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.Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
@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.
Posts: 91 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 232 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't really put physical violence into the same category as infidelity which really is not likely to cause injury or death.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 232 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's the key - one person breaking the vow of fidelity does not release the other from the vows he made.
Posts: 232 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 232 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 232 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 232 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
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].
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.
Posts: 232 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 232 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 91 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
KirKis, who the heck cares about who is laughing at you? The child is more important than your ego.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 232 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
@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.
Posts: 91 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 91 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 232 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
@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.
Posts: 91 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
