone is comparing the effect on a man's body versus a woman's. Only the effect on their life. So 9 months of pregnancy (plus lasting effects) versus 30% of income for 18 years. I'm not saying they're equal, but the effects on the life of the unwilling parent are similar...yet the consequences for avoiding them are on opposite ends of the spectrum. About $300-700 to get rid of the former, and jail for the latter.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
Capax has explicitly compared the two.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
Frisco: A man and a woman decide to have sex (we are not discussing rape here), and use or do not use birth control and end up pregnant regardless of use or lack of aforementioned birth control.

They both made the decision. Now, inside the woman's body grows their child. It is now the woman's decision as to if she is going to carry the child in her body or not, simply because it is her body. If it were growing in the man's body, it would be his decision. If there were a way technology could be used so that the baby could be gestated outside of a woman's body, the man would most definitely have a say.

If the woman does choose to use her body to gestate the child, but does not want the child, the man should retain parental rights, and the woman should pay child support. If the woman wants to keep the child, the man should retain parental rights and pay child support. If neither of the parents wish to have custody then the child goes up for adoption. If the woman does not wish her body used as an incubator, then she has the ability to get an abortion.

capaxinfiniti: Saying that a man uses his body to make money to pay to help support his offspring is the same as a woman being pregnant is just...stupid. Sorry, I tried to come up with a more charitable word there, but failed. It is nonsensical.
 
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bella Bee:
I have no idea if the poster was serious, but this made me laugh out loud. Because... no.

Although I'd love to see someone paid to say 'Breathe! Push!' to some poor guy as he writes out his checks every month.

quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
Is this a serious question? The one involves a 24/7/270 commitment of one's physical body, that is at best often...well, uncomfortable (hello understatement!). In all cases it involves risk, pain, discomfort, and could even result in death or not inconsiderable injury.

I already conceded the point that the two aren't exactly the same. I even specified that I was approaching the comparison from a rights/responsibilities angle. But it doesn't surprise me that some jump straight to the physical aspects, especially woman who likely have a profoundly intense remembrance of the pains of child birth.

quote:
I'm struggling to imagine a mindset where the two are 'adequately similar'.
See above.

quote:
But then somehow you think forced child support and pregnancy are equivalent, so that won't be persuasive I expect.
I already addressed this above. I never said the physical impacts are parallel - I'm not envisioning men with morning sickness, labor pains, etc - just that both are indeed affected physical and neither escapes some physical discomfort.

quote:
As for justice and two-faced arguments...men cannot carry and bear children, remember?
No, that slipped my mind. But that fact the you are a condescending ass didn't. Every time you address someone with a different opinion you don't have to bolster your arguments by slighting the other poster. Different burdens, different responsibilities, yes. But ultimately, if an abortion is performed, the unborn child is killed. It's equally definitive for the man as it is the woman, yet men receive practically no legal course to prevent this.

quote:
Second, you're changing the discussion. I'm not talking about what is just *overall* (my personal opinion is that we don't actually know *when* it's unjust to abort), but rather to the question of justice between men and women.

Again, as a conservative this is supposed to be the kind of thing you like: legislating as things actually *are*, not mandating some sort of artificial equality at the outset.

I didn't intend to change the discussion and I don't feel I did. And you could claim I was demanding artificial equality if I argued the man must be subjected to 9 months of X,Y, and Z. But that's silly and not at all what I was suggesting. A cursory reading of my comment shows that.

I don't accept using the mothers's rights to justify aborting the child just as I don't accept the father dodging his support responsibilities. But if the pro-choice crowd is going to use this argument, I think the double standard should be made evident.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by capaxinfiniti:
Perhaps you could explain to us how they significantly differ? Granted, you can't draw a perfectly straight line between the two, but when it comes to rights and responsibilities, the two are adequately similar.

I .. oh my god, no.

quote:
Women have an escape clause too: nine months after conception they can put the child they detest so much up for adoption.
This is not an escape clause from pregnancy. Only the child that is made after the pregnancy has taken its toll, physically and financially. I suppose you could have 'escape clause' parity if you were able to, say, split the costs right down the middle from disparate mom & dad entities, and figure out a way to redirect half the health issues to the father too, with like a, say, preeclampsia distribution beam and other star trek gizmos. Or no, no, this isn't going to happen.

Fortunately, they do have an escape clause from pregnancy, too.
 
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
 
quote:
If the woman wants to keep the child, the man should retain parental rights and pay child support.
quote:
If the woman does not wish her body used as an incubator, then she has the ability to get an abortion.
You hit the nail on the head, Stone Wolf. And here lies the discrepancy. If the woman decides she doesn't want to be a parent, she simply gets an abortion or gives the child up for adoption. If a man decides the same...well, tough luck.

A woman does not want to be an "incubator", but we expect men to play the role of "bank account".

I understand *why* it's done, practicality-wise, just not how forcing a man to be an ATM at the expense of his own life is moral, but forcing a woman to be an incubator is cruel.

Are our bodies really that much more important than our lives?
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
Also.

quote:
I'm not envisioning men with morning sickness, labor pains, etc - just that both are indeed affected physical and neither escapes some physical discomfort.
Tell me what this inescapable physical discomfort is.
 
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
capaxinfiniti: Saying that a man uses his body to make money to pay to help support his offspring is the same as a woman being pregnant is just...stupid. Sorry, I tried to come up with a more charitable word there, but failed. It is nonsensical.

The equivalence is in the fact that they are both being compelled to do so. The physical duress the woman/man must endure is entirely situational which is why I made no attempt to address it.

And I'd prefer my argument be called stupid than to receive a snarky, condescending fake-rebuttal. So in this case you're terse summation of my comment is appreciated. [Smile]
 
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
Also.

quote:
I'm not envisioning men with morning sickness, labor pains, etc - just that both are indeed affected physical and neither escapes some physical discomfort.
Tell me what this inescapable physical discomfort is.
The act of laboring to make a living and the denial of whatever quality of life increases could have be gained had the time/physical actions/money forfeited to child support been use by the father and his (possible) current family. Again, as I said in my comment to Stone Wolf, the discomfort would be vary from case to case for both sexes.
 
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
 
Just because it hasn't been brought up yet, there are numerous women facing life in prison for murder charges for losing their babies.

I don't know how I feel about it. On one end if they have an abortion and the baby dies it is ok, but if the mother does drugs and the baby dies it is murder?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/24/america-pregnant-women-murder-charges

From the article:

quote:
"If it's not a crime for a mother to intentionally end her pregnancy, how can it be a crime for her to do it unintentionally, whether by taking drugs or smoking or whatever it is," Robert McDuff, a civil rights lawyer asked the state supreme court.


 
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
 
quote:
Just because it hasn't been brought up yet, there are numerous women facing life in prison for murder charges for losing their babies.
I brought it up a couple of pages back, but it got ignored. Thanks for bringing this subject to people's attention. [Smile]

I'll say it again - that article really freaked me out, and the idea of using laws created to protect pregnant women as a way to punish women who lose their child - sometimes in cases where those in question are somewhat mentally unbalanced or suffering from addictions already - seems needlessly cruel.
Anyone know if there's more to this story, or if it really is what it looks like?
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
One thing that has be brought up here that I don't get is this: If on parent wants to keep a child, the other owes child support. If neither wants the child, neither pays. This makes sense if there is an adoption waiting for them, but what if the child goes to foster care? Then the state pays for them right? If that is how it goes, it doesn't seem right.
 
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
 
In the stated scenario, while the man is writing his check each month, the woman is raising a child. I am willing to bet her life has changed far more than the man who is compelled to write a check once a month. As a mom, I cant think of anything more life changing than having a baby I am responsible for. So, odds are the woman who didn't get an abortion is doing a hell of a lot more work than the man who writes the checks.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
To Bella and Geraine RE jailing moms...I didn't comment the first time because it boggles the mind. Seriously...I don't even know what to do with it.
 
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
 
quote:
In the stated scenario, while the man is writing his check each month, the woman is raising a child. I am willing to bet her life has changed far more than the man who is compelled to write a check once a month. As a mom, I cant think of anything more life changing than having a baby I am responsible for. So, odds are the woman who didn't get an abortion is doing a hell of a lot more work than the man who writes the checks.
And in that scenario, the woman who wanted the child, in addition to doing more work, is reaping all the joy of having the child. While the father who didn't want the child is grudgingly paying 30% of all his earnings and possibly not even seeing the child.

I'd rather be that woman than that guy any day!
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by capaxinfiniti:
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
Also.

quote:
I'm not envisioning men with morning sickness, labor pains, etc - just that both are indeed affected physical and neither escapes some physical discomfort.
Tell me what this inescapable physical discomfort is.
The act of laboring to make a living and the denial of whatever quality of life increases could have be gained had the time/physical actions/money forfeited to child support been use by the father and his (possible) current family. Again, as I said in my comment to Stone Wolf, the discomfort would be vary from case to case for both sexes.
How is this inescapable?
 
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
 
If he wanted involvement, assuming he is not abusive, I think he should get 50% custody. Also, we don't know if the mom wanted the child or was just as surprised as the dad but thought abortion was immoral. After 9 months with the baby, perhaps she got attached. If men were fighting for fairer visitation I would strongly support that. Men's rights would do much better if they were fighting for increased access to child as opposed to permission to abandon a child. And once the kid is born, I really don't care much about the mom and what she did right or wrong. Now there is a child that is innocent and needs to be protected.
 
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:
Originally posted by capaxinfiniti:
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
Also.

quote:
I'm not envisioning men with morning sickness, labor pains, etc - just that both are indeed affected physical and neither escapes some physical discomfort.
Tell me what this inescapable physical discomfort is.
The act of laboring to make a living and the denial of whatever quality of life increases could have be gained had the time/physical actions/money forfeited to child support been use by the father and his (possible) current family. Again, as I said in my comment to Stone Wolf, the discomfort would be vary from case to case for both sexes.
How is this inescapable?
It's not, but there would be legal consequences for failing to do so. This whole discussion is concerning legal obligations so I assumed what I said would be interpreted that way.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
Not even the legal consequences are inescapable. This is another point of equivalence that is anything but.
 
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
 
quote:
I'll say it again - that article really freaked me out, and the idea of using laws created to protect pregnant women as a way to punish women who lose their child - sometimes in cases where those in question are somewhat mentally unbalanced or suffering from addictions already - seems needlessly cruel.
I'm pro-choice for exactly the reasons scholarette has stated, but I feel conflicted on this issue. It is certainly highly immoral for a pregnant woman who wishes to remain pregnant to do drugs- most especially hard drugs. Putting these women in jail for killing does seem... weird, but having a crime associated with most likely permanently damaging a child does seem somewhat appropriate. Women should be allowed to get rid of a parasite on their bodies if they want, but if they choose to keep it, they have to be good to it. Is that hypocritical?
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
quote:
Women should be allowed to get rid of a parasite on their bodies if they want, but if they choose to keep it, they have to be good to it. Is that hypocritical?
Not by my standards.

It is so hard to judge this issue for me, truly I have find myself at a loss for words (and you all know how rare that is).
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
Frisco,

quote:
After conception, men don't really have many rights. Unless you get in front of the rare judge who will give you custody. Pay 30% of your income for 18 years or go to jail. While women can abort, or give a child up for adoption, and their responsibilities for that child's life are over.
As has been noted, this isn't universal. I realize that men are often, well, discriminated against in custody cases, but that serves as a reason to deal with that specific problem: not to suggest that it's unjust that women get extra outs when men don't.

Unless it's being suggested that human biology is unfair, and that's not what I'm hearing-but I could be mistaken about that.

quote:
You hit the nail on the head, Stone Wolf. And here lies the discrepancy. If the woman decides she doesn't want to be a parent, she simply gets an abortion or gives the child up for adoption. If a man decides the same...well, tough luck.
Actually, if the woman wants to give up the child for adoption...no, it's not as simple as just doing so against the man's wishes.

quote:
A woman does not want to be an "incubator", but we expect men to play the role of "bank account".
This is another thing: we expect women to be the bank account too. It's not as though the stay-at-home-mom schtick is in any way a given anymore. Tons of moms work, more and more work early after the birth too-before the birth in fact as well.

quote:
Are our bodies really that much more important than our lives?
I personally agree, it is troubling, the way body sovereignty trumps everything even morally in the eyes of our society (well, not all of it, obviously-far from it), but body responsibility is not something that's encouraged as strongly as sovereignty is defended.

But let's also be clear about something, dude (I use that term carefully): there isn't an 'our bodies' in this situation. I mean, there just ain't.

quote:
And in that scenario, the woman who wanted the child, in addition to doing more work, is reaping all the joy of having the child. While the father who didn't want the child is grudgingly paying 30% of all his earnings and possibly not even seeing the child.
She also bore more of the risk. It's not just a question of doing more work.


---------

quote:
I already conceded the point that the two aren't exactly the same. I even specified that I was approaching the comparison from a rights/responsibilities angle. But it doesn't surprise me that some jump straight to the physical aspects, especially woman who likely have a profoundly intense remembrance of the pains of child birth.
You sort of said they weren't the same, but also right up front suggested they were very similar.
quote:
Perhaps you could explain to us how they significantly differ? Granted, you can't draw a perfectly straight line between the two, but when it comes to rights and responsibilities, the two are adequately similar.
They significantly differ in that the woman has many, many more responsibilities and burdens-and thus more rights. It's pretty straightforward: it is deeply stupid to suggest that the difficulty-sharing between men and women during pregnancy is 'significantly similar'.

quote:
I already addressed this above. I never said the physical impacts are parallel - I'm not envisioning men with morning sickness, labor pains, etc - just that both are indeed affected physical and neither escapes some physical discomfort.
You went a bit further than that, but if you're modifying your initial stance, alright.

quote:
No, that slipped my mind. But that fact the you are a condescending ass didn't. Every time you address someone with a different opinion you don't have to bolster your arguments by slighting the other poster. Different burdens, different responsibilities, yes. But ultimately, if an abortion is performed, the unborn child is killed. It's equally definitive for the man as it is the woman, yet men receive practically no legal course to prevent this.
Coming from you, the well known conservative hack of the `Rack, well-thanks! [Smile] I was condescending to your position, though, because it was ridiculous: you suggested men and women don't have significantly different problems to deal with-that pregnancy and child support payments were pretty comparable. It was dumb. Just cop to it and move on, man. Geeze.

As for what happens when an abortion is performed...well, is it an unborn child? What does that term mean? I don't know. (Neither do you, for that matter.) For the record, my own stance is that since we don't know, and since it's easily preventable, well-prevent it rather than dealing with it after it's happened. But once it's happened, things are very different for the two genders. Period. Hell, it ain't even 'equally definitive' for the man as for the woman when the abortion is performed. Exactly how much health risk to the man is there in this sometimes risky surgery?

quote:
I didn't intend to change the discussion and I don't feel I did. And you could claim I was demanding artificial equality if I argued the man must be subjected to 9 months of X,Y, and Z. But that's silly and not at all what I was suggesting. A cursory reading of my comment shows that.
Sometimes you're talking about 'definitve changes', sometimes about 'rights and responsibilities', but the first thing you responded to that earned you varying degrees of disagreement, ridicule, and scorn was that child support payments and pregnancy are comparable. I mean, I can quote you again if you'd like to show you where you did just that. 'Cursory reading' indeed.

quote:

I don't accept using the mothers's rights to justify aborting the child just as I don't accept the father dodging his support responsibilities. But if the pro-choice crowd is going to use this argument, I think the double standard should be made evident.

Again, not a double standard. A double standard is when differing measures are used to judge the same group. Men and women, once the pregnancy is begun, are self-evidently not the same group.

What this results in is a disparity in rights and responsibilities for men and women, sure. But it also results in a disparity of problems-a helluva lot more women have suffered physical discomfort or even injury, and then of course mental illness, even death, as a result of pregnancy than men. The genders are different, in some respects. In pregnancy? That's a friggin' given. To suggest that morally, much less legally, they should be treated the same is...well, ridiculous.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
It's interesting to me, the way this conversation has me expressing myself. See, overall my opinion could be explained along these lines:

1. Life (human life) starts somewhere before conception.
2. We don't know when that is (outside of religious ideas on the subject, which this being a secular society oughtn't count).
3. Therefore abortion simply because the child isn't wanted, absent other considerations, is wrong because it could be the killing of an unborn child.
4. Taking legal action on this would involve telling fully-grown human beings about what must be done concerning a at least very burdensome and possibly very dangerous health decision.
5. Don't make it illegal, but make it much less likely to be chosen-tons of effective sex education (social conservatives, looking at you here), lots of government support especially for low-income/poor expectant mothers and couples (social and fiscal conservatives, also looking at you).

So generally, I would be more on the side of Frisco and even-much as I cringe-on capax's side of things in a discussion about these topics. But when it starts to be framed that men are somehow gettin' a raw deal, that things are unbalanced or even unjust, when compared to women...well. Just gets my dander up, I s'pose. Lots of nastiness starts cropping up. Some dudes (and even ladies) will start throwing out terms like 'detests the child', 'spread her legs', and so on and so forth, as though women are somehow getting a sweet deal on the whole procreation biz already. Like they're getting uppity somehow, or at least sticking it to men.

If this were a discussion about the often default presumption of mother-superiority in child custody cases, I could even get on board with some of those beefs. But it's not.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
And if you want to remind everyone why the mother is going to and should reserve the right to determine her own course of care when pregnant (up to and including abortions), we can just bring up In re A.C. — a subtle reminder that a pregnant woman's body is her own, we're not going back to this.

[ July 02, 2011, 01:46 AM: Message edited by: Samprimary ]
 
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
 
quote:
So generally, I would be more on the side of Frisco and even-much as I cringe-on capax's side of things in a discussion about these topics. But when it starts to be framed that men are somehow gettin' a raw deal, that things are unbalanced or even unjust, when compared to women...well. Just gets my dander up, I s'pose. Lots of nastiness starts cropping up. Some dudes (and even ladies) will start throwing out terms like 'detests the child', 'spread her legs', and so on and so forth, as though women are somehow getting a sweet deal on the whole procreation biz already. Like they're getting uppity somehow, or at least sticking it to men.
I haven't seem much nastiness pop up at all. It's one thing to play devil's advocate to avoid a dogpile on one side or the other, it's another to give weak arguments you don't believe in an attempt to maintain a sort of balance.

I'm not saying men have it worse than women, just pointing out what I see as a moral inconsistency.

---------------------------------

Scenario 1: Woman wants child, man wants child. How much "this sucks" each side experiences is pretty subjective. One the low end, regardless.

Scenario 2: Woman wants child, man doesn't. Man gets the short end of the stick by far. The woman has decided that whatever side effects come with the child are worth the happiness from having said child. Man is just out a lot of money. For a long time. This will definitely affect his life, and not in a good way.

Scenario 3: Man wants child, woman doesn't. We'll call it even. Emotional distress for the man, physical distress for the woman. Depending on the situation, the $500 for the abortion may tip the scales, but probably not.

Scenario 4: Woman doesn't want child, man doesn't want child. Woman gets the short end of the stick. 1/400,000 chance of death, the man risks nothing.

--------------------------------

So the situation *I'm* talking about is the only one where the joy/suck scale is totally out of whack--Scenario 2.

Does the fact that women bear a slight disadvantage in the other 2 unequal situations outweigh the fact that this particular man gets a giant shaft? Is it moral to take our frustrations out on this hypothetical man in situation 2, even though he had nothing to do with hurting the women in situations 1 and 4?

This is the question I'm looking at.

quote:
Hell, it ain't even 'equally definitive' for the man as for the woman when the abortion is performed. Exactly how much health risk to the man is there in this sometimes risky surgery?
Was curious myself about how risky abortion is. About 1 in every 400,000 women die from the procedure according to womensmedcenter.com.
 
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
quote:
Scenario 1: Woman wants child, man wants child. How much "this sucks" each side experiences is pretty subjective. One the low end, regardless.

Scenario 2: Woman wants child, man doesn't. Man gets the short end of the stick by far. The woman has decided that whatever side effects come with the child are worth the happiness from having said child. Man is just out a lot of money. For a long time. This will definitely affect his life, and not in a good way.

Scenario 3: Man wants child, woman doesn't. We'll call it even. Emotional distress for the man, physical distress for the woman. Depending on the situation, the $500 for the abortion may tip the scales, but probably not.

Scenario 4: Woman doesn't want child, man doesn't want child. Woman gets the short end of the stick. 1/400,000 chance of death, the man risks nothing.

There you go again, continuing to consider equality of outcome to be the source of morality.
 
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
 
The mortality rate for intentional abortion is strongly tied to context. The fewer safe, accessible, regulated, and legal centers there are, the higher that rate will tend to be.

I'm not intending to imply anything further than that, by the way. Just to flag that the number cited in a given context may well change (and possibly dramatically) as the context may change. [One cannot take the number as a given once it is established.]
 
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
 
quote:
There you go again, continuing to consider equality of outcome to be the source of morality.
Do you have any substance to add, or are you going to just talk cryptically so we all marvel at how smart you must be to say so much that *must* be over our heads because otherwise it makes no sense? [Razz]

Whenever I hear you argue, it's like reading a textbook answer to a question that may or may not be on the subject at hand.
 
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
quote:
Do you have any substance to add, or are you going to just talk cryptically so we all marvel at how smart you must be to say so much that *must* be over our heads because otherwise it makes no sense?

The most common argument for being pro choice is based on a woman's right to control what happens with her body. Saying that "well, the outcomes are roughly equivalent" isn't dealing with that argument at all. It is entirely ignoring that argument, and anyone making the most common argument for being pro choice is just going to look at your statements about similar outcomes and go "so what?"

I can't even think of a common moral position that's based on equivalence of outcomes as the determinant of morality, but that's what you seem to be interested in as trumping other commonly considered rights. Your argument that a fetus has rights that trump the right of a woman to control her own body is, on the other hand, at least defensible, if just something people are going to disagree on the premises for. I advise sticking with that argument.

And I don't think I was talking over anyone's head; numerous people responding make the same or closely related points.

quote:
Do you have any substance to add, or are you going to just talk cryptically so we all marvel at how smart you must be to say so much that *must* be over our heads because otherwise it makes no sense?

Hopefully it makes a little more sense to you now that I've explained it a second time.

quote:
Whenever I hear you argue, it's like reading a textbook answer to a question that may or may not be on the subject at hand.
Maybe you should read more textbooks.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
quote:
Does the fact that women bear a slight disadvantage in the other 2 unequal situations outweigh the fact that this particular man gets a giant shaft? Is it moral to take our frustrations out on this hypothetical man in situation 2, even though he had nothing to do with hurting the women in situations 1 and 4?
Again, he's not getting a 'giant shaft'. Get a woman pregnant, and you just might have to pay for it once the pregnancy has begun. That's...life.

If a woman gets pregnant, well, she will certainly have to pay for it at least a little in physical ways. Along with her much greater responsibility and discomfort naturally goes an additional time of decision for her that doesn't exist for the dude. That's generally the way things work: if you're responsible for something, if you bear more of the burdens of something, you have more rights of decision associated with that thing.

As for no one getting nasty, I'll direct you to some of capax's remarks about 'she spread her legs' and 'child she detests so much'. Or are we gonna pretend that kind of rhetoric isn't indicative of certain less-than-polite attitudes?
 
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
 
While one is adding up the discomforts of pregnancy and childbirth, don't forget to include the risks of uterine prolapse, urethral prolapse, rectocoeles, and everything else that can come with stretching out the pelvic floor. Hemorrhoids, urinary incontinence, and other problems can (not necessarily will, but can) be lifelong problems that may or may not be able to be addressed by surgery. If they can be addressed, it usually isn't a full return to normal state, and that often is only a temporary amelioration.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Frisco:
Do you have any substance to add, or are you going to just talk cryptically so we all marvel at how smart you must be to say so much that *must* be over our heads because otherwise it makes no sense? [Razz]

He's not talking cryptically, honestly. He's waving a big, big, big, very important point and clarifying it multiple times. It highlights a central deficiency that should be addressed.
 
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
 
Apologies, Fugu, I didn't realize that you had been in this thread before that comment, but now I see that I responded to you earlier.

The comment I was responding to was the one right before my post. The sentence didn't remotely convey what I was trying to say, so rather than assume you didn't get it, I assumed you were being a jerk. I should know better. [Razz]

And yes, I think deep down I understand that many Pro-Choice folk hold the stance that all women want is control of their bodies...but I automatically connect that with life in general.

Is it really the 9 months of physical change that causes women to get abortions, or the 18 years of responsibility after that?

When I read about reasons for abortion, I see reasons like "I'm not ready for the responsibility" or "I'm not ready financially". Less often I see complaints about stretch marks and gaining weight.

So that's why I connect the two issues on a "quality of life" level. The blanket reason is "I want control over my body", but the end result is having control over one's life.

So to disconnect the two and say that it doesn't correspond with a *man's* quality of life at all seems a little narrow-minded.

[ July 02, 2011, 06:14 PM: Message edited by: Frisco ]
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
quote:
Is it really the 9 months of physical change that causes women to get abortions, or the 18 years of responsibility after that?

When I read about reasons for abortion, I see reasons like "I'm not ready for the responsibility" or "I'm not ready financially". Less often I see complaints about stretch marks and gaining weight.

Coulda *sworn* there was more to pregnancy than stretch marks and weight gain...

quote:
So to disconnect the two and say that it doesn't correspond with a *man's* quality of life at all seems a little narrow-minded.
It still doesn't, because at the end of the question, you've *still* got the woman on the one hand whose quality of life will be drastically changed due to the child (and there the man has some equality), but she's *also* got the pregnancy itself. Which carries risks and drawbacks and trade-offs well beyond 'did she die or not'.

That's before we even get into the question of, in this country, which gender's lives are more substantially impacted by parenthood. About which gender will more likely take care of the domestic tasks (whether both work or not), which gender will more likely be involved in the child's day-to-day, their schooling, their medical care, their...etc.

In this country, we expect different things of men and women concerning parenthood-more time and effort is generally expected of women than of men. So even here, after we set aside the foolish notion that men and women are equal (in any way, much less physically) during the pregnancy, well...*ideally* both will shoulder the burdens of parenthood straight down the middle. That is quite often not what happens, though.

Being expected to be a bank account is not, actually, as burdensome as being expected to, y'know, raise a child.
 
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
quote:
Is it really the 9 months of physical change that causes women to get abortions, or the 18 years of responsibility after that?

You're conflating the reason with the right. The right is to control of their bodies, which is what happens when a person gets an abortion -- they are controlling their bodies. The reason is personal, and not tied up in the right -- can't afford, doesn't want, is freaked out by, whatever.
 
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
 
quote:
It still doesn't, because at the end of the question, you've *still* got the woman on the one hand whose quality of life will be drastically changed due to the child (and there the man has some equality), but she's *also* got the pregnancy itself. Which carries risks and drawbacks and trade-offs well beyond 'did she die or not'.
To equate the change in the willing mother's life to that of an unwilling father's isn't all that relevant. In that situation, the mother has decided that having the child outweighs the risk of the pregnancy, AND it's likely that because she WANTS a child she will be HAPPIER having it.

Health risks and financial burden included, her quality of life has gone up.

All the other stuff you posted is another issue altogether, and I agree.

quote:
Being expected to be a bank account is not, actually, as burdensome as being expected to, y'know, raise a child.
Except that for a willing parent, the burden is offset by little things like joy, happiness, pride, and cheap labor. [Razz] Also macaroni pictures and badly crafted clay ashtrays.
 
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
 
quote:
You're conflating the reason with the right. The right is to control of their bodies, which is what happens when a person gets an abortion -- they are controlling their bodies. The reason is personal, and not tied up in the right -- can't afford, doesn't want, is freaked out by, whatever.
Perhaps, but since I'm not really talking about the law, I don't think that connecting what is said to what is meant is all that far-fetched.

I feel that if 90% of abortions are performed because the woman or couple feels that it would negatively affect their quality of life (regardless of the legal reasons for being able to do so), to NOT give the same consideration to men is a double standard. And I think 90% might be lowballing it a bit. Been a few years since I've done much research, though.
 
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
quote:
I feel that if 90% of abortions are performed because the woman or couple feels that it would negatively affect their quality of life (regardless of the legal reasons for being able to do so), to NOT give the same consideration to men is a double standard. And I think 90% might be lowballing it a bit. Been a few years since I've done much research, though.
This is the same mistake, again. People can have many reasons for exercising a right that is independent of those reasons. For instance, many people use the right to free speech to engage in speech that is cruel; this doesn't mean we should give other people rights to do cruel things not involving speech. Similarly, just because many people exercising their right to control what happens to their body do something to avoid the responsibilities involved a child does not mean we should give other people rights to abrogate their responsibilities towards children. It just doesn't make sense in any except the most selfish moral calculus.
 
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
 
I think my husband and I should have to pay the exact same cost for permanent sterilization. That would be the only equal and fair solution. Therefore, all doctors should offer both services for the same cost. So what if a vasectomy is an easier procedure. I also should have the same recovery time. Yeah, biology says it will take longer to heal so to make that equal, I propose we do a little extra damage to the men in the vasectomy. It is only fair that the end result is equal after all.
 
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
 
quote:
Scenario 1: Woman wants child, man wants child. How much "this sucks" each side experiences is pretty subjective. One the low end, regardless.

Scenario 2: Woman wants child, man doesn't. Man gets the short end of the stick by far. The woman has decided that whatever side effects come with the child are worth the happiness from having said child. Man is just out a lot of money. For a long time. This will definitely affect his life, and not in a good way.

Scenario 3: Man wants child, woman doesn't. We'll call it even. Emotional distress for the man, physical distress for the woman. Depending on the situation, the $500 for the abortion may tip the scales, but probably not.

Scenario 4: Woman doesn't want child, man doesn't want child. Woman gets the short end of the stick. 1/400,000 chance of death, the man risks nothing.

So in order to gain more 'equality', we ban abortion. Now, not only Man 2, but also a whole lot of Man 4 are out by 18 years of child support checks. Because a lot of Women 4 will keep the baby even if they didn't want it, because that is preferable to handing the poor thing over to Social Services to be potentially neglected and abused in Care, or going to jail for having an abortion. A lot of them will find an instinct to care for the child regardless.

And Man 4, who previously would have sailed merrily off into the sunset, now has to cough up. Or, Woman 4 has illegal abortion with serious health risks or death. Now a lot of Man 4 are out one previously healthy girlfriend and have a pile of guilt to deal with. If girlfriend is not dead, but needs medical attention, she goes to jail for killing the foetus.

Man 3 either gets to raise his child, with the mother paying child support to him, or his partner goes and gets an illegal abortion and ends up in jail for murder.

Man 2 is just as badly off as he was before, but now gets to pat himself on the back and tell himself - at least it's fair! Although, since abortion was illegal, it doesn't actually matter if Woman 2 really wanted the baby or not.

That is, if no-one is suggesting that instead of banning abortion, men should be able to sign a 'Do no want, abort, abort!' clause when he discovers his partner is pregnant. Which is clearly just daft.

What other (more positive) options are there?
 
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
 
Most of the men's groups I have heard complaining want to sign over custodial rights and not have to have anything to do with the child ever. You get until like 20 weeks pregnancy to sign this paper and then you never have to acknowledge paternity of the child in any way.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
Frisco...you are looking at this situation from the side of the father.

Try flipping it on it's ear and look at from the side of the child. Your father doesn't want anything to do with you, your mother has to work and can barely make ends meet, you don't get to see her much as she is always working, and the only thing keeping your tiny little family afloat is the check that the man who is apart of you doesn't want to send.

Sure, not all single mothers struggle financially, nor do all single mothers not have time for their children because they have to work. But a lot do.

I get that you are upset that the mother has a choice, and the father does not. But please realize this is because of the repercussion of society giving the right people the right choices for the right reasons. It is not completely fair to everyone one involved, but it is morally right.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
It's not just repercussion-based, though. Greater risk, greater involvement, greater responsibility during the pregnancy-these all tilt towards the side of the mother. Now, granted, this isn't because dudes are *slackers* or something-men don't *sign up* to bear less of the assorted burdens during pregnancy. That's one of the things that's an involuntary fact of human biology.

But because of that, it's not unreasonable or unfair and *especially* not a double-standard that women have an extra set of choices to go along with the big ole set of other stuff.
 
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
 
quote:
This is the same mistake, again. People can have many reasons for exercising a right that is independent of those reasons. For instance, many people use the right to free speech to engage in speech that is cruel; this doesn't mean we should give other people rights to do cruel things not involving speech. Similarly, just because many people exercising their right to control what happens to their body do something to avoid the responsibilities involved a child does not mean we should give other people rights to abrogate their responsibilities towards children. It just doesn't make sense in any except the most selfish moral calculus.
No, not a mistake. I will continue to try and clarify.

I agree that because the spoken intent is control over one's body and NOT the choice over controlling one's life that from the outside, it seems there is no inconsistency. But since everything we choose about our lives affects our body, and every choice we make about our body affects our life, it seems disingenuous to claim to be fighting for one and not the other.

Why do we even disconnect the two?

Are there other examples of laws or beliefs that deal with one and not the other? (aka Do my homework for me because it is lunchtime [Razz] )

quote:
Frisco...you are looking at this situation from the side of the father.

Try flipping it on it's ear and look at from the side of the child. Your father doesn't want anything to do with you, your mother has to work and can barely make ends meet, you don't get to see her much as she is always working, and the only thing keeping your tiny little family afloat is the check that the man who is apart of you doesn't want to send.

Again, I have said that I understand the practical reasoning behind it. In fact, I agree with you AND the law fully. I'm just pointing out what I see as inconsistencies in a particular position.

I don't feel, as fugu does, that a technicality is enough to warrant an entire disconnect between a man's choice about his life and a woman's choice concerning her body. And I don't feel, as Rakeesh does, that because of inherent differences between the genders that the consequences for each should be so grossly different.

In principle, not reality.

That's all. [Smile]
 
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
quote:
I don't feel, as fugu does, that a technicality is enough to warrant an entire disconnect between a man's choice about his life and a woman's choice concerning her body. And I don't feel, as Rakeesh does, that because of inherent differences between the genders that the consequences for each should be so grossly different.

I think you'll find few people sympathetic to the idea that the right to control your body is a technicality.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
quote:
I don't feel, as fugu does, that a technicality is enough to warrant an entire disconnect between a man's choice about his life and a woman's choice concerning her body. And I don't feel, as Rakeesh does, that because of inherent differences between the genders that the consequences for each should be so grossly different.
The consequences are already so grossly different, before any intervening legal authority whatsoever. Consequences being grossly different is the *default*. That's why, morally speaking, rights and responsibilities should also be different. It's not reasonable to treat two fundamentally different groups identically in all cases.
 
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
 
Frisco, can you think of another right where a consequence is actively balanced? For example, freedom of speech- When say Glen Beck speaks, he can actually affect national discourse. He has a great deal more power than I do when using that right, yet no one suggests that the right is unfair and needs to be changed.
 
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
 
quote:
I think you'll find few people sympathetic to the idea that the right to control your body is a technicality.
The technicality of which I spoke was that of the complete disconnect between body and life, even though the two are so clearly closely connected.

I don't think I can make it much clearer than that last post, so I guess I'll give up if that's what you got out of it.

And Rakeesh, I agree that when viewed as a whole, obviously pregnancy is skewed based on gender. But the double standard I'm speaking of doesn't involve most of that.

It sounds like saying one woman deserves the right to have abortions because some other woman risked their life to become pregnant. What does one situation have to do with the other? Can rights be saved up by one person and transferred to another so they can use them for an entirely different scenario?

I don't mean to dismiss your arguments, if it seems like I have, because they're certainly good points. I think women wield too little sexual power for the amount of risk they bear.

But I can't see what that has to do with the specific moral scenario of man's live weighed against a woman's body (and, directly and inseparably, life), even if, legally, the lack of choice in the matter of child support is there as a sort of reparations for women in addition to supporting the life of a child.
 
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
 
I haven't read the rest of the posts yet because I've been gone for a few days. However, I have to point out that I clearly said I was pro-choice for the variety of reasons including that you pointed out.

However, being pro-choice doesn't mean I don't have to find it morally ok.

quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
I hear you tripleD...but the reality of the situation is that if abortion is outlawed, then they will still happen, but instead of a doctor in a clinic, it will be...a non-doctor in a less sterile and health conscious place.

As to a possible single teenage mother vs a married couple seeks a son, I just do not agree that they are both doing the same amount of evil. I can forgive the teen (I was once young and stupid too), but those married couples just disgust me.


 
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
 
Wow, there's alot here.

As to comparing child support to pregnancy/childbirth, I'd like to point out that paying child support doesn't carry ANY type of death risk above normal life. Child support is determined by the man's income and will never be set at a level that requires him to starve, and I've never heard of it being set as high as 30% for a single child either. In most states a man with only one child will pay approximately 20%. If it comes to that, having an abortion also has a risk of death higher than paying child support.

However, I'll agree with you that it's really crappy that a woman can just kill the unborn child because she doesn't want the responsibility. If I could take away that right, without creating serious other problems, I would. The problem is that it is impossible. You can't PROVE why someone wants an abortion, so attempting to restrict it by reason is impossible. Even if you were able to do so legally, the woman would still have access to increasingly dangerous illegal abortions, and it just goes downhill from there. Nature has, unfortunately, dictated that a father has little control over the safety of his unborn offspring.

Also, someone brought up some stuff about adoption. First, a mother cannot LEGALLY give up a child for adoption without giving the father a chance to block it. This does happen illegally, and it is a problem. People are working to stop it. I think it's important to realize though, that in those cases the mother is acting ILLEGALLY, and if caught WILL face consequences. Our legal system isn't just saying that it's ok.

If the mother carries to term and does not want the child, she can attempt to place the child for adoption. If the father agrees, this is a simple process. If the child is a healthy infant, it almost always goes straight to the adoptive parents, and there isn’t really any problem about state support, etc. However, in the case that the child is placed with state social services, the state CAN go back and collect child support from both the mother and the father. The state doesn’t always pursue support, but every state I’ve researched allows this option. (The same thing is true if the child is placed with a grandparent, aunt, uncle or other relative as guardian without an actual adoption.)

However, if the mother wants to place but the father refuses to sign, the child does not automatically go to the father. Assuming the parents are unmarried (most of the time, I’m going to assume this), the mother will retain custody until the paternity is established in court, and then either parent can file for custody and a judge decides what will happen. Custody and child support are then decided based on the state guidelines and what the judge feels is the best interest of the child.

Of course, either parent could voluntarily give up parental rights, and thus be freed from child support as long as a judge agrees it is in the best interest of the child. This does vary by state however. Sometimes judges will only allow it if another person is willing to adopt the child. (Step-parent or “other-parent” adoption usually.) However, some states will allow it as long as the remaining parent can prove he/she is self-sustaining and not likely to need government assistance to raise the child.

As far as custody in general goes… it is not NEARLY as mother centric as it was back in the 60’s and 70’s. In fact, judges in many areas are almost father-centric now. Fathers have a lot more resources available most of the time, because there are tons of groups willing to do pro-bono legal work for dads. Mothers typically have an advantage in unmarried situations because they will have default custody when the child is born, since that is dictated by biology and our legal process. However, in cases of divorce, or in cases where both parents have been active and present in a child’s life, the bias is pretty neutral. If you’re talking about simple visitation cases, it isn’t all that uncommon to see Dad’s being given more and more visitation rights, even when they aren’t currently using the visitation they’re currently given. It’s the visitation cases where Dad’s are often given the preference. It’s annoying but probably a natural consequence of the old “mom always wins” scenario.

In most places, joint legal custody is the norm. Physical custody is shifting towards 50/50, but will probably never get too close to 50/50 because studies are finding that it’s actually NOT good for kids to not have a designated primary residence if the parents can’t work together on co-parenting.

As for being tricked into being a dad….

Sabotaging the condom goes back to the whole, “No birth control is foolproof, if you don’t want a baby, keep your reproductive parts to yourself, argument.”

And as for being named the father on the birth certificate… most states won’t allow a father, other than the woman’s husband, to be put on the birth certificate unless the father has taken a DNA test OR has signed a voluntary acknowledgement of paternity. In the states that will allow a father (I think maybe Hawaii and a couple of others???), being listed on the Birth Certificate doesn’t actually confer a legal relationship, and has no bearing on child support or custody.

So the ONLY way you can get to be listed as a legal father without being the genetic dad, is if you voluntarily sign a piece of paper saying you want to be named the father without a DNA test OR if you’re married to the mother. The marriage thing is a whole different ballgame and basically happens because the law considers any child born to a woman in the marriage to be the legal child of the husband. The husband would have to legally deny the child within a certain time frame of the birth to not be the legal father. There have been attempts to overturn that presumption, but most people don’t want to. If the father is skeptical up front, he CAN still challenge it with a test shortly after birth. The thinking here is about what is in the child’s best interest, and honestly that’s what society SHOULD be thinking about. It really wouldn’t be fair to the child if, after 7 or 8 years, Dad gets suspicious and suddenly decides he doesn’t want to be Dad anymore. I agree that those situations can suck for the Dad, and that’s why there is debate about the presumption, but so far society seems to feel it isn’t a big enough problem to change the law.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
Wow 3D, that was a lot of info...I'm curious, where did you get it all? I'm not saying your inaccurate, just that that was a lot of detail for "common knowledge" and I wonder at your sources.

I also don't have anything in particular that you said that I disagree with...
 
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
 
I have a friend who adopted and I learned most of what DDDash said listening to her problems (mom was good, dad was good the he wasn't then genetic test said dad wasn't the dad and mom is claiming random hookup with no last names exchanged). I can see that all as common knowledge.
 
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
 
Stone -

I have two parents who adopted from foster care, so I've paid alot of attention to adoption law, etc.

I also belong to several custody issues groups online because I've had issues with my own situation involving my son, his father, his grandparents, his half-sister, etc. You eventually pick up on stuff. Most of the details will shift from state to state, but themes remain pretty consistent.
 
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
 
Oh yeah, and most states have their laws listed online. I've actually read through the family law sections of about half a dozen of them. It's mostly dull, but you do pull out nuggets now and then.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Frisco:
I don't feel, as fugu does, that a technicality is enough to warrant an entire disconnect between a man's choice about his life and a woman's choice concerning her body.

Again, there's a reason why this 'technicality' is actually far closer to being described as a 'sacrosanct right,' the alternatives to which are not worth much consideration.
 
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
 
I wonder if people's opinions of that case would change if the baby had lived...

And I wonder why so many doctors felt it was inadvisable for the baby's health as well...
 
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by DDDaysh:
And I wonder why so many doctors felt it was inadvisable for the baby's health as well

I don't know the details, although it is a case I'll read up on.

I can say that this case appears to have occurred in the mid-1980s, and viability & prognosis for preterm infants was quite different then (roughly 25 years ago). Plus, the woman was missing half her pelvis, and I don't know how that affected the uterus, so it may have altered things.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by DDDaysh:
I wonder if people's opinions of that case would change if the baby had lived...

And I wonder why so many doctors felt it was inadvisable for the baby's health as well...

too premature, among other complications. they just knew that the odds of being able to keep the baby alive outside of the womb were just freaking nil.

so, unsurprising, at the end of the facts section:

quote:
At age thirteen, Angela Stoner was diagnosed with a rare and usually fatal form of cancer, Ewing's sarcoma. Despite numerous doctors warning her of imminent death she survived. After years of chemotherapy and radiation therapy she was declared to be in remission. She got married and sought her doctor's advice on whether she could become pregnant with her health history. Since her cancer had been in remission for several years, her obstetrician said to go ahead and get pregnant, which she did.
In 1987, when Carder was twenty-six weeks pregnant, her cancer was discovered to have recurred and metastasized to her lung. Her initial plan was to begin radiation and chemotherapy immediately as she had been through too much already not to at least try to prolong her life, regardless of risks to the fetus. The doctors at George Washington University Hospital in Washington, D.C. immediately gave Carder only days to live and disagreed with her choice to put her own life ahead of that of the fetus. Instead of treating the cancer, they ignored her protests and inserted an oral feeding tube into her and administered sedatives in an effort to delay her death and increase her fetus' chance of continued development.
Whatever her choice, the administrators of the hospital – who were also the liability risk managers – were concerned that she had not elected to have an immediate C-section. Fearing a lawsuit by aggressive pro-life activists, they convened a court hearing at the hospital and obtained separate counsels for Carder, her fetus, and the hospital. At the hearing, family members, including Carder’s husband, opposed the C-section on the grounds that she would be unlikely to survive it and that she would not want it (Carder herself, now gravely ill and heavily sedated, did not testify). Her treating physicians also opposed the procedure. However, a neonatologist not personally familiar with her medical status testified that the fetus would have at least a 60% chance of survival – nearly that of a healthy woman’s fetus at the same gestational age. Carder’s own long-term oncologist was not contacted; he has since stated that he would have called the procedure "medically inadvisable both for Angela Carder and for the fetus".
Nonetheless, and despite medical testimony that such a procedure would probably end Carder’s life, an order was issued authorizing the hospital to perform an immediate C-section. Obstetricians at the hospital initially refused to carry out the procedure, but eventually one reluctantly agreed. A three-judge appellate panel upheld the decision in an emergency telephone appeal, despite Carder’s own repeated pleas of "I don’t want it done."
Exactly how long the fetus survived is a matter of some dispute; the most commonly cited figure is two hours. Susan Faludi quotes the obstetrician who performed the surgery as saying attempts to inflate the fetus’s lungs were "like trying to ventilate a rock".
Angela Carder was informed of her baby's death and survived her surgery for two days before lapsing into a coma and dying thereafter.


 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
quote:
I wonder if people's opinions of that case would change if the baby had lived...
I'm sure some opinions would change, but mine wouldn't-particularly given that it was unlikely, medically, that the baby would survive in any event. Compelling the procedure, even if it turns out to work, involves a host of what should be deeply troubling implications concerning the question, "Hey, what are women *for*, anyway-and who decides?"

Anyway, no one here has specifically affirmed the initial decision to do the procedure over protest. So my thoughts aren't an argument to anyone here.
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
quote:
I don't feel, as fugu does, that a technicality is enough to warrant an entire disconnect between a man's choice about his life and a woman's choice concerning her body.
The distinction between ones physical body and ones money is hardly a minor technicality. What is rightfully ones property is a matter of social consensus. A persons physical body is a biological fact.

If you get money by selling cars or computers, we consider it legally yours. If you get money by selling heroin, stolen goods or state secrets, its not. If you get your money by providing medical care, teaching, or building houses, its legally yours. If get your money by stealing or embezzlement, its not. Why? Because we agree that this is so.

But my physical body isn't my property -- it is me. It isn't something I possess by common consent -- it is integral and inseparable from me. If a person is not free to do what they choose with their body, they are not free by any reasonable definition of the word.
 
Posted by KirKis (Member # 12454) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by DDDaysh:
As for being tricked into being a dad….

Sabotaging the condom goes back to the whole, “No birth control is foolproof, if you don’t want a baby, keep your reproductive parts to yourself, argument.”

And as for being named the father on the birth certificate… most states won’t allow a father, other than the woman’s husband, to be put on the birth certificate unless the father has taken a DNA test OR has signed a voluntary acknowledgement of paternity. In the states that will allow a father (I think maybe Hawaii and a couple of others???), being listed on the Birth Certificate doesn’t actually confer a legal relationship, and has no bearing on child support or custody.

So the ONLY way you can get to be listed as a legal father without being the genetic dad, is if you voluntarily sign a piece of paper saying you want to be named the father without a DNA test OR if you’re married to the mother. The marriage thing is a whole different ballgame and basically happens because the law considers any child born to a woman in the marriage to be the legal child of the husband. The husband would have to legally deny the child within a certain time frame of the birth to not be the legal father. There have been attempts to overturn that presumption, but most people don’t want to. If the father is skeptical up front, he CAN still challenge it with a test shortly after birth. The thinking here is about what is in the child’s best interest, and honestly that’s what society SHOULD be thinking about. It really wouldn’t be fair to the child if, after 7 or 8 years, Dad gets suspicious and suddenly decides he doesn’t want to be Dad anymore. I agree that those situations can suck for the Dad, and that’s why there is debate about the presumption, but so far society seems to feel it isn’t a big enough problem to change the law.

For sabotaging the condom... That's really unfair to the guy. A woman that does this on purpose and proven in a court of law should be punished greatly, imo.

As for the Birth Certificate situation... My father was in this situation. He made money and a woman knew it so she listed his name on the child birth certificate then took him to court to get child support. Luckily my father was able to save enough money to buy the best lawyer he could find and the lawyer caught the woman in a lie about the weather during conception. If it wasn't for that, he would have lost almost certainly. This was in PA.

Granted this was some time ago and perhaps things have changed since. I can only speak from personal experience on the matter.

As for me, I had to fight just to get a DNA test to prove my daughter was mine. I paid $300 for an out-of-court DNA test which the mother flat out refused when she got the notice. Then I had to hire a lawyer and get an court ordered DNA test.

When my daughter was born I did not have to take a DNA test, we were in Montana at the time.

And like I pointed out before... My own lawyer told me, before finding out the results, that even if I wasn't the father through DNA I can still be labeled as the father by law and have to pay child support. I live in Virginia.

Lawyer said she had seen it happen before and I have no reason not to believe her. She said it was because the courts look at what is "best interest of child." So yeah.

Just because you aren't the father doesn't mean you aren't going to be appointed as the father by the courts. This isn't fair. A woman can say you're the father and now its practically a dice roll.

Here is a link http://www.mensrights.com/index.php/Articles/What-To-Do-When-You-Are-The-Victim-of-Paternity-Fraud.html
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
If it is true that the court makes men pay for child support of children who have been proven to not be the father of, that is outrageous. If it is true. I personally doubt it.
 
Posted by KirKis (Member # 12454) on :
 
Paternity Fraud is very real.

The courts look for whats best for the child. Obviously what is best is to have two parents...

http://blogs.kansascity.com/crime_scene/2008/12/un-freaking-bel.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1nQH8sfV3Q&feature=player_embedded

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=112470961

http://www.babble.com/CS/blogs/strollerderby/archive/2008/12/07/man-forced-to-pay-child-support-for-another-man-s-child.aspx

http://www.laryholland.com/serendipity/archives/459-Paying-Child-Support-For-Another-Mans-Child-Falsely-Convicted-Rapists-Get-Better-Deal.html

I can go on...
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
Okay...it's outrageous!

BTW KirKis, your first link is to a discussion board, which quotes from a news story, the same exact story as your third link, although on a different site, and your fourth link is just an opinion on the story.
 
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
 
So, why are you not advocating for more fairness in child support (such as ensuring that the man is the father) instead of allowing the actual DNA proven father to abandon his child? Also, the first story seems to come from the fact that the man did not come to the trial originally. He received a summons and ignored it. If he had come to court on that original trial, where it all started, and said, hey wrong guy, then this chain probably wouldn't have happened. the last link is mostly opinion- not enough to figure out what actually happened and what is biased view.
 
Posted by KirKis (Member # 12454) on :
 
Oops I posted the wrong link.

Anyways you can see how it actually happens. It even made it on CNN.


@Scholarette - LOL interesting that you word it that way. Since my previous posts were, in fact, advocating for rights to men who are in "extreme situations" and in either forced, tricked, and/or manipulated to become a father. Not trying to get deadbeats to drop all responsibilty.

I applaud you for saying "actual DNA proven father to abandon his child?" to make it seem like I want men to just abandon their children.

I'm sure you didn't mean anything by that... right?

Anyways the point of my links was made. The issue is real. Along with the issues I brought up before are actually real.

Sure you can say that one of the links I made just didn't have enough information... really? You want more information? All you need to know is a guy is paying for a child that isn't his. He became a father by trickery... Which... like previously stated... I am against.

That is all I really need to know to be upset about this. Okay so he got a summons and ignored it. Sure he should have paid more attention but still? Because of that he becomes the father? If that is your idea of fair play... I fold.
 
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
 
I don't think the guy should be a father, but I don't think it was a nefarious plot. It was a clerical error that spun out of control. It should have been fixed but it doesn't prove a widespread issue. With the other case, if I was a woman and admitted the dad was not the father, I would return the checks and not make a fuss. So, I guess I figure there must be more to the story. Why was this even before the courts if the mother wasn't making an issue? And if she was, was there a reason for that? One of my relatives had a case where his gf had many potential fathers and was considering an abortion. He told her if she had the child, regardless of DNA, he would be the father. If there was some agreement like that in play, then I might side with him having to pay. Another relative's wife had an affair and everyone but wife said there was no possible way the kid was his. When he decided to reconcile with wife, he said I know not mine, but I am going to raise him like mine. The actual father didn't want to be a father and was relieved and went about his life. When my cousin and his wife did divorce, he got full custodial rights over the child. If he were to now change his mind, after years of being the only father this child has had, I would not be too upset with the court saying no.

I think I confused the arguments you and Frisco were making, so I apologize if I accused you of something you didn't support.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
When it comes to the wrong guy being held accountable by the law for child support, there is no excuse. The state needs to get this 100% right, and pay back every cent of wrongfully collected child support, as well award some damages to those who were wrongfully imprisoned.

When it comes to actual biological father's waving their rights and not paying child support...well, I'll keep it simple. I don't agree at all.

ETA: Now I'm confused as well...sorry if that last comment should be aimed at someone else.

[ July 05, 2011, 02:45 PM: Message edited by: Stone_Wolf_ ]
 
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by scholarette:
It should have been fixed but it doesn't prove a widespread issue.

I think this is the crux of it.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Frisco:
quote:
I think you'll find few people sympathetic to the idea that the right to control your body is a technicality.
The technicality of which I spoke was that of the complete disconnect between body and life, even though the two are so clearly closely connected.


They are not "clearly closely connected". Being required to relinquish property happens all the time. Being required to relinquish sovereignty over our own bodies when we have not committed a crime turns us back into property.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
Every single law abiding citizen relinquishes "part of their life" once a year...around April 15th.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
I am not sure how that applies.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
Unlike body sovereignty, which is never legally given up, money is annually required by law from each citizen. There can be no equating body sovereignty and money.

Clearer boots?
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
Oh. Yes. I thought you were contradicting me.
 
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
 
Kris,

When your father was trying to be proven the father, were DNA tests available?

Your other posts only show a man who ignored a legal summons. I agree that that situation is pretty stupid, BUT it's also incredibly rare that you'll end up with mistaken identity, and if he HAD called the court (which is the sensible thing to do if you receive CERTIFIED mail that isn't yours), it wouldn't have happened. I don't think he should honestly be on the hook when it's clear this was a paperwork error, but this is WAY closer to the credit collection agencies that continuously hound the wrong John Smith than it has to do with child support cases.

I suppose you do bring up a good point though. It is true that it is possible, in SOME states, for you to be named the father without a DNA test or a voluntary paternity acknowledgement, since some states will issue default judgements against fathers who don't show up to the court date to determine paternity. I suppose I didn't think of the fact that some people will actually ignore a legal summons.

However, much of what your sites talk about are guys who SIGNED pieces of paper saying, "yes, I'm the dad", then realized they weren't and wanted out of the contract. I don't know how it works in your state, but I sat through a lady telling my ex(now ex, we were together at the time) to NOT sign the paper unless he was 100% sure he was the dad, that he only had 60 days from the time he signed to contest it, that he really REALLY shouldn't sign unless he was absolutely positive, that even if it turned out, a year from now he wasn't the biological father the paper was binding, and all of that over and over for about 20 minutes. THEN I had to watch her insist on talking to him in the hall for a further 10 minutes before she'd let him sign the paper. When you've just vaginally delivered a 9.5 pound baby fathered by the only man you've ever been with, it's pretty upsetting to have someone insinuate that you're a lying whore for half an hour. Yet, I knew why they did it, and was patient through the whole thing. My ex signed the paper. (Ironically, a few years later, he decided to start claiming my son wasn't his.) Maybe states are different, but in Texas it's very clear that the paper is a done deal and that you shouldn't sign it if you aren't positive the kid is yours.

I'm sorry you had such a rough time getting a DNA test for your son. The law was on your side though, and you got it in the end. People dodging legal service and disobeying court orders are pretty much par for the course in the custody game though, so it's not really unusual to have delays of several months either way. In your case, you got the raw end of the stick, but it's just as often (probably more often) that mothers have to support children on their own for months or years before the Dad can be legally ordered to pay.

I have to ask, were you married to your son's mother? I thought you said you were. If you were, that changes the game on "legal father" as I mentioned. If not, I'm wondering why your lawyer thought you could still be named the father. I was just looking through the Virginia Family Code, and it looks like voluntary AOP, paternity test, or failure to respond to the suit are the only ways you could be named father.

As for the punishment of women who sabotage condoms... try proving THAT in court. Unless you seriously want to tie up family courts for years, you'd have to be able to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that she did indeed do that. Even then, I'll only agree to that if you agree to also prosecute men who claim to have had vasectomies!
 
Posted by KirKis (Member # 12454) on :
 
@DDD - DNA tests weren't used in PA when my father was accused so it happened a bit more back then.

Legal summons or no, a man who is not the father should not be named the father unless the guy wants to be the father. Anything else is wrong.

If a man is deceived to be the father, sign the paper, and later finds out he is not the father... He should then be allowed to not be the father if he so chooses.

It took years for me to get where I am with my daughter.

At the time she was born I was married to my ex. There was doubt about me being the father from the way the situation played out. Anyone would have felt the same. One month after the baby was born she (ex) abandoned me in Montana and moved back to Virginia (I was stationed out in Montana). She also cheated on me even while we were dating as well as her "part-time job" she had when we first met (I didn't know about this until much later). <-- In my defense, I was 18, stupid, and a virgin... So of course this seemed like the ideal woman! lol...

As for the men who claim to have had vasectomies... Sure! Burn them! Get it on tape or record it somehow... I'm all for fair play.

here is a website dedicated to this sort of topic. I'm sure they have more links and statistics about this sort of thing.
http://www.maketherealdadpay.org/
 
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
 
KirKis - the legal summons clause is necessary because so many people will run from the DNA test for years otherwise. It isn't fair for a child not to be supported for YEARS because his "father" doesn't care.

In cases where they do end up finding out a different man is the dad though... well, I think there should be some consideration if the man wasn't married and hasn't actively parented. However, biology isn't, and has never been the END all of being a parent. Once you assume a parental role in a child's life, I think it's a very tricky thing to sever that relationship. It isn't JUST CS that's being severed, but a whole lot of other things defined by a legal parent/child relationship as well. That gets harder.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
I think they should simply make a dna test mandatory at birth. Then if the man signs anyway, he knows what he is signing up for.
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
DNA tests are expensive. The number of cases where the presumed father isn't really the father aren't large enough to justify the expense and other risks associated with DNA testing everyone at birth.

DNA tests aren't fool proof. Mistakes do get made and the more you test, the more mistakes will be made. Imagine the harm that would be caused to a happy family if the father were determined to not be the real father because of a lab mistake.
 
Posted by KirKis (Member # 12454) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
DNA tests are expensive. The number of cases where the presumed father isn't really the father aren't large enough to justify the expense and other risks associated with DNA testing everyone at birth.

If you don't DNA test every baby then you can't say that there isn't enough of this going on to justify the expense and other risks. This can be going on all the time but you won't know because you didn't check them all.

Thats like me saying that illegal drugs aren't a problem in America because I only know 4 people who do it.
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
Don't be ridiculous. You don't have to test everyone to know how common something is, you only need to test a representative sample. Numerous studies have been done. In the population at large, paternal discrepancy occurs in 3 - 4% of the population but some groups have much higher rates than others. The rates are much higher among those who are young, poor and neither married nor in a long term relationship. In married couples, the paternal discrepancy rate is less than 1 in 100.

[ July 07, 2011, 07:39 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
In related news, there are a small number of cities starting to use DNA testing to match dogs with crap that is lying around.
quote:
DNA registration of pets, and subsequent DNA identification of wayward dung — but it seems to be slowly, slowly gaining acceptance. The Israeli city Petah Tikvah gave it a try, and now the New York Post reports (and Gothamist follows) about an apartment complex in Rockville Center, Long Island, that’s using the DNA method to punish owners who don’t pick up after their dogs.
http://www.freakonomics.com/2011/07/06/ridding-the-streets-of-dog-poop-one-dna-test-at-a-time/
 
Posted by KirKis (Member # 12454) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
Don't be ridiculous. You don't have to test everyone to know how common something is, you only need to test a representative sample. Numerous studies have been done. In the population at large, paternal discrepancy occurs in 3 - 4% of the population but some groups have much higher rates than others. The rates are much higher among those who are young, poor and neither married nor in a long term relationship. In married couples, the paternal discrepancy rate is less than 1 in 100.

lolz. First, I'd love to see your source for these statistics. Secondly, based on the http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html website I see 311,712,150 in America. That is a lot of people. Even if this happens to "3 - 4% of the population"... that is more than enough to warrent some protection in the law books.

Also take into consideration people already damaged by this, currently, and will be damaged.
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
I think they should simply make a dna test mandatory at birth. Then if the man signs anyway, he knows what he is signing up for.

Why mandatory? If the man wants a DNA test, he can get one done. Why should we force this expense on people who don't want it?

Honestly, this whole line seems like complaining about an already solved problem. People are freely able to get paternity tests done. What more is needed?
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
I'm not sure exactly how much it is, but I found some online for $80, and I would think that the cost (if made mandatory) would drop precipitously. It just strikes me as being fair that if you are going to have a legally binding agreement to be a child's parent, that you know if you are. Sure it would be a waste in most cases. If I was offered one, I'd decline, I trust my wife explicitly. But by making it requirement before an official "father" could be declared, it would remove most of the problems which have been brought up in this thread.

It is entirely possible that it is killing a mosquito with tnt, but that little sucker would be dead. *shrug*
 
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
 
I think before you could do a mandatory test, you need to determine the accuracy rate of the DNA test. You have numerous points where contamination can occur while taking the sample, labeling properly, mailing, etc. It would be kinda cool to find out frequency of chimeras in human population. I have heard of one properly tested and documented after her kids didn't match up with her DNA. I imagine they are very rare, but when we hit the whole population, it might be a frequency worth knowing.

As far as costs, I can see many people who would find having the entire population's DNA profile recorded at birth to be worth a large amount of money.
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
quote:
lolz. First, I'd love to see your source for these statistics.
There are a lot of studiesHere is a pretty good review


quote:
Secondly, based on the http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html website I see 311,712,150 in America. That is a lot of people. Even if this happens to "3 - 4% of the population"... that is more than enough to warrent some protection in the law books.

Raw numbers of people are kind of meaningless. In a population of over 300 million, there will be a lot of people with even the rarest of conditions. There are already many legal protections for false paternity. No is arguing there should be no protection. The question is whether the protections you are recommending would be of overal benefit to society.

There are more issues at hand than whether or not some men are legally require to support children they aren't biologically related too.

The consequences of mandatory genetic screening for paternity for all newborns have the potential to have rather traumatic effects on families.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
quote:
The consequences of mandatory genetic screening for paternity for all newborns have the potential to have rather traumatic effects on families.
Are you suggesting that a false negative would hurt families (which I would agree with) or that a real negative would hurt families (which I would disagree with, I would say that the cheating wife who cuckolded her husband hurt her family).
 
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
 
In some ways, the paternity rules are also designed to protect men, though the fact that this doesn't come up in discussion is kinda interesting. Imagine you have raised a kid for 10 years. Now you get a paternity test for some reason and find out, this kid isn't yours. Would you really want to just dump the kid and be done with it? Or would this child still be your child? The courts are going to say this is still your child, that those ten years you spent bonding mean something. My cousin, who knew his wife cheated on him and one of his sons isn't his, got custody of the boy in the divorce. If his ex were to come back and say, hey, you have no genetic link to this child and try to take full custody, with no connection to his son, he would be devastated. This is his child, regardless of blood. And I think that is a good thing, for men and children. You can bond without worrying that someday that child will be taken because of infidelity. I know a lot of people say they don't want to adopt becuase what if the mom comes back and takes the kid. The laws make sure a dad doesn't have to worry about that.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
That is a good point scholarette, and a point in favor of paternity testing at birth...like I nsaid before, if it doesn't match, then the man knows what he is signing up for.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
As has been mentioned, paternity tests are easily available all over the country to anyone who wants them. This isn't an issue that needs government intrusion-the capability to protect themselves to the furthest extent possible already exists for men, and it's known. They don't even have to let the mother know they're doing it, in fact.

This problem is already solved.
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
That is a good point scholarette, and a point in favor of paternity testing at birth...like I nsaid before, if it doesn't match, then the man knows what he is signing up for.

Is it? I believe you have a two year old son and a infant daughter (correct me if I'm wrong). If you found out tomorrow that he was not your biological son, would you wish you had known the day he was born? Would you wish you had divorced your wife that day, never formed the bond you have with your son and never had your daughter? I don't know the answer to those questions, but certainly for many people the rewards of parenting and family life are worth the risk of parenting someone who doesn't share there genes. Isn't the bond of having nurtured a child much stronger than the genetic link.

Then think about from your son's perspective. If you aren't his biological father, would he be better off without you in his life? What if it was your second child who turned out to not be yours rather than the first -- would you and your children be better off knowing this? In what way?

Finally, consider the worst case scenario. Genetic tests aren't always reliable. If there is a 1% chance of the test coming back negative when you really are the father and then (as a married person) the chances that a negative result is wrong about actually a little greater than the chances that you really aren't the father. Would mandatory maternity testing be a good thing if tens of thousands of people, who were really the genetic father of their children, were falsely found not to be? If that happened only 1 time in a thousand, that would mean 300,000 such errors if everyone in the US were tested and far more people than that would be effected (father, child and mother at a minimum for each test).
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
I would absolutely want to know, and would be better off for knowing it as soon as possible. If my wife was the kind of woman (she isn't even a tiny tiny bit) who would let me raise another man's son, she would likely continue to fool around on me, and one day eventually, I would likely find out, and it would lead to divorce and a messy messy messy custody case, one that would hurt even worse as I would fight for my (read as those I raised) children like I had fought for nothing else in my life.

If I found out sooner, then the children would not have their lives torn to shreds by having their family explode. It wouldn't be great, but it is hardly a great scenario.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
As to the test being wrong, I would not believe the first test anyway if it said I wasn't the father. I would want and pay for at least four more.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
Maybe we should make five tests mandatory. Just in case.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
[sarcasm]Thanks, that's a great idea boots! What would I ever do without you?[/sarcasm]

[ July 07, 2011, 04:04 PM: Message edited by: Stone_Wolf_ ]
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
Why is it necessary, given that the remedy is already available, that it be forced on people?
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
[sarcasm]Thanks, that's a great idea boots! What would I ever do without you?[/sarcasm]

Yes. I got that.

Perhaps, on your own, you could realize that even ounces of prevention, if there are enough of them, can weigh one down more than the rare pound of cure.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
I can't very well realize on my own what you just pointed out.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
Well, it was a rhetorical answer to what I assumed was a rhetorical question.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
I'm okay with the current system. My suggestion was just that, a suggestion. *shrug*
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
Somehow a "suggestion" to make something mandatory doesn't seem "suggestiony". [Wink] It might make more sense to suggest testing to those individuals who are in doubt and who want those doubts resolved.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
The idea behind making it mandatory is that it would it catch bastards that would otherwise slip through the cracks and cause problems latter.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
I understand that. Again, I think that, given the actual risk, your remedy is an overreaction.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
I'm okay with the current system.


 
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
 
Didn't we have a big long thread from maybe Clive about why everyone should have to have a paternity test cause women are lying tramps?
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
I thought for a second you said "flying tramps"...and my mind went to..."Is it a bird? a plane? not it's a slut!"
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by scholarette:
Didn't we have a big long thread from maybe Clive about why everyone should have to have a paternity test cause women are lying tramps?

Yes. It was titled "Mandatory Paternity Tests." I saved a copy of it before it got deleted because it was so surreal.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
Yep. Been here before. It was also either part of a thread or at about the sae time as a thread about how unfair it is that women can get abortions while men have no choice about child support.
 
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
 
So, do all threads by Sa'ed end here? (assuming Saed is Clive)
 
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by scholarette:
Didn't we have a big long thread from maybe Clive about why everyone should have to have a paternity test cause women are lying tramps?

I was just going to mention what an irony it was that we came back to this in this thread.
 
Posted by KirKis (Member # 12454) on :
 
Well i'd just like to add that I have had a DNA test before and it isn't just "Positive or Negative". It is a Statistical %. Mine was 99.9%. Which the court found to be high enough to declare me the biological father.

I would like to think that if the test was a requirement at birth, the hosipital can perform the test without anyone knowing or thinking about it. They only need to point anything out to the father if it doesn't match up.

Sure the solution (DNA testing) is out there. The problem is men will be reluctant to do it. Not many men sleep with their loved one and not think that the baby isn't theirs unless the mother tells them. Having the test a requirement would allow the man to be sure without angering the woman.

If you said to the woman "I think this baby might not be mine, I want a DNA test"... you'll never hear the end of it! If it was a requirement... that problem can be avoided. You will still be looked at as trusting the woman all while keeping you safe too. It is a win-win for the man. It prevents any parental fraud. If the test came back 0% ... Well you have a lot more to worry about then whether or not you want to be the father of the child!

@Rabbit - "There are more issues at hand than whether or not some men are legally require to support children they aren't biologically related too."

Wow, the "more important matters" line. I feel that if you were the one going through it you'd feel differently about the significance of it.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
quote:
They only need to point anything out to the father if it doesn't match up.
They wouldn't need to point anything out to the presumptive father, even then. In fact, I can imagine very few situations in which any good would come of it.
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
quote:
If you said to the woman "I think this baby might not be mine, I want a DNA test"... you'll never hear the end of it!
Again, this is a problem that already has a solution. Paternity tests can be requested without informing the mother.

On a sort of opposite side, paternity tests cannot (ethically) be performed without the father's consent. If this test is required to declare fatherhood, does this mean that a father who doesn't want to give people access to his DNA cannot legally be declared the father?
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
quote:
If you said to the woman "I think this baby might not be mine, I want a DNA test"... you'll never hear the end of it! If it was a requirement... that problem can be avoided. You will still be looked at as trusting the woman all while keeping you safe too.
So...there should be a major expense and violations of privacy for everyone because some men are too big of pansies to state their minds and deal with the fallout?

A relationship where this issue is a possibility but can't be discussed and the man is running away from having a real conversation isn't worth saving. It's going to die anyway.
 
Posted by KirKis (Member # 12454) on :
 
@Tom - "They wouldn't need to point anything out to the presumptive father, even then. In fact, I can imagine very few situations in which any good would come of it." Why wouldn't they need to tell the father "your not the father"? You make no sense to me. Please clarify.

@Squicky - "Paternity tests can be requested without informing the mother." Sure, but why would a man request this unless he already has a suspicion? What about the unsuspecting man? Too bad your screwed?

@Katharina - Major expense? Not really. Violations of privacy? They run tests on the baby when he/she is born anyways. The only real violation after that is to the man. Is that what your talking about?

So lets see... A woman who is pregnant, already has wacked out hormones... is being told by the man that he has doubts about the baby being his and he wants a DNA test. Of course the pregnant woman should smile warmly and say "ok, no problem, lets test it to be sure to put your mind at ease." ... Yeah ok - Not going to happen.
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by scholarette:
So, do all threads by Sa'ed end here? (assuming Saed is Clive)

No, some of them begin here. I presume KirKis is also Clive?
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
I'm pretty sure that Tom and I and Sean are also Clive. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
quote:
@Squicky - "Paternity tests can be requested without informing the mother." Sure, but why would a man request this unless he already has a suspicion? What about the unsuspecting man? Too bad your screwed?
errr...Every man has the option of getting a paternity test done. If they choose not to use that, that's their business, even if it is a mistake on their part. At some point, you have to stop treating putative adults as children, especially when what you're talking about is a government mandated unnecessary medical procedure that intrudes on people's privacy. There's a line of compelling interest that you need to cross and, as far as I can tell, you haven't even tried to show how that state has any interest in this at all.

We've stopped talking about men paying child support for children who aren't theirs and whom they don't want to support. They're generally going to get a paternity test. So what, we're now forcing DNA tests on every presumptive father (and, as far as I can tell, denying legal fatherhood to those who object to having their DNA taken against their will) because there are some men in stable relationship who may not choose to get paternity tests done and will thus mistakenly think that the child they are raising is their own?

At best, that would call for a campaign to make fathers aware that they can and maybe should ask for a paternity test and even that is something I think would be stupid to spend government money on.
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
quote:
A woman who is pregnant, already has wacked out hormones... is being told by the man that he has doubts about the baby being his and he wants a DNA test. Of course the pregnant woman should smile warmly and say "ok, no problem, lets test it to be sure to put your mind at ease." ... Yeah ok - Not going to happen.
So...women are irrational and crazy and men should be enabled to run away from having a sincere conversation.

What a pathetic bunch of men. And what a sexist assumption.

If a hard thing ("I think you had sex with another man.") needs to be said, then say it. If you think she's been sleeping around and lying about it, why are you pussyfooting around her in order to save the relationship? It's already dead.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
A few things to keep in perspective. There is a form you sign, that is legally binding making you the father regardless of dna, and you only have a very limited amount of time to do anything about it before you are on the hook for life.

Of course this is done for the interest of the child, but if this were not the case, there would be no good reason for a mandatory paternity test.

Second, I don't think we are talking about the dna being kept on record here, just a simple comparison between potential father and the child.

Third, I don't think it is a situation where without a dna test, you can not be legally declared the father (yes, that is the obvious assumption by the word mandatory) but instead a situation where you can sign a waiver and be excluded from testing and still be declared legal father, but you acknowledge that if at a later date it turns out that you are not the biological father, then you are still responsible.

All and all I agree with the majority that paternity testing is currently an option, an option that can be done without the knowledge of the mother and that is good enough, but I also think that people are not acknowledging the real benefits of such a plan.

*edited for clarity
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Again, why does any of that need to be mandatory? DNA tests are possible, even without the mother even knowing about it.

How about pushing for an education campaign ("Suspect your wife is a liar and sleeps around? Be sure that kid is yours!") before mandatory testing, which causes a load of complications and is costly in very real terms.

I recognize the possible scattered benefits of a mandatory plan. I also recognize the huge costs of such a plan, and since DNA testing is avaiable for everyone anyway, the benefits don't outweigh the costs, not even close.

SW, I am not sure you recognize the costs of such a mandatory plan. What do you see the costs to be?
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
kat...your assumptive and negatively emotionally charged posting style rubs me the wrong way nearly every single time I read one of your posts.

And the worst part is, that your points are sometimes valid, but because you jump to so many negative conclusions and are so combative that I want to argue with you whether or not I actually agree with your point.
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
The assumption behind the mandatory plan is that women cannot and should not be trusted - that every one should be double-checked to protect men against them.

It's inherently a mysoginistic stance. I'm not surprised you don't like hearing it called that. If it helps, I don't like hearing that sort of statement.

----

Look at the defense for the mandatory plan - pregnant, hormonal women are crazy and men shouldn't have to deal with them. Every aspect of this hinges on how men are victims of women and so all women should be trusted as liars - guilty of adultery until a DNA test proves them innocent. It's not an attractive stance.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
kat, to your question...I'm against mandatory testing...but the cost...online you can find dna tests for $80, and if made mandatory that cost would go down a lot.

As to inherently misogynistic...I'm divided, I can see why you would think so, but again, if the system wasn't set up in a way to make it legally binding for life no matter what the dna says, then there would be no call for it.

Clearly it is a reactionary measure.
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
 
I agree with you, katharina.
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
 
SW, I think it's more accurate to say the legal system makes it binding until the presumption of paternity is disproven. Any presumed father can check on that if he wants.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
The system is not, in fact, set up to bind a man for life (18 years, actually) regardless of DNA. If, however, someone has been a father in a child's life, in terms of behavior, *sometimes* he will be bound as the father regardless of DNA. That's a bit different, to say the least.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
Any presumed father can check on that if he wants.

You say that like I don't know, instead of saying that myself within the last two minutes.

Remember here people, I agree that it shouldn't be made mandatory. I just understand why someone might want it to be that way.
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
Any presumed father can check on that if he wants.

You say that like I don't know, instead of saying that myself within the last two minutes.
I am sorry if I misunderstood. You seemed to be saying the system was binding no matter what the DNA says, and that was what I was responding to.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
Perhaps I am the one who is confused.

My understanding is that there is a form that men sign saying they are the father, and that they have only 60 or so days to change their mind, and after that, the form is binding even if at a later date the dna shows that he is in fact not the father.

Is this not true?
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
quote:
Remember here people, I agree that it shouldn't be made mandatory. I just understand why someone might want it to be that way.
I too think I understand why some people might want it that way. It basically boils down to, they are misogynist jerks who think protecting men from the evil wiles of manipulative woman should be a social priority. I disagree.
 
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:
Originally posted by scholarette:
So, do all threads by Sa'ed end here? (assuming Saed is Clive)

No, some of them begin here. I presume KirKis is also Clive?
It's certainly beginning to seem that way. [Razz]

quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
kat...your assumptive and negatively emotionally charged posting style rubs me the wrong way nearly every single time I read one of your posts.

And the worst part is, that your points are sometimes valid, but because you jump to so many negative conclusions and are so combative that I want to argue with you whether or not I actually agree with your point.

Oh, the IRONY!
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
Perhaps I am the one who is confused.

My understanding is that there is a form that men sign saying they are the father, and that they have only 60 or so days to change their mind, and after that, the form is binding even if at a later date the dna shows that he is in fact not the father.

Is this not true?

Sorry, I missed that you were talking only about the Texas situation described on the previous page.

Still, that understanding is not quite true.

quote:
An acknowledgment of paternity may be rescinded by filing a motion to rescind within 60 days of the date of signing the acknowledgment. [TFC § 160.307]. A challenge to the acknowledgment may be filed after the 60 day period, but must claim fraud, duress, or material mistake of fact. The results of a paternity test showing that the acknowledged father is not the biological father constitutes a material mistake of fact. [TFC § 160.308].
https://www.oag.state.tx.us/cs/attorneys/crimnonsup/crimnonsuphb_ch11.shtml

Other sites claim the extended time limit is only 4 years, but I think it would be extremely rare to develop doubts after 4 years. This leaves me a bit uncomfortable - it's not impossible to make a mistake and not find out until more than 4 years later - but, such cases should be few.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
Prepare yourselves hatrack, here comes a scenario:

Robert's wife has a child, and he thinks nothing of it, and signs on the dotted line. Right after the deadline ends for him to foreswear as father, it comes out that he has testicular cancer and is infertile (I have no idea if medically this is true) and has been for years. He asks his wife how she got pregnant and she admits sleeping around on him. He immediately files for divorce and doesn't want anything to do with the child, who is still a baby. He is not obligated to pay child support for the next 18 years instead of the child's real father.

Nothing that Robert's wife did caused him to suspect she was being unfaithful. He had no reason to ask for a paternity test.

Of course I see your point that if paternity testing is made mandatory it is unfairly assuming the possibility of infidelity in the vast majority of women. Which is one of the major reasons I am not for it.
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
 
In most cases, if they are married, there is no signing on the dotted line necessary. Legally Robert is the father unless he takes steps to establish otherwise.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
You know you love me rivka, don't bother to deny it.

Thank you for the info bum, it appears I was wrong in my understanding and I must eat crow.

You know, crow isn't so bad once you get used to it.
 
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
You know you love me rivka, don't bother to deny it.

Who's denying?

Our love is pure, but it is nonetheless forbidden. Alas!
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
That's what makes it so special! [Wink]
 
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
For some value of "special".
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
Short bus special?
 
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
If you say so.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
quote:
Why wouldn't they need to tell the father "your not the father"? You make no sense to me. Please clarify.
Examine the potential outcomes either way. Which are better?
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
You mean, if the hospital knew that the child didn't belong to the father and,

A) Didn't tell him. or

B) Told him?

Are those the options we are talking about Tom?
 
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
 
Usually when I ignore a topic for so long and I check in to see where the conversation has drifted to I find one person being a stubborn fool, and others declaring them to be so with as little tact as possible. But here I find SW and rivka involved in witty banter.

Hatrack, what has happened to you?
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
quote:
You mean, if the hospital knew that the child didn't belong to the father and,

A) Didn't tell him. or

B) Told him?

And c) the father hasn't asked; and d) the mother hasn't asked.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
You wouldn't want to know?
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
I expect if he wanted to know, he'd take the relatively simple and (unless he's screws it up) get the materials needed completely undetected, and have the test done. Easy. The mother need never know in the event of a match, that the man didn't trust her. If there is no match, then of course he can go forward from there.

The remedy to the problem you're mentioning is *already there*, perfectly available to any man who seeks it. Shall we require anyone signing a contract to take a test on the relevant law every time they do so, to ensure they are protected if they've made a foolish decision? When people buy a car, should they have to prove they personally understand its inner workings before they pay?
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Hm. No, I don't think I'd want to know. Independent of the question of whether or not my wife is cheating on me is the question of whether I would treat a child in my household differently if it were not my own. I submit that only selfish bastards care about the latter.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
I'm surprised by how judgmental your last statement is Tom. Only a selfish bastard would care if their children where theirs? Really?

We are not talking about an adopted child or raising your dead brother's child here.

Your wife cheating on you and the welfare of the child...how could you possibly make the two things independent? Yes the child's welfare is still important, but the child has a real father, and he is the one it should be important to.

In this scenario, your wife is cheating on you, and has been impregnated with his child, and is passing it off as yours. The hospital knows it's not yours, and you would rather not know?

I would never stay with someone who cheated on me, one strike you are out. My wife is the same way. It is not a small thing, marriage vows. I can't imagine how any self respecting person could just let that go.
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
 
I guess if you define self respect as the inability to forgive any infidelity in a marriage, you would be right.

For other values I'm sure you could come up with a plausible scenario.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
Oh, I'm sure I could imagine it...but let's not be that literal.

If you cheat on someone, they should ditch you...that's what I believe, and yes, part of the reason you should is to respect yourself.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
quote:
Yes the child's welfare is still important, but the child has a real father, and he is the one it should be important to.
Why?
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
I'm not sure this is a serious question here Tom...I mean do you really want me to go into detail about this, or is your three letter reply just a brush off?
 
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
 
I think Tom's question is a good one, actually. Sperm doesn't make you a father. Taking care of a kid, educating him, loving him does. I think you set too much store in DNA and not enough in, well, life as we live it.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
I would like you to go into detail explaining why a child born into your family and care, who just happens to contain another man's genetic material, should be more his concern than yours.
 
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
 
So it needs to be a mandatory test because men are afraid of pregnant women???

And what, exactly, is wrong with a 60 day window? Would you rather make it 90 days? 2 years? 10 years? There will always be people who find out "the truth" right after the time table is up. I suspect the 60 days is there to keep the courts from being bombarded with DNA tests every time a couple splits up.

Also, the child really MUST be considered. Once a father has parented, the kid has a right to expect him to continue to parent. Also, what about kids who were conceived with donor sperm? At the moment there are lots of people who use donor sperm (or eggs) and not every clinic follows the same practices. What happens if a couple who had IVF gets divorced and Dad claims it's not his based on DNA. The records that could be introduced into court are often different, so it would be hard to know if it were tampered with. Heck, what if it was just a lab mix up??

Personally, I think there is SOME merit in requiring a DNA test for all non-married parents. However, DNA tests aren't free, and it still costs several hundred dollars to do one. Who is going to pay?
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
I would like you to go into detail explaining why a child born into your family and care, who just happens to contain another man's genetic material, should be more his concern than yours.

Well, there's more to it than just an accident of genetic material. There's the problem of the mother being deeply untrustworthy on at least two issues-fidelity (sometimes, depending on timing) and, well, not lying with the implicit understanding, "This is your biological child."

I don't think there's anything wrong with a man being repelled to the point of leaving if, right at the start of starting a family, a couple of cornerstones are...shaky. Is it the ideal moral response? Well, no. But to raise a bastard that is attempted to be passed as yours, and to find out that it's *not* yours on one's own, not talking about an unprompted admission...well, I don't think many people are in a position to judge on so few details about the situation.
 
Posted by just_me (Member # 3302) on :
 
I have 2 young kids.

If I found out my wife had cheated on me and one or both of them weren't mine I might just kick her to the curb.

But I'd fight to keep the kids. Genes be damned... they're MY kids!
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
To be clear, I am speaking of a new baby. If I found out my kinds weren't mine, I would still fight for custody.

So, you find out your new baby is not yours and your wife is sleeping around...I say that your ability to trust and love your wife is severely compromised, and even if you were to try and stay with her, (I have no idea why you would want to) that your hurt and anger would only eat away at the relationship and cause problems down the road.

As to the child, they would be embodiment of your wife's infidelity, and no matter what good intentions you might have, I suspect that would manifest in one way or another.

Part of a marriage contract, and it is a contract, is fidelity, and once that is breached, all other clauses are also null and void.
 
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
 
I think this argument has left two questions unasked that points to whether this is women-fearing argument or not.

1) What are the numbers we are looking at. Do you imagine that 10% are defrauding their husbands in regards to their children? Is it 50%? Is it 1%? Is it far far less than 1%.

I think answers to that question will make this a very interesting conversation.

2) Why is it that Stone and others blame the wife for the problem. Why don't they blame the cheating man for the fraud?
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
As to question 2...the other man didn't take a vow of fidelity.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
quote:
Part of a marriage contract, and it is a contract, is fidelity, and once that is breached, all other clauses are also null and void.
Nah. While it's true that a marriage contract includes an expectation of fidelity -- or at least honesty -- I don't see the abrogation of a single clause of the contract as something that necessitates the cancellation of the whole.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
Rather a personal opinion there, isn't it Tom? And pretty strange considering many go into the arrangement with the expectation that a breach of that 'clause' *does* necessitate ditching the whole thing.

Those people who do-who go into a relationship with the understanding that infidelity is just cause to leave-and then do so if it happens aren't selfish bastards. Not by any usual understanding of those words anyway. You really have to stretch and bring your own meaning there.

Likewise, for *some* people, cheating nullifies everything else. It's not a given, though-it varies from couple to couple. One individual is hardly ever in a position to determine whether another individual has self respect, only if they deserve the respect of themselves, the ones looking.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
quote:
Those people who do-who go into a relationship with the understanding that infidelity is just cause to leave-and then do so if it happens aren't selfish bastards.
But like I said, that's a different issue. Dealing with your wife's infidelity is actually a completely separate problem from "Oh, this child I believed was the product of my genetic material actually isn't. I wonder if that means his sperm donor should care more about him than I do?"
 
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
 
I'm with Tom on this one. Leaving your wife because she cheated is one thing, deciding the kids you raised and loved for X years suddenly mean nothing to you is quite another.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
I'm not sure you are on Tom's side Anna. I don't think anyone here has said that they would leave their kids that they have raised and loved any significant amount of time. Several people have suggested that they (myself included) would fight for custody even though the children were not biologically theirs.

What got the ball rolling was Tom saying that if the hospital knew (at birth) that a child wasn't his, he wouldn't want to know, and anyone who did want to know and would not treat that brand new baby (who was not theirs) like his own child was a selfish bastard.

And here is why people care more for their own children Tom: 1) Nature...it is just a part of nature to want your genes to thrive. Bottlenose dolphins will kill the offspring of rivals to get the female dolphins to become available to have their own offspring. Genes are a large part of who and what we are, and wanting your children to have a piece of you, to be a part of you is not selfish or stupid, it is a major part of why people have children.

2) There are (according to this source) about two billion children in the world, and all are deserving of love, protection, caring and affection. How do you pick which ones to give your love to? Can't make it around to all 2,000,000,000.

3) Parental rights...that guy your wife cheated on you with has some.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Nah. While it's true that a marriage contract includes an expectation of fidelity -- or at least honesty -- I don't see the abrogation of a single clause of the contract as something that necessitates the cancellation of the whole.

I wonder if your (future?) wife would agree with you.
 
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
 
I would not treat anyone who wants to know, at birth, if a baby carries their DNA as selfish bastards, but I certainly don't think telling the truth is always a good solution in the case the hospital knows, but nobody asked.
The thing is, our children are our children because we decide so, not because they carry our DNA. See adoption. See egg and sperm donors. We are more than what nature makes us; links between man and wife, parent and child, are mostly build by society.
Besides, if "the guy your wife cheated with" cared about his parental rights, he'd do something about it. If he doesn't, chances are he doesn't care a damn about the kids, whether they are carrying his DNA or not.
Also, asking for a DNA test at birth is breaching the trust spouses should have one for another, and I think it is a much a part of a healthy marriage than fidelity often is.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
quote:
1) Nature...it is just a part of nature to want your genes to thrive. Bottlenose dolphins will kill the offspring of rivals to get the female dolphins to become available to have their own offspring. Genes are a large part of who and what we are, and wanting your children to have a piece of you, to be a part of you is not selfish or stupid...
No, it is selfish and stupid. It is also common. As you point out, there are a lot of children out there in the world. There are in fact a lot of people in the world. And the ones we generally include in our MonkeySphere are the ones who've been proximate to us for a while.

quote:
3) Parental rights...that guy your wife cheated on you with has some.
No, not really. You'll want to Google the "presumption of paternity," perhaps. As long as you and your wife are married, the sperm donor doesn't have a leg to stand on.

quote:
I wonder if your (future?) wife would agree with you.
We've had this conversation, and she does. Throwing away your marriage because your wife had an affair is relatively shortsighted. Letting a marriage go when one party is completely uninterested in it -- or actively hostile to it -- is another question altogether (of which sexual or emotional infidelity can occasionally be a symptom), but I think a fundamental truth that's being missed here is that infidelity can occur even when the marriage is strong and worth preserving in all other ways.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
Wanting your children to have their mother's smile and their father's eyes, and their grandmother's chin is...selfish and stupid in your book. Wanting to pass down a piece of yourself into future generations is stupid and selfish? I highly doubt you will get a lot of support for that idea here.

Those people who choose to adopt are doing a Good Thing™, and very much help by taking unwanted or orphaned children and giving them a family and love.

But that doesn't mean that it should an expectation that all do that, and if you want your genes passed on you are selfish and stupid.

I'm rather offended.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
That's...well, I think you might be right on the last bit Tom, but by no means is it so plain and self evident as to be a 'fundamental truth'.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
quote:
...I think a fundamental truth that's being missed here is that infidelity can occur even when the marriage is strong and worth preserving in all other ways.
Of course people who are in a "good" marriage cheat, it isn't always that there is something wrong with the marriage which causes someone to be unfaithful...sometimes there is just something wrong with person.

But if that is the case, that it is a good marriage, and the person still steps out, then once it is found out, it does irreparable harm to the relationship, and what started off sound and whole is now rent and broken.

I'm not saying that anyone who takes back a cheater is doing the wrong thing. Sometimes lives become so entangled that to separate them is tantamount to death, but I do say that choice is a compromise and requires a person to live with intense pain and anger and I simply can not imagine that it would not change the marriage on a fundamental level.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
Oh, and before we move too far away, I'd like to apologize for bringing your spouse into the discussion Tom, that was rude of me.
 
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
 
I do want my kids to have something of me. I'd like them to have my sense of humor, or the way I see life, or my love of singing. The color of their eyes or the shape of their head has nothing to do with it.
SW, you didn't answer about the breach of trust that asking for a DNA test would represent. I really do think it is not the symptom of a healthy relationship. Actually, I even think it could damage a marriage a lot.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
I'm with Tom. Nature is almost inherently selfish. We can do better. What a great world it will be when we are able to care for the children of others as our own.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
Also, I think you would be astonished at the number of couples who deal with infidelity and still have loving, wonderful marriages.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
Anna: I want those things too. I just find it extremely judgmental to say that it is selfish and stupid to want your genes passed on.

It could be a breech of trust. That is the risk you run to confirm suspicions of infidelity. I personally wouldn't (and didn't) get tests, as I trust my wife implicitly, but I'm not going to nay say someone who wants a little confirmation (and while it would cause problems should it be found out, there is no reason it should, as these medical type things are usually confidential).

boots: Care for others children, or care about? Because people just lack the resources (time and money) to care for everyone's kids, but not about. Nor would I trust everyone with my children.

As loving and wonderful marriages post infidelity, I have no doubt there are quite a few. That being said, how much more loving and wonderful would they be had they not had to overcome this huge trust issue. It is even possible that getting over that issue created an even tighter bond then previously. But I doubt that is the norm, nor would I bet on it.

Bottom line, there are only a few things you swear to in a marriage, and not humping the neighbor is pretty big one.
 
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
Caring for any children born to the union is also a big one. In fact, I would guess that for most of history the man's promise to provide for the children born to his wife was taken much more seriously than his sexual fidelity.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
Born to the union...agree. We are not discussing rightfully born children though.
 
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
No, you're missing my point. Remember that for most of history DNA testing hasn't been an option. And even today in many states a man is the legal father of children born to a woman he is married to. It's part of the marriage contract that he agrees to be the father of children born into the marriage, not of children that she can prove have his DNA.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
That agreement is predicated on that they are his children as evidenced by the promise of fidelity, which is in the vows, where as raising the children isn't.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
Catholic weddings vows include the raising of children.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
Never been to one of those.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
quote:
Wanting your children to have their mother's smile and their father's eyes, and their grandmother's chin is...selfish and stupid in your book.
Yes. Because there's no guarantee that your child, even if he or she has your sperm, will have your eyes, your wife's smile, or your mother's chin. And being disappointed about that is as silly as really, really wanting a boy.
 
Posted by just_me (Member # 3302) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
That agreement is predicated on that they are his children as evidenced by the promise of fidelity, which is in the vows, where as raising the children isn't.

Out of curiosity... can you post here or link to the vows you are referring to?
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
Perhaps expecting traits to manifest is asking for a let down, and actually being disappointed is silly, but that was not what I was trying to say. People tell me my son looks like me a lot, and I enjoy it every time. My taking joy in the pieces of me that made it to him are neither selfish nor stupid.

I doubt you are saying anything as personal as disagreeing with my last statement there Tom. But do realize that when you say things like "I submit that only selfish bastards care about the latter." that it is an inflammatory statement, which basically says, if you care about this thing I don't, you are a selfish bastard. Of course you can say anything you like. But I doubt you want to point that many fingers at that many people. I could be wrong of course.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
Just me: The Standard Vow

quote:
We are gathered here to unite these two hearts in the bonds of holy matrimony which is an honorable estate. Into this, these two now come to be joined. If anyone present can show just and legal cause why they may not be joined, let them speak now or forever hold their peace.

Who gives this woman/man to this woman/man?

(First Person), will you have this woman/man as your lawful wedded partner, to live together in the estate of matrimony? Will you love him/her, honor him/her, comfort him/her, and keep him/her in sickness and in health; forsaking all others, be true to him/her as long as you both shall live? (I will).

(Second Person), will you have this man/woman as your lawful wedded partner, to live together in the estate of matrimony? Will you love him/her, honor him/her, comfort him/her, and keep him/her in sickness and in health; forsaking all others, be true to him/her as long as you both shall live? (I will).

THE RING

Behold the symbol of wedlock. The perfect circle of love, the unbroken union of these souls united here today. May you both remain faithful to this symbol of true love.

Please join hands and repeat after me (first person, while placing ring on proper fingers).

I,(name)take (name), as my wedded partner, to have and to hold from this day forward,for better or for worse, for richer or for poorer, in sickness and in health,to love and to cherish, till death do us part.

I,(name), take (name),as my wedded partner, to have and to hold from this day forward, for better or for worse, for richer or for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death do us part.

For as much as (name) and (name) and have consented together in wedlock, and have witnessed the same before this company of friends and family, and have given and pledged their promises to each other, and have declared the same by giving and receiving a ring, and by joining hands.

By the authority vested in me by (name of state or country), I pronounce this couple to be united in marriage. You may kiss.


 
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
 
That vow is modernized. Obey got left out for one party.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
Wanting your child to have your genes may not be stupid but it is selfish. It is all about one's self. Not necessarily an uncommon or particularly evil brand of selfish, but still about loving the self you see in someone else.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
Not just seeing yourself in your children, but your family and your spouse. Plus it is about the continuity of life, and continuing on and taking out the sting of death to know that part of you continues on, just as your dead loved ones go on through you.

I honor people who choose to love children who are not their own, but no way shape or form do I accept that the "default moral choice" is to care for a brand new baby who is not yours simply because you are married to its mother, and further that if you do not, you are a selfish bastard.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
I didn't call it the default moral choice. How, though, is being concerned about your genes going on not about you? Any child continues life just as much as one with your particular genes.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
For one I am an only child...so the only way my parent's gene's would have continued at is if I have children (which I do).

Passing on your genes is one of the highest evolutionary objectives there is.

As to selfish, I only think of things being selfish when you are putting yourself before others, so, acts like breathing and eating are not selfish, unless you are breathing or eating someone's air/food.

The way that people make children involves passing on your genes, and wanting to be a part of that process isn't selfish. Or else everyone who has biological children when there are still children in the foster care system is selfish...which they aren't.

ETA: It's Tom who is implying it is the default moral choice.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
quote:
My taking joy in the pieces of me that made it to him are neither selfish nor stupid.
If none of the pieces of you made it to him, if in fact your wife won the lottery and all of her traits somehow manifest there, would you love him less? If not, why do you think it matters at all?
 
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
 
I think very highly of myself so I assume any child with my genes will be superior to all other children. Therefore, I want my kids to be mine- cause they will be smarter, cuter, healthier than the average kid. [Smile] So far, my children are amazing. I tell people that my 4 year old is smarter than me, which leads to the cheesy "but your so smart." To which I say, "I know. I am a freaking genius so imagine how smart my daughter must be."
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
Tom: No, I take pride in my children looking like my wife too...she is a beautiful, smart, driven woman who has a strong moral fiber and is funny and fun to be around, which is why I married her. It matters because parts of me and her will live on in our children after we die, just as parts of my dead grandparents live on through me. It is being part of the continuity of life.

How is it that if you do not accept your wife's illegitimate child that you become a selfish bastard?

scholarette: I'm not sure if you are funning with me or being serious.
 
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
 
Sadly, I am actually being serious.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
quote:
How is it that if you do not accept your wife's illegitimate child that you become a selfish bastard?
It's caring whether or not your child is illegitimate that makes you a selfish bastard. You're ultimately punishing the child for your wife's misdeed, when -- as you admitted just above -- your genetic material is a purely optional contribution to your parenting.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
I'm sorry Tom, but I don't think you have a moral leg to stand on to make such judgmental and widely damning statements.

By your bassakward standards, every child you do not take in off the street you are punishing and everyone who doesn't run an orphanage is a selfish bastard.

We are only on the hook for the well being of our own children. Some good folk extend their responsibility to include others by choice, and they should be praised, but there is no obligation for people to take care of other people's kids.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
Don't be sad scholarette...having pride in your kids isn't a bad thing...and you are smarty smarty threw a party.
 
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
 
quote:
I think very highly of myself so I assume any child with my genes will be superior to all other children. Therefore, I want my kids to be mine- cause they will be smarter, cuter, healthier than the average kid. [Smile] So far, my children are amazing. I tell people that my 4 year old is smarter than me, which leads to the cheesy "but your so smart." To which I say, "I know. I am a freaking genius so imagine how smart my daughter must be."
Bolded by me. [Razz]
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
quote:
You're ultimately punishing the child for your wife's misdeed...
Where we discussing abandoning a child who you have raised for years after finding out they are not yours, I would agree. But that is not the case we are talking about, we are talking about a brand new baby here.
 
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
And if we DON'T notify the father -- who has not asked -- then in a few years, we will have scenario #1.

Which is better for the child?
 
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
Tangent -- it's a little odd that the site linked above is about commitment ceremonies, which it makes clear on its front page are not considered legal marriages in many jurisdictions (which is why the organization sponsoring the site registers them), but then uses the language "By the authority vested in me by (name of state or country)" in its suggested vows.

I'm pretty certain that no state or county has vested authority in anyone to perform an action that it doesn't legally recognize.
 
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan:
quote:
I think very highly of myself so I assume any child with my genes will be superior to all other children. Therefore, I want my kids to be mine- cause they will be smarter, cuter, healthier than the average kid. [Smile] So far, my children are amazing. I tell people that my 4 year old is smarter than me, which leads to the cheesy "but your so smart." To which I say, "I know. I am a freaking genius so imagine how smart my daughter must be."
Bolded by me. [Razz]
That is because the people talking to me are stupid and careless. When you talk to them, you can just hear the misspellings they would be making.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
quote:
We are only on the hook for the well being of our own children.
The child of your wife is your child. That's one of the primary purposes of the act of marriage.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
quote:


We are only on the hook for the well being of our own children. Some good folk extend their responsibility to include others by choice, and they should be praised, but there is no obligation for people to take care of other people's kids.

I emphatically disagree.

[ July 11, 2011, 08:03 AM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
 
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by scholarette:
That is because the people talking to me are stupid and careless. When you talk to them, you can just hear the misspellings they would be making.

[Laugh]
 
Posted by KirKis (Member # 12454) on :
 
Though the names Clive and KirKis come from the same legendary video game, we are in fact, Not the same person IRL. KirKis is the ID I use in just about everything I do.

SW makes a ton of sense to me. I agree with all of what you said. If I found out today that my daughter was someone elses I still would love her and fight for her. I have already bonded with her. I just can't see it right to "force" a man to take care of a child that isn't his.

Saying that your wife cheating on you and bearing another man's child will now be YOUR child just because you two are married ... is so wrong to me.

And if you don't leave someone after they cheated on you... wow. Thats a pretty open relationship.
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
quote:
I just can't see it right to "force" a man to take care of a child that isn't his.
When it comes to determining whether or not a child is "his", I think with the child counts far more than the genetic contribution.

[ July 11, 2011, 08:12 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
quote:
And if you don't leave someone after they cheated on you... wow. Thats a pretty open relationship.
I think the proper term is "forgiving" not open. I know several marriages that have survived infidelity that were definitely not open relationships.
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
quote:

Passing on your genes is one of the highest evolutionary objectives there is.

Evolution doesn't have objectives. Its a random process.

Individuals don't evolve. Species evolve.

The desire to pass on ones genes is one trait that improves the survival of your species' genes.

The desire to see all the children of your species, who share most of your genes even if they have no relationship, also improves the survival or your species' genes.

Beyond that, if you use any form of birth control then there is no question that you aren't controlled or particularly motivate by gaining an evolutionary advantage.

[ July 11, 2011, 08:50 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
quote:
And if you don't leave someone after they cheated on you... wow. Thats a pretty open relationship.
Why do you think so?
 
Posted by ambyr (Member # 7616) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
I think the proper term is "forgiving" not open. I know several marriages that have survived infidelity that were definitely not open relationships.

And I know several open relationships that have not survived infidelity. The two are definitely not equivalent.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
The child of your wife is your child. That's one of the primary purposes of the act of marriage.

I understand (and I could be mistaken) that a child born to a mother who is married, the man she is married to is legally listed as the father. But that doesn't make the child yours. We we discussing the theoretical situation where the child's origins were known. DNA testing only became available in the 70s, so this clause of having the husband be the father makes perfect sense when you can not prove it either way. I bet (but don't know for a fact) that if a man had proof the child wasn't his, he could get his name removed with little difficulty. My point...the one that we disagree on so clearly Tom, is that if you choose to accept to be cuckold that is your choice, but to say that everyone who doesn't accept it is a "selfish bastard" is judgmental and amoral.

Boots: So, a stranger comes up to you, and thrusts a baby into your arms, if you don't take care of the baby you should be prosecuted for child abandonment and mistreatment? What if the stranger never comes back, you now have to take care of that baby for 18 years? There is a world of difference between caring about other people's kids (Hey kid, get out of the street, there are cars coming!) and being responsible for other people's children.

Rabbit: Evolutionarily speaking, one of the highest goals of individuals is passing on their genes. Picky picky.

At the heart of marriage (for me anyway) is trust. This is the person who you can count on, who is there for you, and vice versa. While the sex in infidelity is defiantly an issue, it is not the main issue for me, the trust is. Tom's assertion that "...infidelity can occur even when the marriage is strong and worth preserving in all other ways." is like saying that the tires on that car that was totaled are in great condition! Did you see the interior, not a scratch!...meanwhile, the engine (the thing that makes movement possible) is a twisted heap of smoking trash. Yes you can replace the engine and repair the damage, but "worth preserving in all other ways" carries no weight with me.
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
quote:
Rabbit: Evolutionarily speaking, one of the highest goals of individuals is passing on their genes. Picky picky.
No its not and its not nitpicking in the least. Evolution has no goals and no values. Nature does not enforce the desire to evolve on individuals. Evolutionary theory does not make passing on ones genes a goal.

Individuals do not evolve. Species evolve. Evolution favors species in which the individuals desire to pass on their genes. This is only one of many traits favored by evolution. Evolution also favors species that nurture their offspring as a species and not simply as individuals. So for example among wolves, only the strongest members of the pack pass on their genes, the other members of the pack contribute to survival of the species by nurturing the young of the alpha pair. The Evolutionary process has found hundred of combinations of traits that have resulted in species that survive. Desire to pass on genes is not higher in than pecking order than hundreds of other traits.

In fact, one of the reasons humans have been so successful is because we have evolved to nurture children who are not our own flesh and blood.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
Blerg...you miss my point, repeatedly and insist on your own terminology. I don't care. There would be no evolution without the passing on of genes. That fact that some members contribute by aiding the offspring of others is irreverent if you didn't have the passing on of genes.

If everyone stopped being able to reproduce, then survivability of current offspring would be meaningless.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
Boots: So, a stranger comes up to you, and thrusts a baby into your arms, if you don't take care of the baby you should be prosecuted for child abandonment and mistreatment? What if the stranger never comes back, you now have to take care of that baby for 18 years? There is a world of difference between caring about other people's kids (Hey kid, get out of the street, there are cars coming!) and being responsible for other people's children.

Where do you suppose that I have suggested that people should be prosecuted for selfishness?
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
You vehemently disagreed with the statement that people are not responsible for other people's children. Adults who are responsible for children are prosecuted when they fail to provide for their children.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
Stone_Wolf, I was speaking morally, not legally. We have lots of moral obligations that are not legally enforced nor should they be.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
quote:
I understand (and I could be mistaken) that a child born to a mother who is married, the man she is married to is legally listed as the father. But that doesn't make the child yours.
Yes, it does. The only thing that would make the child not mine in that scenario would be my outright rejection of that child.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
boots: So, you are saying that had that stranger stuck their baby into your hands that you think you are morally obligated to raise it for the next 18 years? If so, I disagree.

Tom: Clearly we disagree.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
I disagree with you on -- at the very least -- these two assertions of yours:

1) A child who does not share your genetic material cannot be your child.
2) A spouse who has sex with someone else is irredeemable and should be abandoned immediately.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
Stone_Wolf, so you are saying that if a stranger stuck a baby into your hands you could morally just put the baby down and go about your business.

If so, I disagree.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
Tom: We do not disagree about 1.

I've said the whole time that people who choose to take children who are not theirs biologically as their own children should be praised, which should imply that I think it is possible.

Where we disagree is that a man who is cheated on is morally obligated to accept the offspring. If a man does choose that, then it is possible he is a good, kind and caring person, with a wife who is truly repentant and through work and loving understanding they can get back on track, but it is also a real possibility that he lacks self respect and would pay any price no matter how injuring to himself or others keep his wife because he doesn't think he is good enough to get another. Or whatever.

And yes, we do disagree about 2.

boots: I'm not saying that, I'm saying that the moral thing to do would be to turn the baby into the authorities, not to be obligated to take care of the child yourself.

If all you are saying is that people should take an interest in the temporary safety of all children, I would agree. But to say that all adults are responsible for all children is much too sweeping a statement for me to agree with.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
I think that it is an ideal to which we should aspire. If we are to love our neighbors as ourselves, wouldn't that go for neighbors' children as well?
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
As aspirations go that is A) a good one, B) unrealistic to the nth degree.

I'm all for kind goodnesses but, let's be serious here. We are not responsible for anyone else's children, and even if it would be a better world if we were (which would only be true if everyone was good, which they aren't) and even if aspiring to that ideal would make it a better world. It's just not the reality.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
I didn't say it was. However, the degree to which we fail to meet that ideal is a function of our selfishness.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:
We are only on the hook for the well being of our own children. Some good folk extend their responsibility to include others by choice, and they should be praised, but there is no obligation for people to take care of other people's kids.
I emphatically disagree.
quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
It's just not the reality.

quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
I didn't say it was.

Can you see how this could be confusing?

I honestly couldn't tell you what exactly you are saying at this point. Care to clarify?
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
I don't see how it is confusing in the context of everything else I have written in this thread.

Sure. We are morally responsible for children in general. That we largely (and I do mean "we") fail in this responsibility for children who don't share our DNA is a moral issue and a moral failing. Not, by any stretch, an unusual one (nor even one that is necessarily practicable to amend wholesale) but one born of selfishness. Not, again, unusual selfishness but still it is about "self".
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
But how does this ideal apply to the real world boots? What level of responsibility should a stranger show a child? Take into consideration that to overstep certain bounds, even with good intentions, can lead to criminal charges.
 
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
 
Not exactly related, but reading message boards on the internet, I have been feeling like there is a general lack of compassion for children (and their parents). Hopefully, this is just a function of the internet not reality. Examples of this- someone said their autistic child was misbehaving in public and she was tired of getting dirty looks all the time. Almost every reply was something along the lines of if you can't control your kid, you shouldn't take it to public places, like the grocery store. Lots of comments about how they are so tired of rowdy kids and having to deal with that. Lots of childless people commented that those with kids act like the world should revolve around them. Those who chose not to have kids should not have to deal with them.

Another example was the 16 pound baby in Texas. Lots of comments there about how the mom must be lazy, twinkie stuffing, welfare mom who did no more exercise than the walk to the refrigerator (mom had gestational diabetes which they took as proof their assumptions were correct.)

Third example- the Octomom flew with her kids and the woman from 3rd rock from sun made some mean comments about her failing to take care of her kids and that the octomon should get some help. Comment section on that story was full of congratulating the actress for criticizing because being stuck on a plane with cranky kids sucks and moms shouldn't force that on others. my thought was if I was on that plane, is there anything I could have done to help those kids make it through the flight. I know on my recent trip by myself with 2 kids, both ways, I had a very helpful neighbor who made things tolerable. One even let me use her lap as a changing table. I was trying to figure out what to do to change my little ones diaper (where to go, what to do with big one) and my neighbor said, oh, just lay her across my lap, that's the easiest solution. I have gotten mean comments before, but generally I just ignore them.
 
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
But how does this ideal apply to the real world boots? What level of responsibility should a stranger show a child? Take into consideration that to overstep certain bounds, even with good intentions, can lead to criminal charges.

You make a good point. A couple of years ago a woman was driving near a school and saw a six year old boy a few blocks away from the school. She stopped to ask him if he was lost and he said he was. He was at school but decided he wanted to be home instead, so he simply walked out of school when his teacher wasn't looking. The woman took the boy to her nearby home and called the police. She let them know what happened, and when the mother of the boy found out she had the police to arrest the woman for kidnapping.

Sometimes trying to do the right thing for a child ends up getting you in trouble, which is a damn shame.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
I was at a Denny's trying to get in on a Sat morning with the family, and my wife held the door open to let me and the babies in (I was holding the girl and the boy was walking and I had him by one hand) when a young man rushed through the door ahead of us and might have knocked us over if we hadn't stopped abruptly. I loudly said in an angry tone "What the f*** is wrong you a**h****!" He walked away. Later I saw him and confronted him again. He looked sheepish and apologized, saying he hadn't seen us. I do expect people to be aware of their surroundings and to make allowances for small children. (This was in response to "Lots of childless people commented that those with kids act like the world should revolve around them.")

On the other hand there is such a big difference between parents who let their children do and say whatever they want and expect you to take it and parents who are struggling to keep their children from acting out in public. Even before I had kids I was always one to appreciate that it was a hard job and give a smile of encouragement to parents who were trying.

One flight there was a baby behind me, and when I disembarked, I realized that it hadn't cried the whole flight. I praised the parent and asked how they had done it. They told me that giving the child a bottle during take off and landing helps the baby's jaw move up and down, releasing the changing pressure in their inner ear. Just a side note to the side note.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
But how does this ideal apply to the real world boots? What level of responsibility should a stranger show a child? Take into consideration that to overstep certain bounds, even with good intentions, can lead to criminal charges.

Generally, I think that there is a difference between responsibility and authority and that responsibility should be enacted corporately rather than individually when necessary.

For instance, I should care that your children have enough to eat but I don't have the authority to see that they do. (I can and should bring lovely casseroles if your children are going hungry but can't force you to make your kids eat them.) Corporately, however, society has both that responsibility and, to an extent, the authority. As an individual, I have a responsibility to invoke that corporate authority in the form of social services.

And there is an emotional/action element to corporate responsibility as well. If I (we) cared as much about children who don't look like us as we do about those who share our DNA (and as the Rabbit pointed out all children do share almost all of our DNA) we, as a society, would make very different decisions. And the world would be a better place.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
Not to sound disrespectful, but what you're advocating doesn't sound like "responsibility" to me, just friendly interest, and has little to nothing to do with Tom's argument that if a man doesn't accept his wife's baseborn then he is a selfish bastard himself.

As to what you are suggesting, I agree, and often will tell the neighborhood kids to be careful of cars, and make sure that everyone is equally enjoying the play fighting, etc.
 
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
 
I had no problem with the kiddos as babies with the air pressure (well timed nursing, bottles, pacifiers), but this latest trip, my 4 year old just could not pop her ears. She started crying and I tried to get her to yawn and the woman next to me gave suggestions as well. But at 4, she couldn't figure it out herself and the tricks I know are for younger kids.

I think in public it is hard to know what parents are doing and not. One suggestion with temper tantrums is to ignore them. So, in the grocery store, my kid may be screaming for a cookie, but I am not even looking at her. I know where she is and what she is doing, but I am not going to acknowledge her fit. I also am not going to leave the store just because she is melting down. That gives her way too much control. I actually am one of those cray hippy parents who does almost everything through positive reinforcement so when my daughter starts acting up, I view it as time for more attention and praise of the good things she is doing. So, sometimes, I might be dealing with it, but it isn't as clear as if I was say yelling at her.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
I hear you s-ette, you make a good point, I hadn't considered that.

Although I have run into abysmally bad parenting where no matter what the child angrily demanded (including things from people's carts) the mother gave them (Can I have this for my baby please?).

Not everyone can be as good at parenting as you and I right? [Wink]
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
Not to sound disrespectful, but what you're advocating doesn't sound like "responsibility" to me, just friendly interest, and has little to nothing to do with Tom's argument that if a man doesn't accept his wife's baseborn then he is a selfish bastard himself.

As to what you are suggesting, I agree, and often will tell the neighborhood kids to be careful of cars, and make sure that everyone is equally enjoying the play fighting, etc.

I am not sure how you are getting "friendly interest" from what I have written. That almost sounds like mild curiosity. I am talking about a passionate sense of responsibility.
 
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
 
I have had my daughter throw a fit and a stranger come up and say, oh she is so beautiful. Here, have a piece of candy (it was wrapped). I was furious. Fits should not be rewarded, esp not with the justification of you are so pretty. I had a friend once with the most beautiful daughter and she said there is a part of her that hates it. That moment was the first time I understood why my friend sometimes disliked having a cute kid.

Just in case someone wants to see if kids are actually beautiful : http://www.aboutbin.blogspot.com/
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
The difference boots, is when the neighborhood kids ignore me about the cars, I just let it go, because I am not their parent and I don't have the right to punish them for doing something stupid, even if it is good for them.

quote:
responsible
— adj (usually foll by for ) (foll by to )
1. having control or authority (over)
2. being accountable for one's actions and decisions (to): to be responsible to one's commanding officer
3. (of a position, duty, etc) involving decision and accountability
4. ( often foll by for ) being the agent or cause (of some action): to be responsible for a mistake
5. able to take rational decisions without supervision; accountable for one's own actions: a responsible adult

Source.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
Would you prefer "duty" to responsibility? "Obligation"?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/responsibility
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
quote:
If I found out my wife had cheated on me and one or both of them weren't mine I might just kick her to the curb.

Reading this, what if it was just one? One of the kids is yours. Abandoning his/her mother, likely improvishing them, and destroying your kids' family will do definite harm to the child that is both legally and genetically yours. Would you cause such great harm to the kid that is yours?

quote:
I was holding the girl and the boy was walking and I had him by one hand) when a young man rushed through the door ahead of us and might have knocked us over if we hadn't stopped abruptly. I loudly said in an angry tone "What the f*** is wrong you a**h****!"
You use language like that in front of your children?
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
I try not to, and usually succeed. The boy can say about a hundred words, and none of them are swears.

And about your first question: Pretty much everyone has said they would fight for custody of any child who they have bonded with regardless of genes. As to abandoning a new child financially...well, there is someone they could turn to...the real father.
 
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
 
My husband says he'll fight for custody of the big one, but the little one I can keep, regardless of paternity.
 
Posted by Aerin (Member # 3902) on :
 
Breaking up a family when it could be kept intact, healthily, is something that cannot be made up for with money.

The impoverishing was meant for the biological child (you've established you don't give a care about any kid that isn't yours). There is ample evidence that divorce makes children poorer, even when the father pays child support.

In other words, such a refusal to have anything to do with a non-biological child or the child's mother can and would cause great harm to the children that are yours.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
What if the biological father is, for example, dead? Otherwise incapable of providing for the child?
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
Aerin, I sure hope that I haven't established that I only care about my own children, as it isn't true. I just don't think that if a man is cuckold that he is morally obligated to accept the baseborn child. And yes, divorce is bad for kids, but perhaps the theoretical adulterous wife should have thought about that before breaking her vows.

I would not expect a woman to stay with a man who slept around on her "for the good of the kids".

boots: I would agree with this: Every adult has a duty to children to be aware of their safety and well being and to take appropriate steps to that end.
 
Posted by Aerin (Member # 3902) on :
 
quote:
And yes, divorce is bad for kids, but perhaps the theoretical adulterous wife should have thought about that before breaking her vows.


That's very Medea of you. You are okay with hurting your own children as long as it means you are getting back at your ex?

I do not accept your equation of infidelity with physical abuse.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
It's not about getting back at your ex, it's about choosing to live with a person who you trust and love. Yes it is very unfortunate that the kids would suffer, but if you felt as I feel about infidelity you would understand that to attempt to live with the person who hurt you so deeply would cause many many problems probably worse then a simple divorce.

As to "my equation of infidelity and physical abuse"...I said "slept around" not "slapped around"...hehe.
 
Posted by Aerin (Member # 3902) on :
 
You don't know how I feel about infidelity.

To be reiterate: I am not confused about your position. I am saying that in your quest to make sure nothing bad ever happens to you and if it does you will immediately annhilate any and all ties to anyone who causes you pain, you may cause incredible and deep pain yourself, to children, and that's not justified.

The entire point of children is that you don't come first anymore. You just don't. A zero tolerance policy, even when you do have biological children with your wife, puts yourself first and only.

A very relevant article from today
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
 
"A zero tolerance policy..."

I think it's worth highlighting this. Zero tolerance is meant to scare people away from even thinking about breaking the rules. It's only theoretical value is deterrence.

And this approach to deterrence is famous for creating unjust results.

People make mistakes. You might be able to threaten them out of making particular mistakes, or you might not. But deciding ahead of time that some trespasses are unforgivable is guaranteed, in the aggregate, to cause some families to have a worse outcome than necessary.*

You might not be able to forgive infidelity, and I hope you never have to test that belief. But you don't know until you try.

*And it's possible that some families would have a better outcome with automatic divorce than with a protracted, doomed struggle to reconcile. My point isn't that you shouldn't divorce your spouse no matter what. It's more like - don't kill your chickens before they've cracked. Let the families work out the situation when it happens, instead of insisting that certain mistakes will unavoidably be punished a certain way.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
Considering you are comparing me to a woman who killed her children in revenge on the father to my saying saying I would not stay with a woman who cheated on me, I can be sure your feelings on infidelity and my own do not match. I'm on a quest now? Cool...do I get a felt fedora and whip? My wife shares my feelings, in fact, I was less stringent in my beliefs and she convinced me to take a firmer stance. And to be honest you don't get say what is and isn't a justified response when it comes to people dealing with infidelity in their marriage.

As to your entire point, I don't agree that staying together no matter how miserable and unhappy you are in your marriage is good for the children. I'm sure you could hit yourself in the head with a hammer and a small child would find it hilarious, how dare you put yourself first, go get a hammer this instant and smack away! [Big Grin]

I'm reading your article...
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
Good article.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
scifibum: I don't think that there is only one answer to this (or most other questions). In some circumstances, reconciliation should be considered...but in my case it isn't an option. My wife and I agreed before we married that this was not a subject on which there would be any leeway. We made our needs clear to each other and agreed in no uncertain terms that we stay faithful to each other and that if we do not, that is the end. Considering that we both agreed, if it were to happen, it would be with the knowledge of what the outcome would be.

This is simply my (and my wife's) opinion on the matter, and in no way a suggestion on how other people should handle it.

Tom (sorry if this horse is dead buddy) stated that anyone who didn't stay with his wife and accept the baseborn child was a "selfish bastard" or, in other words, that there was only one proper response to the situation. I disagree with that specifically and on principal.
 
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Aerin:
Breaking up a family when it could be kept intact, healthily, is something that cannot be made up for with money.

Well, healthily is the key word here. Whether the family can be kept healthily intact or not depends entirely on the couple. Infidelity sows the seeds of distrust and resentment. When the parents of a family are divided it's sometimes much healthier for the couple to divorce

quote:
I am saying that in your quest to make sure nothing bad ever happens to you and if it does you will immediately annhilate any and all ties to anyone who causes you pain, you may cause incredible and deep pain yourself, to children, and that's not justified.

The entire point of children is that you don't come first anymore. You just don't. A zero tolerance policy, even when you do have biological children with your wife, puts yourself first and only.

I don't think that's his quest. The family loses because of infidelity. Period. Damage will be done and the spouse that cheated is responsible for that, not the one that remained faithful. The faithful member can mitigate the degree of damage based on how they react to the situation but you'd have to be on a mighty high horse to pass judgment on someone who has had to endure the anguish of emotional and physical betrayal. If a man cheats on his wife, who would be so callous as to say 'Quit crying, buck-up, and go live with that man and play house because, after all, he's the father of your children!' as if its only the children who are victims and it's somehow her fault?

The spouse who seeks divorce in order to maintain their mental and emotional health and to peruse a more healthy/meaningful relationship with someone else may seem selfish to you but maintaining an illusion of love and trust is more likely to result in poor parenting and increases the possibility of greater relationship problems in the future.
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
 
I'm trying and failing to think of a way to frame this that isn't rude...

...how can you possibly know that you wouldn't be able to reconcile? I believe that you can decide in advance not to try...and maybe when the time came you'd find yourself unable even if you DID try...and maybe it would be clear that reconciliation was undesirable anyway.

But you've got two kids. You owe it to them to reexamine that question if it ever comes up.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
Being that I don't believe it is possible, it's easy to say that I know what I would do. If ever it does come to pass, I'll keep your words in mind...best I can do.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
Great post capaxinfiniti...you really hit on what I was trying and failing to say. Thanks.
 
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
I'm trying and failing to think of a way to frame this that isn't rude...

...how can you possibly know that you wouldn't be able to reconcile? I believe that you can decide in advance not to try...and maybe when the time came you'd find yourself unable even if you DID try...and maybe it would be clear that reconciliation was undesirable anyway.

But you've got two kids. You owe it to them to reexamine that question if it ever comes up.

Defining and agreeing upon the terms, conditions, and expectations of a relationship serve to make the relationship stronger. If a couple includes a zero-tolerance policy regarding infidelity - and goes so far as to define what, exactly, each believes constitutes infidelity - this reflects the bond the couple has or desires to have. In this case, whether the zero-tolerance stance is used as a deterrence is a matter of perspective. Establishing appropriate behavior and outlining consequences for misdeeds is what I consider social-interaction 101 and goes beyond marriage and personal relationships.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
I'm just wondering what millennia we're in, talking about 'baseborn'. Children aren't born high or low, they're just *born*. After they're born, we throw in a bunch of artificial constructs, whereas only a few of them are actually grounded in anything more than 'how my ancestors did it'.
 
Posted by ambyr (Member # 7616) on :
 
Yeah, seriously, every time I see "baseborn child" I see red. It is putting all the onus and stigma on the child--the one party who is 100% innocent.

The child is a child. Not baseborn, not trueborn--a child. No amount of infidelity on the part of its parents makes me okay with calling it anything else. The use of that term has frankly destroyed any sympathy I might otherwise feel with Stone_Wolf position.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
Sorry if the word offended...I didn't want to use the word bastard, and I didn't want to have to say "the offspring of infidelity" every time, so I just plugged "bastard" into a thesaurus hoping for a less offense but specific word...I would never say such a thing to a child's face (or the mother for that matter) and I agree that the child is innocent.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
quote:
Tom (sorry if this horse is dead buddy) stated that anyone who didn't stay with his wife and accept the baseborn child was a "selfish bastard" or, in other words, that there was only one proper response to the situation.
If you'll revisit my post, you'll note that this is not actually what I stated. Please do, then get back to me. [Smile]
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Hm. No, I don't think I'd want to know. Independent of the question of whether or not my wife is cheating on me is the question of whether I would treat a child in my household differently if it were not my own. I submit that only selfish bastards care about the latter.

I don't see it.
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
Stone_Wolf_, Here is a hypothetical scenario. Two months after your child's birth, you find out that the child isn't yours because of a hospital mix up. (For the sake of simplicity, let's assume that your biological child died shortly after birth and that the parents of the child you've been caring for don't want it). Would you want to keep the baby? Would finding out the child wasn't yours make you love the child less? If you choose to abandon the child when you found out it wasn't yours, would that be selfish?

What if it had been a year or two years or even longer? What if you get a divorce. Should the fact the child was switched in the hospital play a role in deciding custody or child support? How long do you have to have parented the child before we should legally consider you the real parent?
 
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
 
I'm interested to know if you would legally be the parent, and if such a thing were discovered, would you actually be able to keep the child? Would there be a long legal battle to do so?

Setting that aside, I have a feeling that if I found out my actual child had died and we'd been raising someone else's mistakenly for two months, I would undergo some quite complex emotions. I would mourn the loss of our child, deeply. I would feel betrayed. It would be a huge blow. I would probably struggle to look at the child we'd been raising with the same eyes as I had the day before. However, if in fact we got to keep the child, I would in time come around to considering her as our own in every sense and loving her just as much. I would never at any point seek to get rid of her, and, after overcoming the initial shock, would fight tooth and nail to keep her.

If today I found out one of my children, say, my five-year-old, was actually not ours, I expect it would still be devastating, and I would try to find out as much as I could about what happened and who was involved. But he'd still be my son. I've been his dad for 5 years and there is no universe in which I could not have him. I don't think it's possible for something so relatively trivial to change how I feel about him.

I do take a certain pride in knowing my kids have my genes in them. I can't deny it. It's there. But that gets buried under the strong bonds that form between you and the child you are raising. Whose kid it is is a fairly small question after a while. I've been watching one of my coworkers and her husband, who have had their girl since the day she was born, and are looking to adopt another as soon as they are able. She's their daughter. That someone else carried her and gave birth to her doesn't change that one bit. They have an open policy with the birth mother (the fact that someone else gave birth to her is, after all, an important part of who she is), and yet she's still their daughter.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
quote:
Two months after your child's birth, you find out that the child isn't yours because of a hospital mix up. (For the sake of simplicity, let's assume that your biological child died shortly after birth and that the parents of the child you've been caring for don't want it).
Q:Would you want to keep the baby?
A:100% absolutely yes.

Q:Would finding out the child wasn't yours make you love the child less?
A:I sure hope not.

Q:If you choose to abandon the child when you found out it wasn't yours, would that be selfish?
A:If someone did that (I wouldn't) then very likely, depending on the circumstances.

Q:What if it had been a year or two years or even longer?
A:Still keeping it.

Q:What if you get a divorce.
A:I would accept no less then 50% custody, and nothing less.

Q:Should the fact the child was switched in the hospital play a role in deciding custody or child support?
A:No. After a year or two the genetic origin of the child is no longer relevant, unless the biological parents didn't know their child was switched, and now want to be part of it's life.

Q:How long do you have to have parented the child before we should legally consider you the real parent?
A:I have no idea, I was legally and in all other ways the father of both my children when they were in the womb, I supported and cared for them and my wife and the days they were born are the single most wonderful days of my life. How can you put a number on it?

Rabbit, as I have said before, when it comes to the scenario of a child born from infidelity, any significant time spent bonding as parent and child would cause me, if I were in that scenario, to fight for custody. Had I not bonded with the child, I would not want it in my life, through no sin of the child, but simply because I would not want anything to do with the mother, and the child would have a real father, who could do as he saw fit.

I do understand that it appears cruel to the child, but without that bonding, could anyone really look upon that child and not see the act of unfaithfulness which broke up their family? Perhaps they could, but that really isn't the issue at hand. It brings up the question of what do we owe children of others? Boots says "We are morally responsible for children in general." Tom seems to say (but also says I have it wrong, am waiting on an explanation there) that the only moral choice (or more specifically, that if you choose otherwise you are a "selfish bastard") is to accept the child as your own.

I am all for society caring about children. But there is a line, where parental rights is on one side and society being good and caring is on the other. You can cross the line, as Geraine illustrated earlier.

So my question becomes, why does the husband owe it to the child of his wife and the other man to take him in? It seems to me that he would owe the same amount of care and love to any child who is not his. Of course this hinges largely on if he is attempting to reconcile with his wife or not. If he is, I could see it as a duty to the child to try. But what if they fail to reconcile, is he still morally obligated to try and stay in the life of this child? If so, why?

If he does not wish to reconcile, but instead wishes to part ways from his wife because of the emotional damage, why should he be obligated to the child at all?
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
quote:
Rabbit, as I have said before, when it comes to the scenario of a child born from infidelity, any significant time spent bonding as parent and child would cause me, if I were in that scenario, to fight for custody. Had I not bonded with the child, I would not want it in my life, through no sin of the child, but simply because I would not want anything to do with the mother, and the child would have a real father, who could do as he saw fit.
Stone_Wolfe_, The only real difference I can see between my scenario, and the one where the father signs the paper and then finds out 61 days later that his wife has been unfaithful, is the feeling of betrayal. Why should that influence the fathers attitude toward the child?

Now consider another scenario. Your wife confesses to you that ~3 years ago (about the time your son was conceived) she had an affair. It was brief. She's always regretted it and would never do it again. She loves you and wants to try to save your marriage. Clearly this would be traumatic and I have no idea whether you'd want to try to forgive her and stay married or not. But either way, would you want genetic testing to find out if your son was really "yours"?

Would your answer be different if she'd made the confession when he was only a few days old? If so, why?

Would your answer be different if she told you she didn't regret the affair and wanted a divorce? If so, why?

[ July 12, 2011, 07:05 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
 
Posted by KirKis (Member # 12454) on :
 
So a guy can have affairs with married women and not have to worry about being liable for the child she might have because of it. Now it will be the responsibility for her husband...

Don't forget that when a woman is unfaithful that there is another man involved! Make THAT GUY pay for the child. He was the one who had the affiar with her. HE is the father.

In that REALLY odd scenario where he somehow died after the affiar... wtfmansrsly? TheRabbit should have jumped on that since it goes under the "doesn't happen enough to warrent interest" category.

The real father is out there. Make him responsible. If the married man wants to help raise the kid thats up to him. If he wants to forgive the woman. Fine. Whatever. I'll even budge into the idea of forgiving the woman. I can forgive... but i'll never, EVER forget.
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
Kirkis, You come across as a very angry and selfish individual.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
quote:
Make THAT GUY pay for the child. He was the one who had the affiar with her. HE is the father.
No. Her husband is the legal (and ethical) father. That is part of what being someone's husband means.
 
Posted by KirKis (Member # 12454) on :
 
@TheRabbit - Actually, it takes a lot to get me angry. I avoid conflicts mostly. I'm a pretty happy-go-lucky guy.

@Tom - So if some guy got your wife/girlfriend pregnant your going to not only forgive her but take care of the baby. Good luck with that. Not every guy should be forced to do this. This isn't right.

The baby still has two parents. The real father should step up and take responsibility. The husband should be able to divorce if he wants and either not have anything to do with the kid or step up and be a father-figure to the child. Though the guy that got the girl pregnant should be taking responsibility of the child.

Don't be giving men reason to have affairs with married women.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
I'm sorry Rabbit, I'm a bit played out when it comes to trying to imagine how I would feel if my wife cheated on me.

My opinion on the matter is pretty well documented at this point...and another scenario with a slight twist isn't going to change it.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
Tom, your feelings on the matter are fine, for you, but as a universal doctrine they are not fair or warranted or even logical.

A husband does not swear to stick around if he gets cheated on...both parties swear to be faithful...once those vows are foresworn then nearly any reaction is acceptable...you simply do not get to dictate that someone who is cheated on is morally obligated to stay, let alone, raise the child of the affair as their own.

Let's turn the tables...a man steps out on his wife, and impregnates his mistress, who then dies in childbirth. By your moral code, the wife is morally obligated to stay in the marriage and raise the child as her own, correct?

How about if she doesn't die, she simply doesn't want the child...how about then?
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
I thought the vow was for better or for worse?
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
Heck (not that I am religious) even Jesus says it's okay.

quote:
I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.
Matthew 19:9
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
quote:
Tom, your feelings on the matter are fine, for you, but as a universal doctrine they are not fair or warranted or even logical.
I would argue that they are all three. They are absolutely fair, absolutely warranted, and completely logical.

quote:
once those vows are foresworn then nearly any reaction is acceptable...
...whereas this is, I submit, a ludicrous and reprehensible position.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
LoL...your "argument" of "nuh-uh" is overwhelming!

boots: I take those vows to mean external goodness or badness...it's not like you are swearing to stay no matter what...I mean, then it would mean that women who suffer spousal abuse are swearing to stay too.
 
Posted by ambyr (Member # 7616) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
I mean, then it would mean that women who suffer spousal abuse are swearing to stay too.

Well, traditionally, that's how that vow has been interpreted. That may explain why I can't remember ever attended a wedding that's used it.

. . .okay, that and the fact that I rarely attend Christian weddings.
 
Posted by Aerin (Member # 3902) on :
 
quote:
Let's turn the tables...a man steps out on his wife, and impregnates his mistress, who then dies in childbirth. By your moral code, the wife is morally obligated to stay in the marriage and raise the child as her own, correct?


Yes. It wouldn't be fun for the wife, but yes, absolutely, if that happened to me, I would consider it my moral obligation to raise the kid as one of my own. Preventing my husband from being a father to the innocent half-orphan would be horrible of me, and taking in a child but treating him or her like crap in the only home they know is absolutely evil.

That's because in this scenario, it isn't just me and my husband and the dead mistress. There's a kid, and the poor thing got the short end of the stick when it came to origin stories. It would be my obligation to treat him as one of my own, or else I'd be visiting on the kid my anger at his or her father. So, so wrong and selfish.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
I don't really put physical violence into the same category as infidelity which really is not likely to cause injury or death.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
Aerin, but the biggest question is one that you just went with. Would you stay with your husband? If no, then nothing you do or do not do would prevent him from being a father. I would agree with you that if you stayed that it would be your obligation to accept the half orphan. But, are you obligated to stay?

boots: Your argument that the vows state "for better or worse" say nothing about injury or death.
 
Posted by Aerin (Member # 3902) on :
 
Honestly, it depends on the situation. There would have to be extraordinary circumstances for me to stay, but mutual children, a repentant husband, a one-time event, a repentant husband, an innocent, motherless baby, and a repetant husband might qualify as such.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
So? I am not sure I understand your point?
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
once those vows are foresworn then nearly any reaction is acceptable...
...whereas this is, I submit, a ludicrous and reprehensible position.
Removing violence (which was the "nearly" in my original statement) what reaction to the news of a spouse being unfaithful isn't appropriate (let alone ludicrous or reprehensible)? If someone wants to walk out of the relationship and the room without a word, simply pack their bags and goes...this is appropriate. Screaming name calling seems like an appropriate response as well. Wanting to go to therapy after spending a month at their parent's home...etc ad nausium. Tom, please explain how any of these or any other possible response is "ludicrous and reprehensible"?

And while you are at it, why is it that you feel that forgiving and staying in the relationship is so obligatory?

What if this is not the first time, or the second, or the third? How many chances does one owe their spouse, and what is the difference between once and multiple times?
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
Aerin: I could see what you are saying...it appears you agree that staying is not obligatory, and that leaving the cheater is a valid option.

boots: Your argument was that the marriage vows are "for better or worse" so if a spouse cheats, they still swore to stay...so by extension, if a spouse is abusive, they still swore to stay, as the vow wasn't "for better or worse, unless you hit me". My point is your argument is invalid.

The wedding vows are kinda broken up into how to treat each other and external circumstances: "love, cherish, honor, be faithful to" = promised behavior. "in sickness and health, richer or poorer, for better or worse" = external conditions.
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
quote:
Removing violence (which was the "nearly" in my original statement) what reaction to the news of a spouse being unfaithful isn't appropriate (let alone ludicrous or reprehensible)?
Any action that causes the children involved to suffer because of the sins of the mother is both ludicrous and reprehensible -- regardless of the childrens genetic make-up.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
Sometimes vows need to be broken - being in physical danger is one of those times. However, the other person breaking their vows does not evaporate the vows that the wronged person has made.
 
Posted by Aerin (Member # 3902) on :
 
That's the key - one person breaking the vow of fidelity does not release the other from the vows he made.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
So, if going to therapy to try and work on the marriage means that the children have to be in daycare, and they hate it, and suffer, then it is ludicrous and reprehensible to go to therapy.

So any person who divorced their unfaithful spouse who had children, and the children suffered do to the divorce was ludicrous and reprehensible to divorce an unfaithful spouse.

So if a person decides to try and patch things up with their cheating spouse "for the good of the kids" but ends up in an unhappy, resentment filled relationship which ends up poisoning the household then because they didn't succeed in forgiving the adulterer their behavior is ludicrous and reprehensible.

[Roll Eyes]

What is ludicrous and reprehensible is that the spouse who was cheated upon is expected to "take the hit" or else they are the ones who are hurting the children, and not the spouse who screwed around with kids at home.
 
Posted by Aerin (Member # 3902) on :
 
We aren't talking about the cheating spouse. We are talking about the father who has obligations to his children.

This isn't zero sum - the father having obligation to the children of the marriage doesn't let the unfaithful mother off the hook. They are entirely separate issues.

What you are advocating is that the husband shouldn't have to "take the hit" - instead, it should be the children, even his own biological children, and if that seems bad, then it's the mother's fault.

He is not resopnsible for her infidelity. He is responsible for his own actions and how they will affect his innocent children.
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
Stone_Wolf, What you seem to be missing is the distinction between ones obligation to ones wife and ones obligation to the children born during the marriage. You can say whatever suits your fancy in the marriage vows, but the legal responsibilities remain the same. Key among those legal responsibilities is that you are legally the father of all children born to your wife as long as you are married. Legally, you can divorce your wife whether or not she violated any marriage vows or other mutually agreed upon expectations. But divorcing your wife does not, and should not, absolve your responsibility to your children -- regardless of the reasons for the divorce.

You are suggesting we change that. That if you choose to leave your wife because of infidelity, you should not be required to continue support your children if someone else was the sperm donor. The consequences of that would be a catastrophe for the children involved. The benefit it would generate for those selfish men who don't want to parent their children because their wife was unfaithful does not warrant changing the law.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
I'm not advocating all that. If a husband finds out at birth that a child isn't his, he shouldn't be in any way obligated to either the mother or the new child. The new child has a father, and he should be obligated.

The husband is still obligated to his previous children, and I have said many times that if this information comes after he has been a father to the child, then it is a different story.

We are talking about at birth here.

Responsibilities which are predicated on promises do not continue after said promises are voided. You agree to pay for your car in a lease...predicated on the idea you get to use the car...if the leasing company repos it by mistake, it doesn't get to keep demanding payments from you.

And Rabbit, I'm not talking about changing any law. I have faith in our system that if said husband went to the court with the proof and requested that he not be the legal father, that the court would approve it. It is possible my faith is misplaced, but it doesn't change the fact that I am not calling for any change in anything, just a discussion of morals and obligations.
 
Posted by Aerin (Member # 3902) on :
 
quote:
Responsibilities which are predicated on promises do not continue after said promises are voided.
No.

First, vows made are vows - they are not contingent. Someone's word is not contingent on another person's behavior. They may be made with expectation, but there are no contingency clauses.

Secondly, responsibilities to children do not end when the parents are no longer married, no matter who the sperm donor may be.

quote:
have faith in our system that if said husband went to the court with the proof and requested that he not be the legal father, that the court would approve it.
If there is a legal marriage, then you are wrong in this. You don't understand the legal ramifications of marriage. Marriage is a really, really big deal, and the responsibility to parent the children of your wife is part of why.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Aerin:
What you are advocating is that the husband shouldn't have to "take the hit" - instead, it should be the children, even his own biological children, and if that seems bad, then it's the mother's fault.

And since you said before that divorce is a possible appropriate response to infidelity, what "hit" are his biological children taking for him? I don't understand what you are saying here.
 
Posted by Aerin (Member # 3902) on :
 
You have said many times that you are willing for the damage to the children to happen as long as the cheated-on husband isn't asked to do anything he doesn't want to.

There is going to be hurt, no matter. A zero tolerance policy when there are children in the marriage puts the burden of the hurt on the children in order to spare the father. That's one crappy father.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Aerin :
If there is a legal marriage, then you are wrong in this.

quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
quote:
An acknowledgment of paternity may be rescinded by filing a motion to rescind within 60 days of the date of signing the acknowledgment. [TFC § 160.307]. A challenge to the acknowledgment may be filed after the 60 day period, but must claim fraud, duress, or material mistake of fact. The results of a paternity test showing that the acknowledged father is not the biological father constitutes a material mistake of fact. [TFC § 160.308].
https://www.oag.state.tx.us/cs/attorneys/crimnonsup/crimnonsuphb_ch11.shtml
Incorrect.
 
Posted by Aerin (Member # 3902) on :
 
quote:
he shouldn't be in any way obligated to either the mother
Is he married to the mother? Then he is obligated to her in many, many ways. If they have children together already, then he is obligated in many more.

None of those obligations disappear with proof in infidelity.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Aerin:
You have said many times that you are willing for the damage to the children to happen as long as the cheated-on husband isn't asked to do anything he doesn't want to.

There is going to be hurt, no matter. A zero tolerance policy when there are children in the marriage puts the burden of the hurt on the children in order to spare the father. That's one crappy father.

Wow...I challenge you to prove your first statement through the use of quotes of any of my posts...and will go ahead and call BS.

And your conclusion that the burden of divorce is on only the children for only the benefit of the "crappy father" is well...again...BS.

Not only are you jumping to unwarranted conclusions, you are being hypocritical concerning your previous statements, not to mention judgmental and hypercritical.
 
Posted by Aerin (Member # 3902) on :
 
I'm going to ignore the namecalling.

-------------

All this talk about how the mother gets dropped like hot potato at the first indication of infidelity, and how it's tough on the children but the mother's fault - I see a whole a lot of concern for the father, but no concern for anyone else, not even the innocent children, and no real contemplation of what marriage vows mean.
 
Posted by KirKis (Member # 12454) on :
 
And the guy who actually got the woman pregnant is laughing at all of you right now.

So that just means that, by your standards, if I ever want to have an affair... It will be with a married woman... Just in case.

Sure that would make me a bad person... but apparently the husband would be worse if he didn't take care of my child.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
What name calling? Saying your comments are hypocritical, judgmental and hypercritical are not the same as saying you are, for instance, "a poop head".

You yourself said that an appropriate reaction to adultery is divorce. In a marriage like my own where this has been previously discussed and agreed upon that any infidelity will immediately result in divorce, the onus of thinking of the children is for each individual to consider before humping the neighbor.

I have said before that divorce is not the only proper response to a cheating spouse. The issue isn't my personal choice for my personal relationship, the issue is Tom's insistence that (I'm almost done here dead horse, I promise) that the only moral choice is to stay in the relationship.

Yes children suffer from divorce, but they also suffer from a horrible home life from parents who hate each other and only stay together out of some misguided sense of obligation to their children. Personally, my parent's divorce was one of the best things that happened to me. Of course I wasn't a small child when it happened, but I had been rooting for it for years before it actually happened.

If someone chooses to stay and try and work things out and accept their spouse's child conceived in adultery, good for them, I sure hope it works out. But this is not the "standard moral choice", and that person had just as much right to walk out of the relationship and and not accept the child.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
KirKis, who the heck cares about who is laughing at you? The child is more important than your ego.
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
quote:
And the guy who actually got the woman pregnant is laughing at all of you right now.
Why do you suppose that they biological father would be happy about this situation?

I've known of more than a few situations where the biological father was suing to get custody rights and responsibilities for a child. I'm familiar with at least one case where the wifes legal husband and the biological father have gone to court to fight for custody -- not trying to push off their responsibility on the other man. Didn't you say earlier you had spent years trying to get custody of your daughter?

You say you were married at the time the child was born -- would it not have made your life simpler if no genetic tests were required because you were married when the baby was born?
 
Posted by Aerin (Member # 3902) on :
 
quote:
the onus of thinking of the children is for each individual to consider before humping the neighbor.

No. This may be the crux of our disagreement.

Your spouse's infidelity does not release you from the onus of thinking of your children.
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
quote:
Tom's insistence that (I'm almost done here dead horse, I promise) that the only moral choice is to stay in the relationship.
Where has Tom said that the only moral choice is to stay in the relationship? If he's said that, I've missed it.

Unless I'm completely missing Tom's point, what he has said is that the only moral choice is to nurture the child without regard to whether or not the child carried his genes. That is not synonymous with "stay in the relationship" with the child's mother.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
I've said at least four times in this thread that I would fight for the custody of my children in the divorce. And even for the custody of the child of adultery if I had bonded with it before finding out it wasn't biologically mine.

I don't see the disagreement.
 
Posted by Aerin (Member # 3902) on :
 
I don't agree that a divorce and broken family is a good enough solution without even trying to keep it intact.

This is, again, not a black and white issue. The only part that is black and white is that it is not the children's fault, and pushing the crappy consequences onto them and blaming their mother for it is terrible.
 
Posted by KirKis (Member # 12454) on :
 
@boots - my ego? The guy gets away and the husband has to pick up the slack. I just don't want the guy to get away! My ego has nothing to do with that.

@Rabbit - Don't be ridiculous, biological father is happy because he doesn't have to stick around. Why would he want to? The baby will have two parents. He doesn't have to pay child support. He can just walk away. Sure he is happy about the situation.

I spent years fighting for custody of my daughter. I requested the DNA to prove she was mine since her mother wanted me to stay out of the kids life. If she were married to someone else and I got her pregnant... I would STILL step up and take responsibility. She is MY child.

You ask me if my life would have been simple.. shut up. Who cares if it is simple? I'm not asking for simple. I'm asking for JUSTICE. The right thing. A man should face the consequences of his actions. The man has an affair. He has to pay the consequences for his action. Don't let someone else face the consequences YOU should be facing.

The husband and the child are innocent. Sure no harm should come to them. No trouble should come to them. If this was a perfect world we wouldn't be talking about this in the first place. Though, this isn't a perfect world. Stuff happens. What makes it livable... is when people can own up to their mistakes. You bring a life into this world. Thats a big deal. Take responsibility.

A while back you know that I was advocating male rights and protection. Well i'm not just for men rights. I'm for the Right Thing. If a man gets a woman pregnant in the heat of passoin he should be held liable for the baby. Regardless whether there is marriage involved or not. Any man in this situation who gets out of responsibility...
I'm against.

EDIT: After rereading what I wrote. I'm also against criminals who break into homes to steal things and get injured in the process... then sueing the couple that lives in the home, but I digress.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
Well, Aerin, I'm sorry that you don't approve of my and my wife's agreement we made before we got married and all...I'll make sure to tell her you don't approve. I'm sure her response will be less measured and polite then mine has been. [Razz]

Some choices have repercussions, and having sex with someone you are not married to, when you are married has some pretty nasty side effects.

Perhaps instead of focusing so much on the *possible* negative the children *might* suffer from the injured party, you might speak to how much of this damage can be prevented by open communications of sexual needs inside a marital relationship.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
Kirkis...telling people to "shut up" is rude, and doesn't help your case.

As to assuming that the biological father is laughing...it is a bad assumption.

Just as bad as giving them a pass for impregnating a married woman with the assumption that the husband will raise the child (well, maybe not just as bad, but wrong none the less).

People's emotions and motivations will vary as much as the people themselves vary, and to assume that they -want- to get out of responsibility, or having the child in their lives is dangerous and at best unfair.
 
Posted by Aerin (Member # 3902) on :
 
quote:
Some choices have repercussions, and having sex with someone you are not married to, when you are married has some pretty nasty side effects.

They don't have to. Like I said, a zero tolerance policy often ends up being extremely unjust.

Despite your liberal use of square quotes, the damage to the children would be very, very real.

The children's claims on you are separate from their mother's.
 
Posted by KirKis (Member # 12454) on :
 
Well I do apologize for saying "shut up". I really don't want anyone to shut up. I got carried away a bit. Sorry rabbit!

When I say "laughing" I mean picturing a guy who just stole from the bank and going to get away with it. That kind of laughing. like... Ha ha! Suckers! Thats what I think about when I picture a guy doing such a horrible thing... and getting away with it.

I understand that situations are differnet. The "other" guy might actually want to stay and help out. Thats what I want. I want them to. I'm talking about the guys who don't.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
I honestly don't know where you are coming from Aerin...are you suggesting that when one is cheated upon they owe it to their children to try and make the marriage work irregardless of circumstance?

Or only if their spouse is really really sorry, and it is only the first time?

Either way I disagree.

Further, are you saying that no matter the emotions involved that staying married is better for the children then divorce?

If so, I disagree.

I asked this before and no one took a bite...so I ask again...what if it is not the first time? How many chances are we obligated to give our spouses when they swear going into a marriage that it won't happen even once ever?

KirKis...I think Rabbit was pointing out that some men -want- their children, and fight for them against the married husband, much like you yourself fought for your daughter.

While I agree that the husband shouldn't obligated, I don't think it is a simple matter of justice to force the biological father to pay for his offspring. If the husband decides to become the father of the offspring, then I am fine with it. But I do say it is his choice.
 
Posted by Aerin (Member # 3902) on :
 
Breaking up a family when it is possible to keep it together healthily and happily is a grave and tragic undertaking, and it causes serious harm to children.

Saying to a partner with whom you have no children "One infidelity strike and you're out" I have no problem.

When you have children, though, and it is possible to salvage your family, it seems very problematic and puts yourself above any consideration of the children.

---

You keep trying to force me into an absolute statement. Don't you get that it is absolute statements that I am finding so repugnant?
 
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
So since we all realize that a husband or unmarried assumed father can currently request a paternity test at any time without the mother ever knowing . . . how about moving back to the argument about making the tests mandatory? Consider the following situations:

A woman is raped. She and her husband or boyfriend are anti-abortion and decide to keep the child. Based on dating the pregnancy there's a 50-50 chance that it's her partner's child and they decide to assume that it is.

A married woman has a one-night fling. She confesses it to her husband, he wants to stay married, and they go to counseling. A month later, they find out she is pregnant. Again 50-50 chance. He says he would prefer not to have a DNA test and will assume the child is his.

An unmarried woman is non-exclusively dating. She finds out she's pregnant, and tells the two men who could potentially be the father. One of them is not interested in having children. The other wants to get married and start a family. She reminds him that biologically it might not be his child, he says it will be his child either way.

In what way would it be a benefit to force DNA testing on any of these families? I submit that these are all situations that mandatory testing would have no benefit and the potential for great harm. If a man wants a test done, he can have it done. There is absolutely no reason to force people who don't want it to have it.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
What you are failing to understand is the part about "healthily and happily"...if people know themselves enough to be sure that that is an impossibility, then it is in the best interest of the children to be away from their spouse.

Being in a household with both a mother and father can be way better then having two households with only one of each, but if that one household is filled with yelling, screaming obscenities, slammed doors and punched walls where hatred and animosity simmer just under the surface of everything then divorce is better for the children.

Having grown up with parents who often argued and dragged me into their fights, I can attest that this is true from first hand experience. And my 'rents weren't even bad. There was zero physical violence, and not even a lot of over the top fights, but there was a constant battle of wills, and a subtle poisoning of the other parent going on.

ETA: I am in now way implying either of my parents was not faithful...just for the record.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Aerin:
You keep trying to force me into an absolute statement. Don't you get that it is absolute statements that I am finding so repugnant?

I submit it is you who is trying to force me into an absolute statement.

I on the other hand am simply saying that the "proper response" to infidelity is up to the person who got cheated on.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
dkw...who are you addressing with your post? I'm sorry, but I can't seem to remember anyone who is still advocating for this...although I could be remembering wrong.
 
Posted by KirKis (Member # 12454) on :
 
@SW - It's a bit confusing when your trying to make a point and you even tell them "unless he wants to" but then you get a reply about "well what about these people who wants to?!?" I've said it numerous times that if a man wants to step up... then fine. Let it settle out in court. The point of it is the other man should step up and take responsibility and the husband should have the OPTION not to.

@dkw - I would be for it, actually. Though when it was mentioned before it was "too expensive" or "invasion of privacy". So might as well not even bring it up. A $80 test is just too much to prevent such problems, apparently.
 
Posted by Aerin (Member # 3902) on :
 
"no matter the emotions"

"irregardless of circumstances"

"any infidelity will immediately result in divorce"

Just from this page. Those are all absolute statements.

People are more complicated than that. An immediate divorce when there are children involved seems very selfish to me. The parents owe it to the kids to try.
 
Posted by KirKis (Member # 12454) on :
 
You break a vow with me, we are done. If vows aren't taken seriously then don't bother making it.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
KirKis...Well, then we agree on that point. Sorry for any confusion.

dkw...In discussing mandatory testing previously, I suggested that people have the ability to waive the test. That it not be "mandatory" but simply, "opt out" instead of "opt in". This would provide satisfactory results in all your above scenarios I believe.

I'm still for leaving it as is, as so many have pointed out, if anyone wants to know without their spouse knowing that they want to know, all they have to do is have the test.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
Aerin:

If I were calling for all people to do as I choose to do, perhaps you would have a leg to stand on.

The fact of the matter is, I am not. Again, my wife and I made a decision about this before we were married. And to be perfectly frank, our decision about our marriage is none of your business.

What I advocate is that the person who is cheated upon should decide the proper course of action.

You on the other hand are trying to get me to submit to the absolute statement that all married couples with children who go through infidelity need to try and stay together for the children.

I am trying to get you move away from an absolute position, you are trying to get me to move to an absolute position.
 
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
KirKis is who brought up mandatory testing, and apparently is still for it even in the scenarios I offered.

Although he seems to have misread my post as being in favor of it, which I find rather odd.
 
Posted by KirKis (Member # 12454) on :
 
@SW - No problem! And I could go for "Opt out not Opt in" as a solution to the DNA testing.

Like I said before, if you don't think about it, you won't act on it.

Example: If I don't think it might rain today, I won't bring an umbrella.
 
Posted by KirKis (Member # 12454) on :
 
Sorry DKW, I did misread your post... In honesty I kind of skimmed it.

Though I agree with SW's idea. You would still opt out of knowing. Some people just prefer to know just so they know. Others... do not. You won't know there is a problem unless your told. Some might want to know but not make it seem like they do. Some might not care either way.

There are all different types of people out in the world and everyone wants to be happy.

You can come up with many scenarios on why you wouldn't want to know... just like there are scenarios in which you would.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
quote:
Like I said before, if you don't think about it, you won't act on it.
Think about that for a second.
You're saying that if a man never finds out that he's not the biological father of one of his children, he'll never do anything differently.

So....Why is this an issue?
 
Posted by KirKis (Member # 12454) on :
 
No thats not what i'm saying.

I was trying to short hand it because I feel that i've become a broken record about it. This will be the last time I type it out for awhile...

If you suspect that the baby isn't yours, you will test.

If you don't suspect that the baby isn't yours, you will not test.

So for those that don't suspect, and are wrong... they should be told, unless they OPT out of knowing the outcome. Like what Stone Wolf suggested.

They will test unless you OPT OUT. Which means you don't care whether the child is yours or not. You don't want to know.

Everything will be fine with this. Make it so number 1.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
quote:
So for those that don't suspect, and are wrong... they should be told
Why? What good does it do?
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
Truth has no value Tom?
 
Posted by KirKis (Member # 12454) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
Truth has no value Tom?

This. Thanks Stone_Wolf.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Truth has some intrinsic value. So does knowledge. But, specifically, what value does knowledge of the truth have in this scenario?
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
For different people, it would have different value. Confirmation of your children being biologically yours is one possible value. For people like yourself who do not wish to know, either way, simply opting out would be an option.

Another possible value would preventing a child being switched at birth in hospitals which still use a nursery.

Plus some people would strongly prefer to know if indeed their children are not their own biologically.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
And we agree that those people are selfish bastards, right? [Smile]
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
Five pages later...yes of course we do [Razz]

Could you please put down some serious effort to explain why you think it is that someone wanting to know if their spouse cheated on them makes them a selfish bastard Tom? Because to be honest (I was lying about everything before this statement, what a stupid phrase) I don't get where you are coming from even a little bit.
 
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
For different people, it would have different value. Confirmation of your children being biologically yours is one possible value. For people like yourself who do not wish to know, either way, simply opting out would be an option.

But it serves SOCIETY better to make it opt-in, not opt-out.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
rivka: Is that a purely monetary argument, or is there more at work?
 
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
It is to society's benefit to have stable families. It is clear (from this thread, if not before) that providing people the information -- that they have not requested -- would destabilize families.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
Well, I'll certainly grant you your first point, but as to the second...I'm not convinced either way. Who is to say if it does more or less harm to find out this kind of thing sooner rather then latter...and as to those who would never find out, perhaps it is better for society by result, but I personally can't get behind any policy of "ignorance is bliss". I think the default with most information should be to err on the side of too much rather then too little.

All that being said, I'm still okay with our current "opt in" system.
 
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
 
I'm glad I'm not married to most of the women participating in the infidelity tangent of this thread.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
So am I.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
I bet you would be busy if you were married to most of them.

Why some people want more then one wife I'll never know.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by capaxinfiniti:
I'm glad I'm not married to most of the women participating in the infidelity tangent of this thread.

You mean the women who make no praise or justification of infidelity, but point out that whatever the expectation is of things such as marriage vows, few indeed say anything like, "You break your word to me, my promises and obligations are void." *Those* women?

Take heart: I suspect they're at least equally happy not to be married to you. Win-win!
 
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:
Originally posted by capaxinfiniti:
I'm glad I'm not married to most of the women participating in the infidelity tangent of this thread.

You mean the women who make no praise or justification of infidelity, but point out that whatever the expectation is of things such as marriage vows, few indeed say anything like, "You break your word to me, my promises and obligations are void." *Those* women?

Take heart: I suspect they're at least equally happy not to be married to you. Win-win!

Yeah, *those* women. I would prefer a wife whose marital commitments and expectations are the same as mine and one who agrees that infidelity constitutes a level of dishonesty and betrayal that merits separation.

Look, this a totally subjective. If you don't mind your wife sleeping around that's your prerogative. If I say cheating merits separation and my wife says cheating merits separation, I don't see a place where I'm required to factor in your opinion. As I've stated above, I think that for the spouse who was cheated on, separation is completely justified and I can continue to argue this point (though I don't see the sense in continuing this belabored discussion.)

But..

As for the nonsense of spousal rights vs. the rights of the children: The rights of all family members are inextricably linked. You harm one you harm all. The successful families I've seen are founded in honesty and trust. This is why vows are made and expectations outlined. The only case where adultery wouldn't harm the family in some way is if the spouse is completely OK with it. In which case the spouse would probably know beforehand and it wouldn't be called cheating.
 
Posted by ambyr (Member # 7616) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
So am I.

Rats. There goes my plan to propose to you!
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
Why, ambyr! I had no idea you felt that way about me! [Wink]
 
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by capaxinfiniti:
As for the nonsense of spousal rights vs. the rights of the children: The rights of all family members are inextricably linked. You harm one you harm all. The successful families I've seen are founded in honesty and trust. This is why vows are made and expectations outlined. The only case where adultery wouldn't harm the family in some way is if the spouse is completely OK with it. In which case the spouse would probably know beforehand and it wouldn't be called cheating. [/QB]

Just because the child is "hurt" by the dishonesty doesn't mean all of his/her rights are vacated. I mean, if a woman's husband and children are in a car accident and the husband dies on the scene, you don't stop trying to save the kids because "oh well, the family is already destroyed."

Likewise, if a husband and wife have children, a man may divorce his wife to run off with a younger woman without vacating his right to still be a father to his children. He has destroyed his bond to his wife, but though his kids may be very angry with his, his relationship to his children has not actually been severed and may yet find a way to thrive despite the dissolution of the marriage.
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
 
I think some of the "adultery ends the marriage" proponents here are missing the fact that there aren't any people here (unless I've missed something) saying "adultery should never cause a marriage to end."

There's an important and not-all-that-subtle difference between these two:

1. Zero tolerance, M.A.D. policies toward cheating are likely to cause some unnecessarily bad outcomes for families with children. When possible, families with children should examine what subsequent choices will be least destructive, rather than automatically seeking divorce.

2. Never get divorced because your partner is cheating on you, if you have kids. It's always wrong.

As far as I can tell nobody is arguing for #2, but several people seem to be responding to #1 as if it was #2.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
quote:
If you don't mind your wife sleeping around that's your prerogative.
Is this something not even close to anything that's been suggested in this thread? Why, so it is!

What *has* been suggested but never quite outright stated more than once in this thread, though, is the suggestion that to respond to infidelity with anything other than ending the relationship is weak, foolish, lacking in self-respect, unreasonable, etc. Sometimes followed by a, "I'm not saying this is a rule for *everyone*..."

But please, carry on describing what something like infidelity means for a relationship as though it were anything but a personal opinion.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
Dan Savage on Colbert tonight must have been lurking.
 
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:
If you don't mind your wife sleeping around that's your prerogative.
Is this something not even close to anything that's been suggested in this thread? Why, so it is!

What *has* been suggested but never quite outright stated more than once in this thread, though, is the suggestion that to respond to infidelity with anything other than ending the relationship is weak, foolish, lacking in self-respect, unreasonable, etc. Sometimes followed by a, "I'm not saying this is a rule for *everyone*..."

But please, carry on describing what something like infidelity means for a relationship as though it were anything but a personal opinion.

What? Why don't you just say what you mean instead of the (tiresome) sardonic remarks and sarcasm? Maybe that's why your position on certain issues comes across so poorly.

Honestly, it seemed as if some in this thread - you included - would react rather casually to the confession of infidelity by your spouse, which could mean you do have *that* kind of relationship.

If you read back a page you'll see some of us are defending the zero-tolerance stance and do, in fact, believe separation can be a 'best-for-the-kids' solution, even if it's one based on principle.

And the "suggestion that to respond to infidelity with anything other than ending the relationship is weak, foolish, lacking in self-respect, unreasonable, etc." isn't the position I hold. I don't even think anyone here has suggested but I feel the opposite has been suggested. Perspectives and, I guess, ideals...
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
quote:
@Rabbit - Don't be ridiculous, biological father is happy because he doesn't have to stick around. Why would he want to? The baby will have two parents. He doesn't have to pay child support. He can just walk away. Sure he is happy about the situation.

I spent years fighting for custody of my daughter. I requested the DNA to prove she was mine since her mother wanted me to stay out of the kids life. If she were married to someone else and I got her pregnant... I would STILL step up and take responsibility. She is MY child.

In what possible way do you see these two statements as compatible? You were given the option of not sticking around for your biological child and far from being happy about it, you fought hard against it.

[ July 13, 2011, 06:37 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:
Originally posted by capaxinfiniti:
I'm glad I'm not married to most of the women participating in the infidelity tangent of this thread.

You mean the women who make no praise or justification of infidelity, but point out that whatever the expectation is of things such as marriage vows, few indeed say anything like, "You break your word to me, my promises and obligations are void." *Those* women?

Take heart: I suspect they're at least equally happy not to be married to you. Win-win!

Amen to that.

In my experience, the men who are the least charitable towards others have the highest need of forgiveness for themselves. It's the guys who haven't kept their covenants that are obsessed over whether I've been perfect in mine. It's the men who consider women interchangable that are convinced that if they don't want to date me I'll throw myself off a bridge. And it's the men who know they don't live up to a perfect standard who demand perfection from others.

It was strange the first time a guy who had cheated in his previous relationship was obsessed with who I talked to and whether I'd ever cheat. I have since encountered several men who think the only way to ensure their own happiness is for me to understand that causing them the slightest bit of grief would result in a scorched earth, my humiliation and degradation, and absolute unforgiveness. Those men are crap. It's the double standard I'm not a fan of.

It seems like the best guys - the ones that shrink from even the thought of breaking their covenants - are those that assume the best of me, and also assume that if cause them grief, it isn't because I was secretly the evil manipulator of their nightmares but instead that I might be, like them, human and trying my best. The best people have the highest standards and the humility to know they don't always live up to it.

I am not a fan of absolute statements when it comes to people. I think they serve more to protect and prop up the speaker who cares about their pride more than the outcomes and justice.

----

To be clear: no kids, and the relationship is over as soon as someone wants someone else and acts on it.

With kids, and you owe it to them to give the person a chance to repent.

Refusing to even give the other person a chance to repent means breaking your children's family for the sake of your own pride, when it didn't have to be that way. That is incredibly selfish to me. Not as selfish and evil as adultery, but still horrendous, and something the father would have to answer for.
 
Posted by KirKis (Member # 12454) on :
 
@Rabbit - I wasn't given an option. My ex abandoned me in Montana a month after the baby was born. I was serving our country in the Air Force at the time.

If you read another one of my comments, I said a man should own up to his responsibility. My responsibility was to my child. So I fought hard. I finally got the DNA court ordered to prove I was the father.

On the other hand, If I were the type of man who doesn't own up to his responsibility, I would have been happy that I didn't have to be stuck for 18 years.

I don't understand how you don't understand this. It's not hard. It's not complicated either.
 
Posted by KirKis (Member # 12454) on :
 
@Katharina - I don't know if your married or not. Lets say, you are. You have a child with your husband. You find out through e-mail, phone call history, text messages, or even caught in the act your husband is cheating on you. Of course you'll be angry at first. Your trust has just been smashed to bits. Your heart is now broken. You feel that you can hardly breathe.

Thoughts race through your mind about recent events. Those subtle hints he displayed are now making sense. He was seeing another woman. He would rather sleep in the bed of another woman than with you.

Now thoughts race to your child. A door opens and your husband appears and repents. He says the woman didn't mean anything to him. He tells you that he will change his ways and that he loves you.

If you accept this and still be with him. You will always think "what if he is still cheating on me?" Your trust was smashed to bits remember. You can't trust him. He broke his vow to you. You will never know if he is still cheating or not.

This type of life is unhealthy for the child and can/will cause harm. The child will grow up in a home where two parents are estranged. The child will think that this is what a normal relationship is like. The father will eventually turn spiteful because, normally, the one who does the crime will try and turn it around on the victim.

It is better if the child lives in two, seperate, happy homes then living in one unhappy one.
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
I am aware of adultery is. I was and am not confused as to what that means. Laying it out in detail doesn't change anything.

Secondly, what you described is not what I proposed. Do you know what "repent" and "healthy" mean? Or do you not believe the repentance is every possible?
quote:
It is better if the child lives in two, seperate, happy homes then living in one unhappy one.
I am honestly not sure about this statement. It is something divorcing parents devoutedly want to believe, I'm sure, but considering 1) the considerable negative effects of divorce, 2) the often resulting poverty, and 3) the likelihood that the resulting two households will not instanntly be happy, I won't take that as absolutely true.

The rough truth of staying together for the kids is that it genuinely often is better for the kids. Worse for the parents, better for the kids. You have the right to choose yourself, but don't fool yourself that you're doing it for them.
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
quote:
@Rabbit - I wasn't given an option. My ex abandoned me in Montana a month after the baby was born. I was serving our country in the Air Force at the time.
You were too given options, the option to let your child go and have no contact and no responsibility or the option to fight for her in court. You choose the latter option. Ergo, not all man are happy to have no responsibility and no contact with their own children. When you know that many men fight for custody of their children, it isn't rational to assume the biological father will be happy to walk away from the responsibility of fatherhood. I've even known a couple of generally irresponsible men who've fought for custody of their children and some otherwise responsible guys who've protested paying child support for their biological offspring.
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Seriously: no one has proposed staying with someone who doesn't repent. What I suggest is that not giving someone a chance to come back from the evil of adultery is visiting the consequences on the child instead of yourself. The key word here is "repent", with all that entails.
 
Posted by KirKis (Member # 12454) on :
 
@katharina - I believe that one who changes loyalty can always change again.

I don't know if your parents are divorced. Mine was growing up. When I was younger, before they divorced they were always fighitng. That wasn't a good place for me to grow up in. They just constantly fought. Yelled at each other. All I could do was cry. It started to even take a toll on my grades in school. I can still remember my mother throwing a lamp at my father. It was horrible.

Yeah when they split up and started sharing me every week... at first it was weird. But it wasn't as bad as when they were always fighting. I'm glad they divorced.

When a relationship goes sour and there is no love. It can't do anything but hurt.
 
Posted by KirKis (Member # 12454) on :
 
@Rabbit - If you want to get technical with me... No I did not have any options what-so-ever. You see, in the Military if you have a child you are obligated to pay child support. Unless a court decides you don't have to. They automatically garnished my wages every month after the mother left. It wasn't anything I set up. the First Sergeant visited me and told me this was going to happen.

Where did you get that I said "all men" ? I thought i've repeated it over and over. There are men who accept responsibility and there are men who don't. Now your doing this on purpose...

Sure there are men, like me, who would accept responsibilty. There are also nubs who don't. Those that don't are the ones that are happy they don't have to.
 
Posted by Aerin (Member # 3902) on :
 
quote:
I believe that one who changes loyalty can always change again.

I believe anyone can betray. You can be happily encased in a family that works like gangbusters and then it all falls apart, and that can happen at any time. There are simply no guarantees. Adopting a zero tolerance policy doesn't create one. It actually sets a family up to fail.

My parents were not divorced - they were very happily married until my mother died, and now my father is happily married again. I have a lot of conversations with my dad about relationships and things, and something I've gathered from him and from my mother before she died is a forgiving charity towards the other person. They were faithful, non-abusive, compatible, and loyal, and it still took an absolutely tremendous amount of charity and forgiveness in order for them to be happy together. I think it always does.

That's why I'm leery of guys who say that there is no forgiveness possible. I suspect that extends to more than just this issue - and being a relationship with someone who never cuts slack for human frailty is hell on earth. That I AM sure of.
 
Posted by KirKis (Member # 12454) on :
 
@ Aerin - Your wrong. Not "anyone can betray." I would -NEVER- Betray someone i'm with. I take my promises and vows seriously.

I would never, ever cheat. No matter the circumstance or who might tempt me. If I wanted to get with someone else i'll leave my wife FIRST. Not AFTER.

I've told her that numerous times. She believes me (anyone would if they got to know me). I would bend over backwards for those I care about. I could never destroy someone like that.

So Evil.

EDIT: I was also raised up on "treat others the way you want to be treated." I would never cheat on anyone and I don't want them to cheat on me. No double standards here.
 
Posted by Aerin (Member # 3902) on :
 
Life is long, no one is perfect, and absolute statements about future behavior don't ring right to me.

I'm not saying you will - most people don't (thankfully). However, reiterating your zero tolerance policy doesn't change my opinion of it.

I do agree with your opinion of adultery. It is flat out evil and overwhelmingly selfish, and the men I've known who got divorced because of their unfaithfulness had a patina of slime on them.

But I also believe in grace, and forgiveness, and I believe in the Atonement. If I had kids with someone, I would hope I'd give them a chance to repent. We all need forgiveness.
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
Repentance means far more than saying your sorry. When you have betrayed someone, repentance means putting in the enormous effort to rebuild trust. Truly forgiving isn't easy, but it is possible.


I have a friend whose husband fathered a child in an extra-marital relationship. They managed to save their marriage even though fidelity was and continues to be seen by both of them as a crucial commitment. It wasn't easy. It took a lot of work and commitment on both their parts, but they were able to rebuild a strong happy and trusting marriage. She says it took a long time but she was able to fully and completely forgive him. She supports him in being a decent father to her "step daughter" and even counts her as part of the family.

If you cannot imagine people being able to truly repent or truly forgive, you grossly underestimate the capacity of human beings.
 
Posted by KirKis (Member # 12454) on :
 
Forgiving for saying something stupid, or missing your birthday is one thing. Completely destroying the trust and bond you two share is something else.

I know that nothing I say will change your opinion.

I've been cheated on before. I know what it's like. I even had a kid "after" it happened. I pratically caught her in the act. two sets of shoes in the bedroom... and a "adult"-DVD in the Playstation that I never seen before.

And both of them sitting outside on the porch bench talking...

Of course I couldn't prove anything so I had to go on as if nothing happened. I should have just ended it there.

If I knew then what I know now I would have. I had to experience it. I had to learn what it was like. The relationship didn't work out at all. Thats was the mother of my child. I'm glad I got my daughter out of it... Don't get me wrong. Though I stayed with her for the wrong reasons. I had no idea what I was getting myself into.

I'm not saying that every other relationship will end the same. Each situation is different. But you can save yourself a lot of hurt with the zero-tolerance policy.
 
Posted by Aerin (Member # 3902) on :
 
What a horrible experience. I'm so sorry you experienced that. [Frown] That's terrible.
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
quote:
Forgiving for saying something stupid, or missing your birthday is one thing. Completely destroying the trust and bond you two share is something else.

I know that nothing I say will change your opinion.

I don't disagree that the two are vastly different. The latter is however still possible. I've seen it done so I know it is possible.

You are right that nothing you can say will convince me that what I have personally observed do not actually happen.

I'm sorry your wife cheated on you and your marriage failed. It must have been traumatic. From what you've said, it seems evident that your wife was not sincerely committed to your marriage and had no inclination to repent. Under those circumstances, I would agree that divorce is best option. But not every instance of adultery is the same. Some people are genuinely repented and willing to make the effort to change and repair what they have damaged. When they are, it is truly possible to save the marriage.
 
Posted by KirKis (Member # 12454) on :
 
It's ok. I was young. 18 years old... just getting out of High School. My Mother was the type where "you move out when your 18, no exceptions" so she kicked me out of the house and so I moved in with my older girlfriend (the one who became the mother of my child).

Then when I went to Basic Training she broke up with me over my first phone call home. Saying she met someone else. This was in August. During December I was allowed to go home for a week and she met up with me... she then proposed to marry to me right then-and-there. Once again... I was 18. So I said yes.

In Feburary we got married and she moved out to Montana to meet me there. A month after the baby was born she left.

Later on, after a few phone calls with the people we lived with... it turns out she was selling herself for rent $$. So of course I checked myself... clean... thankfully. But still... Then she didn't want me to be the father of my child...

I've been through a lot you can tell. So my opinion on this whole issue is from what i've experienced.

EDIT: If I had a Zero-Tolerance back then. It would have saved me a lot of heartache. Which is why I have a zero-tolerance now. It wouldn't matter even if she did repent in the way you are referring to. We still wouldn't have worked out after that. I was too hurt. Specially when I found out that she was selling herself for $$$ WHILE we were together.

So now you all know why I post the way I do. Why I take the stances I do. Every single thing i've said would have helped people like ME. There are other people out there in worse situations than mine. I feel bad for them because I know how they feel.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
I'm really sorry you went though all that KirKis.

I would agree with people here that the injured party should consider reconciliation with a repentant partner in most cases. But I will not and never will agree that they are obligated to try. If after thoughtful consideration the injured party decides they do not want, can not handle, etc to try and reconcile, they should not be looked down upon for "hurting the children".

quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
I think some of the "adultery ends the marriage" proponents here are missing the fact that there aren't any people here (unless I've missed something) saying "adultery should never cause a marriage to end."

There's an important and not-all-that-subtle difference between these two:...

...2. Never get divorced because your partner is cheating on you, if you have kids. It's always wrong.

If it was simply a matter of "it would be better if you considered it" there wouldn't be such opposition. Instead the attitude that is presented is, "If you don't try, you (the parent who got cheated on) is hurting your children out of selfish pride."

quote:
Originally posted by katharina:
It's the guys who haven't kept their covenants that are obsessed over whether I've been perfect in mine. It's the men who consider women interchangeable that are convinced that if they don't want to date me I'll throw myself off a bridge. And it's the men who know they don't live up to a perfect standard who demand perfection from others.
...
I am not a fan of absolute statements when it comes to people.

Funny...all those absolute statements about people right before a declaration of how much you dislike them.

quote:
Originally posted by Aerin:
That's why I'm leery of guys who say that there is no forgiveness possible. I suspect that extends to more than just this issue - and being a relationship with someone who never cuts slack for human frailty is hell on earth. That I AM sure of.

That's quite an extrapolation from "This is a deal breaker for me." to "I will never cut you any slack." I submit that people who never forgive any transgression couldn't be in a relationship long enough to get married or have kids in the first place. People step on each other's toes all the time, but the difference between human frailty and a deal breaker is, when you specifically promise before entering into that level of relationship that it will never ever ever happen. Yes forgiveness is necessary for a relationship (any relationship, not just marriage) but there are also lines that should never be crossed. For some people, that line is physical abuse, some verbal/mental abuse, and for some it is infidelity.

quote:
Originally posted by KirKis:
I would never, ever cheat. No matter the circumstance or who might tempt me. If I wanted to get with someone else i'll leave my wife FIRST. Not AFTER.

+1

quote:
Originally posted by KirKis:
...you can save yourself a lot of hurt with the zero-tolerance policy.

I think statements like this (while true in and of themselves) are exactly why some posters are attributing selfishness when it comes to this situation + children. If your only goal is to save yourself hurt (and I'm not saying that is or isn't true of KirKis) then it is not unreasonable to consider it selfish when you have children...it means you did not take into consideration their welfare. But if you have considered it, and still think separation/divorce is the best course of action then people shouldn't judge you and say you are being selfish and hurting your children. Even if that consideration is pre-consideration. There are such things as boundary issues, and different people have different standards, sensitivities and needs. Especially if this is pre-discussed with your spouse so that that understanding is known and agreed upon before the marriage (as in my case).
 
Posted by Aerin (Member # 3902) on :
 
No, it's still selfish not to even try when there is a chance, and especially so to decide beforehand you aren't going to try.

----

If you think those were absolute statements, then you don't understand the difference between a declarative and an absolute statement.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
KirKis, I, too, am sorry you went through all that. Honestly (and I mean this gently) you can't base general rules for everyone on worst cases and it sounds like you were unlucky or unwise enough to pick a real worst case kind of woman.

I hope that your future relationship are better.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
Well, we disagree that's clear. I think it would classify you as (at least) insensitive to go around and tell the victims of infidelity that they are selfish for not giving their spouses another chance.

There is a difference between "decide beforehand" and "agree beforehand".

What I said was "absolute position". But I'm glad you would rather assume my ignorance then ask for clarification. [Razz]
 
Posted by Aerin (Member # 3902) on :
 
I didn't ask for clarification because you were clearly more interested in playing "Gotcha" than actually having a conversation. That game you'll have to play by yourself.

The key word is not "decide" or "agree". It is "beforehand."

Adultery is selfish. Breaking a family when it is possible to save it is as well. Not as selfish or evil as adultery, but still.
 
Posted by KirKis (Member # 12454) on :
 
Thanks everyone.

I'm sorry Aerin, but i'm selfish then. I can't give someone who does that another chance. I would keep thinking about it... even as you lay down next to me I just couldn't get it out of my head.. the things you did with that other guy. (sorry i'm using you as an example). It would drive me insane. I would be bitter about it. I would keep brinigng it up at random times. It would make you angry too. We would start fighting and eventually we would split.

If you have any intention of cheating. Don't get into a serious relationship. Period.

You don't get a free pass. There is no "get-out-of-jail-free" card. There is no passing go. You go directly to jail.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
KirKis, the point is that these thing are true for you possibly because of what you have already gone through with your previous partner and with your parents.

They are not true for everyone. Some people are able to forgive and move on. And for some people, it isn't as big a deal.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
Naw, plenty of people will still play with me. :wink:

All kidding aside, I wasn't simply trying to score points off you. You seem to think I'm trying to twist your arm into saying something you don't believe, trying to push you into an "absolute statement"...but I'm not. Your statements seem conflictory to me, and judgmental, and I was trying to see what you were really saying...and pointing out that yours is the more absolute position. *shrug*

It seems like you are not only saying that it is owed to consider at the time, but to try to reconcile...but the thing you keep bumping your nose against is this..."when it is possible to keep it together healthily and happily" what you should say is "if"...because it isn't always a real possibility. Even if someone really really tries. And sometimes this can be known. And if it is known, (I know I could never get over this and let you touch me again, or look at you and not see her/him) then trying is just going to cause more damage.

Give people a little credit for knowing their own needs and sensitivities.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
boots: I don't think KirKis is calling for everyone to have a zero tolerance policy...if you are KirKis, please correct me here.

It is the other side of this argument who is insisting that everyone must give a second chance...if the spouse is repentant and there are kids involved....or else you are selfish and hurting your children.
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Aerin:
I didn't ask for clarification because you were clearly more interested in playing "Gotcha" than actually having a conversation. That game you'll have to play by yourself.

The key word is not "decide" or "agree". It is "beforehand."

Adultery is selfish. Breaking a family when it is possible to save it is as well. Not as selfish or evil as adultery, but still.

Before my husband and I got married, we agreed to lots of things, many of which were in retrospect unrealistic. I don't remember if we ever explicitly discussed what we would do if one of us
committed adultery. I doubt we thought we needed to. We both understood and agreed that getting married meant promising to be exclusive. So far, that's not a problem we've had to face and a don't imagine it ever will be. Still, I doubt many people marry someone they think is likely to cheat on them, we all think the odds don't apply to us.


What my husband and I did discuss and commit to was striving to work through all our problems, without exception. To me, the very idea of a "deal breaker" violates that promise.

That doesn't mean I there is no circumstance which would justify a divorce in my mind. If one partner is no longer willing to work on solving the serious problems, then divorce may be the most viable option. But as long as my husband is willing to work at it -- I have promised to do so.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
The Rabbit, that makes real sense to me.
 
Posted by KirKis (Member # 12454) on :
 
People can do what they wish. It is their life. If people want freebe then by all means give it to them. I won't think less of you. I just won't understand why.

@boots - If it isn't a big deal then you weren't really in love with the person to begin with LOL.

IMO, nobody is worth going through that kind of heartache. (unless your dating Ashley Greene...)

... Oh Ashley...
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
Those are good commitments Rabbit...very similar to my own...except my wife and I specifically and explicitly discussed infidelity, and agreed that it was a deal breaker.

I'm not saying that simply saying the vows is the same as the discussion my wife and I had before we married...just for the record.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
quote:
If it isn't a big deal then you weren't really in love with the person to begin with
If you expect people to respect your own feelings on the matter and particular sensitivities you might try and be a little more understanding to other people's diverging opinions.

Just my 2¢.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
quote:
People can do what they wish. It is their life. If people want freebe then by all means give it to them.
This is exactly the kind of remark that has led to people thinking that you, KrisKris (and to a lesser extent a few others) look down on people who take a different stance than you on issues of vows and infidelity, and that you feel there is only one reasonable way to deal with it.

Just because one doesn't immediately end the relationship if infidelity occurs, doesn't adopt a scorched earth stance towards it, doesn't mean they're giving 'freebies'. There's a whole lot of area between 'freebie' and 'up front-if it happens ever, I'm gone forever'.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
KirKis, for some people, love is not measured by jealously or possession. I could just as easily say that if you can't forgive them, you never loved them in the first place.
 
Posted by KirKis (Member # 12454) on :
 
@Rackees - I don't look down on anyone. You have no clue what i've been saying.

I never said my way was the only way. I never said everyone else had to do the same. I said I don't understand why they do. I've been through the pain. I know how i'd react if it happens again. I don't want to feel that way again. Its a horrible feeling. The worst.

Do what you feel is right. I was pointing out what I felt was right and wrong based on my life.

If you already have the mindset now that you'll give another chance if they repent. Then, yes your giving a freebie. This is IN MY OPINION. Hate me for it if you want.

@boots - You might say you forgive them. You might mean it. But forgetting it is another issue. Its not like something you can just forget. You can't just bury it in your memories or block it out. (some people do, not healthy imo). It isn't going to go away. It happened. You will think about it. I can't see how you CAN'T keep thinking about it. Sure I still loved my ex after it happened. She was my first. I'll always have a place in my heart. In fact, i've never stopped loving anyone i've ever been with. I will always love them. Love doesn't go away.

But because of that love, it hurts more. It hurts so badly. To be betrayed in such a way. To have the one you love... with someone else...

EDIT: Well,i'm done talking about it. It's just bringing up bad memories for me at this point. I'll just say that i'm selfish. Thats fine, I can live with that.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
And I think that not forgiving is unhealthy. People have more diverse needs than you might suppose. Some might not think about it at all - hey, some may enjoy thinking about it.

Love isn't always about exclusivity.

Stone_Wolf, apply some of that Heinlein you love to this. Remember Jubal's conversation with Ben about jealousy?
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
No boots...I don't remember that convo...from Stranger?

I don't agree with everything Heinlein had to say, especially when it comes to sex...I mean, he sent his favorite character (the one he based on himself) back in time to hump his mom! Come on!

Besides the reference, what were you asking me to apply?

KirKis: I'm sorry that this discussion brought up bad feelings. I think sitting it out for awhile is a good idea. For the record, I don't think anyone here hates you.
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
I don't think anyone here has said it wouldn't be a big deal if their spouse committed adultery, that they wouldn't be deeply hurt or that forgiving them would be easy.

But I know people who have managed to truly forgive adultery and rebuild a strong and happy marriage. It was not because they weren't deeply hurt and they thought their partners affair was no big deal. It was because both they and their partner worked hard at fixing the things that were wrong with their marriage.

Not every instance of infidelity is like yours. Most people who cheat on their spouses, aren't selling sex for money. It seems pretty clear your ex wasn't committed to your marriage and certainly wasn't making any effort to repent of what she was doing. Under those circumstances, I agree divorce was your best (possibly only) alternative. But the deal breaker here, from my perspective, isn't that she had sex with another person, it's that she had no desire to change and no intention of building a committed relationship with you.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
Stone_Wolf, yes, Stranger. But it was a theme throughout his adult novels.

And what was wrong with sending Lazarus back? The genetic issues were addressed and there was no coercion?

I would have thought the least you would have gotten from Heinlein is a clear sense that your own taboos are no more "right" than blue mud in your belly button.

"The more you love, the more you can love — and the more intensely you love. Nor is there any limit on how many you can love. If a person had time enough, he could love all of that majority who are decent and just."

ETA: Here is the essence of the Jubal/Ben conversation:

"Jealousy is a disease, love is a healthy condition. The immature mind often confuses one for the other, or assumes the greater the love, the greater the jealousy. In fact they are almost incompatible; both at once produce unbearable turmoil."
 
Posted by Aerin (Member # 3902) on :
 
Now that I wildly disagree with. I do not believe that the marriages that can move past infidelity after true repentance are the ones where the cheated-on spouse gets off on the idea. If that even happens at all outside disturbing Heinlein books, that's not the reason 99.999% of the time.

Heinlein is good for many things, but relationship advice isn't one of them.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
Lazarus was pretending to be someone else...he did his mom without her knowing she was screwing her son! It's gross without the subterfuge...with the lies, it's beyond gross, it's wrong, downright evil.

*shrug* I'm just not as open minded about incest as Robert A.

As to there being no limit on love...I agree, but that doesn't mean we don't have to live in a society that does put limits on it, and self imposed limits are different again. Also loving everyone and sexing everyone are different...and sexing everyone has dangers of it's own.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
Aerin, I am not sure what it is you are disagreeing with. My mention of people that enjoy it was merely an example of the diversity of feelings on the matter.
 
Posted by Aerin (Member # 3902) on :
 
Both quotes. The entire post. People who don't intend to be monogamous shouldn't make the vows to do so.

If you're looking for a healthy example of different mores, Heinlein's fictional incestfest isn't a good source.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
Boots...I am one of the least jealous people around. My wife's best friend (and now mine too) is her ex-boyfriend. The reason I'm not jealous is I trust her implicitly. Of course this took years to build up to.
 
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
 
When I got married, my husband and I had two dealbreakers- hitting and cheating. The first still applies, the second depends on circumstances. I am not saying he has permission to cheat or it would be a freebie. If he did so, he would be working to make it up for quite some time, but it is something we could overcome.

Now, if you want to look at the question on paternity from one detached from the wife's infidelity, consider a scenario where you are in the hospital, meeting your new baby conceived vis artificial insemination. You get a call, um, we just realized, we used the wrong sperm on your wife. Your kid is actually the son of Bob. How would you then respond. My husband and I were talking about that and he was shocked when I said, I can see me having troubles bonding with the child, even though my genetic contribution was still there.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
I know an awful lot of people who are happy in those kinds of relationships. Polyamorous that it. Not incestuous. [Wink]

It depends on the particular vows people made to each other. I agree that vows made shouldn't be broken, but people require different vows.

Stone_Wolf, I get that you have a gut reaction. What is the logic behind it?
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
quote:
As to there being no limit on love...I agree, but that doesn't mean we don't have to live in a society that does put limits on it, and self imposed limits are different again.
I can accept society limiting what I am legally required or allowed to do because of love, but limiting how and what I love? I can't imagine anything more oppressive. Self imposed limits on love sound unfortunate at best. Why would we want to limit our own love except out of selfishness and fear?

quote:
Also loving everyone and sexing everyone are different...and sexing everyone has dangers of it's own.
This I agree with. While I agree we should strive to love everyone, we do not and should not love everyone in the same way.

I've been with my husband for 25 years. There is something incredible about waking up every morning with the same person. After 25 years, the depth and breadth of the things we share is something I find extraordinarily beautiful. I can imagine that other types of relationships could be equally fulfilling, but I would not risk what I have to find out. Its too precious.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
quote:
I can see me having troubles bonding with the child, even though my genetic contribution was still there.
Interesting reaction s-ette...why do you think you feel that way?

boots: I'm not sure I understand what your question is in regards to? Incest? Well, it is genetically bad (yes, not in the story, but in general) and a huge cultural taboo. There is also the difference in positions. Any time you have an authority figure doing the people they have authority over it is morally questionable, and you don't get much more authoritative then a parent. Maybe I got the question wrong, as explaining why incest is wrong seems like a silly thing.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
Sorry Rabbit, I was referring more to society's/self limits on sexing, not on loving...
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
I am talking about the incest in the story. I agree that incest in real life is a bad thing. In real life there is not the opportunity to go back in time and meet your mother as an adult and an equal. [Wink]

My point it that, while we are entitled to our own emotional needs (within reason) in a relationship, those needs are not universal nor set in stone. Assuming they are is not what I would expect from such a big RAH fan. [Wink]
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
Objectively, Once you've eliminated the possibility of conceiving a child and authority issues, there isn't any logical reason to object to incest. I do think, however, that most everyone has a pretty deeply ingrained revulsion to the idea. Its hard to say how much of that is cultural and how much is biological, certainly some of both but there it makes sense that evolution would select against being sexually attracted to our closest relatives.

(Freud was a pervert).
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
But I agree entirely and hope I haven't written anything to make you think otherwise.

And I'm a total live and let live kinda guy (when it comes to consenting adults that is). I do rather that people do not do...whatever it is they are into...in public, but that's just me. A certain amount of propriety helps keep society running.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
I think that (again without time travel) it is very difficult to separate incest from abuse.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
This is the problem with everyone being reasonable and agreeing...the board slows down to a crawl, quick, someone say something hopelessly ignorant but heartfelt so we can tell them how wrong they are!
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
This is the problem with everyone being reasonable and agreeing...the board slows down to a crawl, quick, someone say something hopelessly ignorant but heartfelt so we can tell them how wrong they are!

I'm a Rabbit and if a Rabbit can be faithful to one partner for 25 years, than any one who isn't is just a self indulgent undisciplined, hedonistic, A1 looser!!

[Evil Laugh] That ought to evoke some "discussion".
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
Anyone who isn't a rabbit is just a self indulgent, undisciplined, hedonistic A1 looser?

Wolves eat rabbits, you know.

I'm higher up on the food chain.
 
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
 
Stone-Wolf_, I don't know that there is any logical good reason for my assumption that I would have a hard time bonding. To make it more confusing from a logical viewpoint, I seriously considered adopting and never thought that bonding with the child would be an issue (and I still don't).
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
I have two theories...one is that the expectation of of having a child which would in all ways be yours (you and your husband) would be let down. Two is that to accept a child who is of you, but not of your husband is in a way rejecting your husband.

Where as the adopted child, there is no expectation or veiled rejection, you expect the child to have no biological connect to you.

How would you feel if you had a sister who died and she named you and your husband as god parents (other then sad about your sister obviously)? In this scenario your niece/nephew would share your genes, but not husbands, like your scenario.
 
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
 
I think that it is probably theory number two. Though I also think that while trying to come up with a scenario where there would be less emotions feeling of betrayal, I failed. I think there would be a sense of violation for me. I hate pregnancy with a passion (a large reason why I am pro-choice actually) and to carry someone's child other than my husband's would be extremely upsetting for me. If I am going through that hell, at the end, the child had better be my husbands. For me to be willing to be a surrogate, I would honestly need to be offered a million dollars (yes, I would turn down half a million). I also wouldn't do it for my infertile sister or my gay brother in law. At this point, I actually wouldn't do it for another child of my husbands unless it was a whoops and we are looking into permanent sterilization.
 
Posted by KirKis (Member # 12454) on :
 
This thread needs more KirKis, imo. [Wink]
 


Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2