Tiassa said:
I had the same thought. Perhaps hospitals should make it routine to perform a paternity test just after the birth.
Canadian man forced to support kids that aren't his
- Thread starter Roman
- Start date
I had the same thought. Perhaps hospitals should make it routine to perform a paternity test just after the birth.
One man's weird is another's every day
Perhaps. But in my corner of the Universe (e.g., Pacific northwestern United States), "genetic legacy" isn't as important as some masculinists would make it out to be. I know disparate people, from my own parents to those of childhood friends, to an insurance salesman in his sixties, psychologists, a Seventh-Day Adventist who worked as a prison guard and eventually finished his Masters' degree in education, a concrete worker who is also a meth user, and many others to whom biological legacy is secondary to familial bonds and, if we must inject pride into the matter, social legacy.
So maybe my outlook on pride and parenthood is weird to you, but it's hardly unique in my area.
The obvious answer is that the children have sixteen years of developing their social bonds around a certain reference point. And the welfare of minors is necessarily a higher priority than the pride of their parents.
If, somehow, that misses your intention, please state the question more clearly.
Roman said:
Perhaps. But in my corner of the Universe (e.g., Pacific northwestern United States), "genetic legacy" isn't as important as some masculinists would make it out to be. I know disparate people, from my own parents to those of childhood friends, to an insurance salesman in his sixties, psychologists, a Seventh-Day Adventist who worked as a prison guard and eventually finished his Masters' degree in education, a concrete worker who is also a meth user, and many others to whom biological legacy is secondary to familial bonds and, if we must inject pride into the matter, social legacy.
So maybe my outlook on pride and parenthood is weird to you, but it's hardly unique in my area.
The obvious answer is that the children have sixteen years of developing their social bonds around a certain reference point. And the welfare of minors is necessarily a higher priority than the pride of their parents.
If, somehow, that misses your intention, please state the question more clearly.
You seem to have a weird theory that raising kids is about who sired them, Roman.
Whine to me how who sired who has anything to do with being responsible to the kids you are raising.
Cry me a river while you are at it.
Huh.
Where I'm from, it's always been about blood.
I got friends that, if their folks found out they weren't theirs, would probably get kicked out of the house. But then, I guess you can't be proud of a deadbeat 22 year old who dropped out of high school and still lives at home, can you?
It's not so much pride, but how it's done. Blood is responsibility. If you don't have blood between you, what have you got, promises? What's a promise made when being lied to?
I don't have kids though, maybe I'd feel differently if I had some. Somehow, I doubt it. I'd be willing to put my kids first; blood always goes first. But when they're no longer my kids? Cuckoldry affronts my sense as a male, I guess. Sort of nullifies the mutual mate guarding.
Maybe I just hate women!!
That's just it though. Children have extreme value, and it's because they are the continuation of our genes. That's precisely why we all have such hardons for "children" in general (poor choice of words noted - why society is obsessed with the value of children). They're the reason anyone does anything, we all are solely driven to pass on our genes. Even gay people are working off breeder instincts while being oblivious to the fact there's no point to their existence. Why do they do themselves up to look nice? to show off their genes to attract mates to breed. Their mutated instincts cause problems with certain steps in that sequence, but instinctually passing on one's gene's is the sole driving force behind every little thing anyone does.
This guy has dedicated his life to investing time, effort and money into offspring he believed were his, and then found out they were not. Even if he spent no money or time on them, he should be compensated simply for the fact that he was lead to believe he didn't need to keep trying to pass on his genes, and realistically the magnitude of this deception could not concievably be rivalled by any other "crime" we could dare to dream up. He's essentially been raped and murdered as a child- depraved of his opportunity to breed and successfully raise his offspring into adulthood, a most diabolical crime has been comitted against this man, the very most base and significant crime that can be committed against a living thing.
To expect him to care for and support children he knows aren't actually his is a huge slap in the face, and makes up the "rape" element of the equation. It's nothing but humiliation and taunting to accompany the castration. To assist in the success of a rival male? Are you kidding? It's a HUGE disgrace of epic proportions, fundamentally understanding life on earth makes this fact undeniable.
Well said.
What must also sting is that the mother has a biological connection to the child, whereas the father does not. That would skew parental relations in favour of the mother. Blood + parenting > parenting alone.
Bells
Staff member
What of the child?
Imagine a child growing up for 12 or so years (as one example), believing that the man he called "Dad", was his father. The father also believes the same. They love each other. To the man, the boy is his son and to the boy, the man is his father. The father has paid for the child's upbringing since his birth. The father and mother divorce and during the divorce, the man finds out the child is not biologically his. Is it right for that man, a parent to that child for 12 years, to suddenly tell the child 'well you're not mine so I don't need to care for you anymore'? What of the child in this instance?
I feel for men who are placed in this situation. They shouldn't be forced to help support the child(ren) in such cases. I am curious as to how they can simply switch off and stop caring for a child after so many years of caring and loving said child. Whether the child is biologically his or not, he was still a parent to that child and for that child, he was the only father he has ever known or had. Such responsibility should not end simply because the mother has decided to seek revenge in a divorce proceeding.
I have a friend who married a woman who had a child, a one year old. They had a second child. After 15 years, the wife decided she didn't love him anymore. Even though he had no obligation to support or pay for her child, during the marriage or after it had ended, the simple fact of the matter is that her child had become his child. He had not adopted the one year old and they didn't even have the same surname. Regardless, without her asking or demanding it of him, he continued to pay child support and helped pay for the boy's education fees.. Why? Because as far as he was concerned, he was that child's parent, even though the child was not biologically his.. he helped raise the child, he took him to football games, camping, on holidays, helped him with his homework, stayed up with him at night when he was sick, helped change his nappies.. he was that child's only father and male parent and to him, that obligation did not end when he and his wife divorced and it did not cease to exist simply because the child was not biologically his.
Women who use this kind of tactic as a means to harm their spouse in divorce proceedings are, for lack of a better term, lame. The father shouldn't be forced to care for the child. As a parent, he should wish to do so regardless.
Imagine a child growing up for 12 or so years (as one example), believing that the man he called "Dad", was his father. The father also believes the same. They love each other. To the man, the boy is his son and to the boy, the man is his father. The father has paid for the child's upbringing since his birth. The father and mother divorce and during the divorce, the man finds out the child is not biologically his. Is it right for that man, a parent to that child for 12 years, to suddenly tell the child 'well you're not mine so I don't need to care for you anymore'? What of the child in this instance?
I feel for men who are placed in this situation. They shouldn't be forced to help support the child(ren) in such cases. I am curious as to how they can simply switch off and stop caring for a child after so many years of caring and loving said child. Whether the child is biologically his or not, he was still a parent to that child and for that child, he was the only father he has ever known or had. Such responsibility should not end simply because the mother has decided to seek revenge in a divorce proceeding.
I have a friend who married a woman who had a child, a one year old. They had a second child. After 15 years, the wife decided she didn't love him anymore. Even though he had no obligation to support or pay for her child, during the marriage or after it had ended, the simple fact of the matter is that her child had become his child. He had not adopted the one year old and they didn't even have the same surname. Regardless, without her asking or demanding it of him, he continued to pay child support and helped pay for the boy's education fees.. Why? Because as far as he was concerned, he was that child's parent, even though the child was not biologically his.. he helped raise the child, he took him to football games, camping, on holidays, helped him with his homework, stayed up with him at night when he was sick, helped change his nappies.. he was that child's only father and male parent and to him, that obligation did not end when he and his wife divorced and it did not cease to exist simply because the child was not biologically his.
Women who use this kind of tactic as a means to harm their spouse in divorce proceedings are, for lack of a better term, lame. The father shouldn't be forced to care for the child. As a parent, he should wish to do so regardless.
Bells said:
Uggggghhh. The 'Think of the children' ideology has been repeated numerous times on this thread, so don't worry, we *haven't* forgotten the child.
That is for the man to decide, not the government. This is based on love. He should indeed continue to care for the boy, but not forced by the government to do it.
bells is against men in general.
It is clearly and distinctly not the faux-father's responsibility as explicitly proven by infallible DNA testing? That's the child- it's well being, both physically and emotionally, is decidedly not the man's responsibility.
The "think of the child" argument fails for that reason, it is officially not his child, so why would the man be roped into any concerns regarding said child? It's not that it's not unfortunate and sad for the child, ofcourse it is, but that fact is just as much wilt chamberlain's (or whoever's) concern as it is the man in question.
Hasn't he suffered enough? It actually would be less despicable to bring in a new random man to carry the burden. If we're going to be making dudes raise kids that aren't theres, at least get a few men to work in shifts so that no individual has to waste their whole life. Why continue to punish and humiliate the man who has already embarrassingly raised someone elses child?
Some fat cuckoo motherfucker, realistically we should kill his child, raising it into adulthood is merely encouraging his inexcusable behaviour.
Bells
Staff member
So responsibility and care should and does only apply when it is yours? So dead beat dads who run off and leave their children and the mother, without once sending a single cent and/or never contacts said child again.. what of them? After all, if responsibility and caring for a child should only apply if said child is yours? Dead beat parents fall where exactly in this spectrum of yours?
You're telling me that someone is being a good human being when they stop caring or loving a child they have cared and loved for 12+ years, simply because they find out it wasn't his biological child? As I said before, he should not be legally forced to do so. He should wish to do so of his own accord.. He was that child's parent before and that responsibility should not end for him simply because he finds out that it didn't spring from his loins.
Really? That's funny, because all I'm seeing in this thread are people more concerned about the weight of their wallets than about parental responsibility. Tell me C66, does parental responsibility end when you find out after 12 or so years that the child you loved, supported, cared for, were a parent to, is not biologically yours? Can you switch off that quickly? Could you tell that child to bugger off and stop caring for them because your ex decided to hurt you in a divorce proceeding?copernicus66 said:
What you and others are forgetting in this whole debacle is that the child is the center of this whole debate. Without said child, there would be no problem at all.
As I have said repeatedly now, no man should be forced to support a child that is not his. But is a man who simply turns his back on a child after upteen years simply because he just found out it wasn't his a hero or a bastard? After all, a parent is a parent. If you've been a parent of a child for 12 or so years and then find out it's not yours, do you really think you are suddenly no longer a parent and would you feel absolved of all responsibility towards a child that yesterday you had proudly proclaimed as your own? People adopt children all the time and just because that child is not biologically theirs does not absolve them of any parenting responsibilities.
He shouldn't be forced to do it.. he should do it because he loves the child(ren) and is a parent to that child.. just as he was prior to the discovery that it is not biologically his.
Deadbeat dads are motherfuckers, you are the one trying to pardon them by making other random guys take on their responsibilities.
House built in the sand; Blue Oysters and Slim Shady
Interesting. What are the adoption rates in your corner of the world?
I don't know. It depends on one's criteria. My father, for instance, is stunned by my parental outlook, perhaps a bit regretful when comparing it to his own. He quietly envies my dedication to principles and laments the conflicts and obstacles it presents in my own life. I'm thirty-five, and if we haven't resolved that I'm a failure, it's because none of us believe that something is over before it's over. Plenty who have come before me have found success, and plenty have given up. His faith that my day will eventually come is founded in anything but blood.
However, that is its own situation, and somewhat different from the issue we are considering:
In the first place, you have everything else that you have built and invested together. And if that all collapses when a the presupposition of blood proves false, what does that say of the foundation?
In matters theological, one might ask whether the Christian does good in order to impress God, or because it is the right thing to do. The same applies here: Does one do right by one's children for blood, or because it is the right thing to do?
If the foundation is set in a promise of reward—salvation for the Christian, and pride for the father—it is weakly built, and subject to wrathful torrents of nature, truth, and reality. Strong shelter, set in a solid foundation, can better weather whatever tempests life might throw at it.
It is, indeed, possible. Parenthood is one of those things that utterly defies imagination. These six have told me stories I never would have written, and some, even having been heard, still defy words.
See my remarks to Lou below, regarding the passing of genes.
I would ask you to look around and take note of a few things. Your computer, for instance, since it's right in front of you. Your car, if you have one, or your neighbor's or any passing on the road if you don't. Perhaps you're drinking a Coke that comes in an aluminum can or plastic bottle. General consensus suggests that these things are artificial.
Some would wonder if a highly advanced society might be unnatural in and of itself. Have you any money in your pocket? Once upon a time, currency corresponded to real things, such as gold; these days it is doubtful that anyone can tell you the true value of a dollar, except to say that four of them gets you a loaf of good sourdough. But even those values are unstable: What costs three and a half at one store might require four and a half at another.
The point of this is that much about our lives is invested in ideas and outcomes that most regard as artificial, and while I personally look at it differently—even if we become enhanced cyborgs, it is still nature manipulating nature—the human drive to separate or shield itself from nature is blatantly observable. Indeed, we have a rhetorical tendency to regard humanity as separate from nature, and while some of this is religious, it is also seemingly inevitable; there is functional value in identifying ourselves in relation to nature.
Still, though, for all we try to separate ourselves from nature, we are frequently willing to appeal to it, sometimes in the strangest ways. Capitalism, in which wealth becomes something of an abstraction, is often praised as the "natural" economic scheme. And in its basic form it is, but identifying compound interest in the birds and the bees is something of a challenge.
An example of this separation might also be found in considering your remarks about homosexuals. The answer to gay style and presentation is more psychological and sociological than it is "natural". Yes, there is an aspect of advertising for a mate, but the question as such fails to account for what we might call the "Blue Oyster effect"°; that is, a sweaty, bearded, even ugly top is sometimes desirable. And heterosexuals are not immune to this idea, either, although my own failure to find the charm or appeal in the "Slim Shady" look does not make for any definitive judgment. Rather, it is enough to point out that the appearance of sleaze, poverty, and even danger, is sometimes considered desirable. It is hard to account for desiring someone who looks like a reckless, unwashed biker if the appeal is genetic insofar as we might expect to desire soft hands, a three-piece suit, and other symbols of success in the culture.
The broader point being that these are curious occasions when we suddenly turn around and appeal to the very nature from which we strive to shield ourselves.
Human nature—and here we might stress the word nature—is not so simply represented in our behavior. Psychologically and anthropologically alike, human nature is mysterious, even amorphous insofar as no general boundaries to describe the phenomenon can be permanently affixed.
What reason did he have to believe they were his? Presumption? Now, don't get me wrong: Some presumptions seem safe, but in the end, what proof did he believe he had?
That seems to be something of hyperbole. At the very least, it is simply an opinion.
And that.
If he hates the woman, so be it. I would not contest his right to invest his emotions that way. But it seems stupid that the children should be punished for his pride in the face of her error. Would he have the guts to look those kids in the eye and say, "You know all that love I showed you over the years? It's bullshit. Because you're bullshit. You're not my biological offspring, so you're not worth anything to me. That's right, all those years I gave only because I thought you reflected me. And since you don't, well, fuck off."
Something about humiliation? Perhaps something about being "raped and murdered as a child"? You know, a bit of hyperbole in order to avoid the detail of the situation and its impacts?
____________________
Notes:
° "Blue Oyster effect" — Perhaps this is a humorous, even affectionate term referring to a part of the gay community I don't connect closely with. It is derived from the 1980s film Police Academy. In addition to the leather butch, some have a thing for bears, which are hairy, overweight tops.
Works Cited:
Bible: Revised Standard Version. http://quod.lib.umich.edu/r/rsv/
Roman said:
Interesting. What are the adoption rates in your corner of the world?
I don't know. It depends on one's criteria. My father, for instance, is stunned by my parental outlook, perhaps a bit regretful when comparing it to his own. He quietly envies my dedication to principles and laments the conflicts and obstacles it presents in my own life. I'm thirty-five, and if we haven't resolved that I'm a failure, it's because none of us believe that something is over before it's over. Plenty who have come before me have found success, and plenty have given up. His faith that my day will eventually come is founded in anything but blood.
However, that is its own situation, and somewhat different from the issue we are considering:
In the first place, you have everything else that you have built and invested together. And if that all collapses when a the presupposition of blood proves false, what does that say of the foundation?
In matters theological, one might ask whether the Christian does good in order to impress God, or because it is the right thing to do. The same applies here: Does one do right by one's children for blood, or because it is the right thing to do?
"Not every one who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?' And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers.'
"Every one then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house upon the rock; and the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat upon that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock. And every one who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house upon the sand; and the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell; and great was the fall of it."
(Matthew 7.21-27)
"Every one then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house upon the rock; and the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat upon that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock. And every one who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house upon the sand; and the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell; and great was the fall of it."
(Matthew 7.21-27)
If the foundation is set in a promise of reward—salvation for the Christian, and pride for the father—it is weakly built, and subject to wrathful torrents of nature, truth, and reality. Strong shelter, set in a solid foundation, can better weather whatever tempests life might throw at it.
It is, indeed, possible. Parenthood is one of those things that utterly defies imagination. These six have told me stories I never would have written, and some, even having been heard, still defy words.
See my remarks to Lou below, regarding the passing of genes.
• • •
Dr. Lou Natic said:
I would ask you to look around and take note of a few things. Your computer, for instance, since it's right in front of you. Your car, if you have one, or your neighbor's or any passing on the road if you don't. Perhaps you're drinking a Coke that comes in an aluminum can or plastic bottle. General consensus suggests that these things are artificial.
Some would wonder if a highly advanced society might be unnatural in and of itself. Have you any money in your pocket? Once upon a time, currency corresponded to real things, such as gold; these days it is doubtful that anyone can tell you the true value of a dollar, except to say that four of them gets you a loaf of good sourdough. But even those values are unstable: What costs three and a half at one store might require four and a half at another.
The point of this is that much about our lives is invested in ideas and outcomes that most regard as artificial, and while I personally look at it differently—even if we become enhanced cyborgs, it is still nature manipulating nature—the human drive to separate or shield itself from nature is blatantly observable. Indeed, we have a rhetorical tendency to regard humanity as separate from nature, and while some of this is religious, it is also seemingly inevitable; there is functional value in identifying ourselves in relation to nature.
Still, though, for all we try to separate ourselves from nature, we are frequently willing to appeal to it, sometimes in the strangest ways. Capitalism, in which wealth becomes something of an abstraction, is often praised as the "natural" economic scheme. And in its basic form it is, but identifying compound interest in the birds and the bees is something of a challenge.
An example of this separation might also be found in considering your remarks about homosexuals. The answer to gay style and presentation is more psychological and sociological than it is "natural". Yes, there is an aspect of advertising for a mate, but the question as such fails to account for what we might call the "Blue Oyster effect"°; that is, a sweaty, bearded, even ugly top is sometimes desirable. And heterosexuals are not immune to this idea, either, although my own failure to find the charm or appeal in the "Slim Shady" look does not make for any definitive judgment. Rather, it is enough to point out that the appearance of sleaze, poverty, and even danger, is sometimes considered desirable. It is hard to account for desiring someone who looks like a reckless, unwashed biker if the appeal is genetic insofar as we might expect to desire soft hands, a three-piece suit, and other symbols of success in the culture.
The broader point being that these are curious occasions when we suddenly turn around and appeal to the very nature from which we strive to shield ourselves.
Human nature—and here we might stress the word nature—is not so simply represented in our behavior. Psychologically and anthropologically alike, human nature is mysterious, even amorphous insofar as no general boundaries to describe the phenomenon can be permanently affixed.
What reason did he have to believe they were his? Presumption? Now, don't get me wrong: Some presumptions seem safe, but in the end, what proof did he believe he had?
That seems to be something of hyperbole. At the very least, it is simply an opinion.
And that.
If he hates the woman, so be it. I would not contest his right to invest his emotions that way. But it seems stupid that the children should be punished for his pride in the face of her error. Would he have the guts to look those kids in the eye and say, "You know all that love I showed you over the years? It's bullshit. Because you're bullshit. You're not my biological offspring, so you're not worth anything to me. That's right, all those years I gave only because I thought you reflected me. And since you don't, well, fuck off."
Something about humiliation? Perhaps something about being "raped and murdered as a child"? You know, a bit of hyperbole in order to avoid the detail of the situation and its impacts?
____________________
Notes:
° "Blue Oyster effect" — Perhaps this is a humorous, even affectionate term referring to a part of the gay community I don't connect closely with. It is derived from the 1980s film Police Academy. In addition to the leather butch, some have a thing for bears, which are hairy, overweight tops.
Works Cited:
Bible: Revised Standard Version. http://quod.lib.umich.edu/r/rsv/
No idea. I suspect it's low. Anyone that I knew who was adopted was really fostered. I remember mustached 6th graders of aggressive persuasion and ambiguous ethnicity, without family. Single mothers don't adopt, anyway. I grew up in a white trash neighborhood. Adoption wasn't something you did; not when breeding was so easy and accidental.
Interesting. My mother's faith in me seems to be the exact opposite. I'm hers, and by God, no son of mine....
Yes, I understand the idea of all that. It's very pretty, and whatnot, but... foundations turn out to be weak all the time. That's why blood is so strong. When it comes to strangers, a lot of times, we just lack integrity.
One does right because of blood. Any subsequent "right" behavior is derivative of what one instinctually does for blood. Not that we do right for blood half the time, anyway.
And I never did like the New Testament.
[edit]
I don't really feel like I can address what human nature is. As you said; it's amorphous. At the very least, human concepts of right and wrong are largely emotive. I have difficulty calling something right or wrong, because it's just quasi-religious name calling. If you could say, "that's wrong, because you reduce your inclusive fitness," at least it makes sense. Saying "that's right, because you know in your heart it's right," well, yeah, I do feel that way about ten year olds.... Feelings aren't a very good investigatory technique.
I lol'd at Blue Oyster effect. It made me think of that obnoxious guy from Anchorman with his shirt off and banging on a cowbell. Shit, I can't remember his name. All the 20-somethings think he's really funny.
Last edited:
This is why having an anonymous mandatory test should be a standard. If a man decides to take care of the child regardless, or ignore the test all together then that choice is HIS to make. He shouldn't have to ask for one, or let anyone else (the child or mother) know that he knows to AVOID the kind of irrational idiocy that some mothers show when faced with the question.
No one is saying that a man shouldn't have to pay for a child that isn't his, only that he should be allowed to make that decision given all of the facts with full disclosure. Women can't be trusted to give the truth 100% of the time, so it would be the easier way.
I agree with Tiassa in that being a parent isn't about biology but about love and sacrifice. I am adopted, and my parents aren't biologically my parents but they love me more than a lot of biological parents love their own children.
But the decision to BE a parent shouldn't reside solely on the mothers word. Children, and the ability to have them and parent them seem to rest too squarely on a group of people who will do anything to support said children and sometimes (far too often) this is done with deceit and unkindness. It's not misogynistic to say these things, and I don't think that any of these guys hate women, I just think that they should have some rights in these kinds of things and shouldn't have the rug pulled out from under them at the drop of a hat if a woman decides she wants to tie her children to someone that didn't father them, or sever her children from a man who did father them.
Thinking of the children, wouldn't it be in their interest to find the right father with honesty and let him choose what he wants to do going forward? It makes for a purer kind of love when everyone involved knows for sure. If the test comes back and he is not the father, he could petition the courts right out to adopt them anyway and still be financially responsible. Honesty, I believe, would still be the best policy but I don't think we can trust women to do that 100% of the time.
Men should have choices with the choices that only women can make.
And people wonder why the guy never got a paternity test until now. Asking for one is basically calling your wife a whore. Sadly, the test may be the only way to find out!
Women are quite lucky in this regard. Since they see the baby emerge from their own bodies, they know it's theirs. This is, actually, a very good justification for the traditional "double standard" regarding male verses female infidelity. If a man sleeps around the only potential harm to his spouse is an STD. Whereas when a woman sleeps around, she may be tricking the man into spending his entire life raising a child that isn't even his. From an evolutionary perspective, that's practically murder. The woman is, by her betrayal, removing her husbands genes from the gene pool. HIs germ plasm will die with him, while he spends his entire life nuturing, caring for, and paying for some other guy's offspring.
So, do all you women out there want to know why so many men are assholes? It's because female infidelity ensures that not only do nice guys finish last, they don't reproduce.
