posted
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.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't say it was. However, the degree to which we fail to meet that ideal is a function of our selfishness.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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".
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
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? Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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
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?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
My husband says he'll fight for custody of the big one, but the little one I can keep, regardless of paternity.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 232 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
What if the biological father is, for example, dead? Otherwise incapable of providing for the child?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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!
I'm reading your article...
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
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'.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 650 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
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. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
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 ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 91 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
