|
lIllIIIllIlIIlIlIIllIllIIl
Stranger
Registered: 12/16/04
Posts: 11,123
Loc: Texas
|
Fatherly ethics
#9588519 - 01/11/09 10:02 AM (15 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
When someone with brown eyes has a child with someone with blue eyes, the child will almost always end up with brown eyes.
This is because the gene that causes blue eyes is recessive, so the only way it can be expressed is if it inherits a copy of that gene from both parents. However, it can get a bit complicated because you can never know if a person with brown eyes also has the recessive gene for blue eyes. In fact, both parents can have brown eyes and end up with a child with blue eyes, though the probability is small.
There are genetic disorders such as color blindness that are caused in a similar way by two sets of a recessive gene being passed on to a child through its parents. There are also life threatening illnesses that are passed down in exactly the same manner, such as cystic fibrosis. This is called a recessive genetic disorder (RGD).
So what happens when a child is sick and the doctor suspects that the illness is a RGD? They do a DNA test, a fairly cheap test that costs about fifty dollars today.
There is something very interesting that happens when they do this test, and doctors who specialize in RGDs face it all the time. Around 10 percent of the time, the father does not have the recessive gene, and the parents rejoice in the knowledge that their child doesn't have cystic fibrosis. However, the child's health does not improve and after a second round of more expensive testing the child is confirmed to have the genetic disorder.
I'm not sure how they deal with this awkward result, but what it means is that the kid has a mystery dad. Since this is a random sample, it should be fairly indicative of the general population, that about 10% of the time the man you think is your father isn't, genetically, your father.
How to deal with this?
From an ethical perspective, the child is not and cannot be at fault. This is such an interesting question because it forces us to examine just how selfish our desire to nurture our own offspring really is. Your perspective may differ. So instead of bickering on who's viewpoint is right, let's look at how this situation is handled within the legal system, and then discuss which is most ethical.
In Australia the system tends to "favor" the father's "right" to have the experience of raising a genetic child. The idea is that because the father was deceived into believing that they were the genetic father, when they learn otherwise it is a great emotional hurt to them which should be compensated. This compensation comes from the mother to the father, and can include the repayment of the cost incrued by the father raising children that were "not really his kids."
This is termed "paternity fraud".
In Canada the situation is just about the opposite. Simply living with a woman with children places fiduciary responsibility on the man she is living with. Genetics do not play a role.
Various other countries have policies in between these two, but I think there are two opposing viewpoints here resposible for the differences.
1. That having a child, child rearing, requires that the child have some of your DNA. In other words the motivation behind child rearing is the propagation of your own genetics. This may not be a conscious thought, but rather an irrational instinct inherited due to a positive feedback loop favoring selfish behavior toward individuals of close genetic relation.
2. That having a child, child rearing, requires only an innocent being that requires your help to survive. In other words the motivation is an altruistic one, that you are choosing to divert your own resources towards someone who needs it, because they need it. No other reason.
My personal viewpoint is that number 2 is the most ethical philosophy to base laws on, which is what we see in Canada. The child is not responsible for being illegitimate. If you are in a position to care for them, because a child is incapable of looking after itself, I think it is your responsibility to do so. I find it really sick actually that fathers are being compensated the cost of raising children that were presented as their own but were later found not to be.
However, I think that number 1 is what most people actually believe, although some men may try to cloud the issue by saying they have a right, just as a woman does, to bear their own genetic children. I base this on my own experience that you will virtually always find some degree of favoritism and bias between individuals who are closely related genetically, for no other reason than that.
I also think that this is indicative of a larger trend of placing greater value on your own group at the expense of another. We know for example that the most effective way to reduce suffering right now on our planet is to provide free AIDS medication and contraceptives to people who can't afford it. Yet more more money is spent on our pets... oh the humanity!
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 14,794
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 years, 15 days
|
|
Quote:
Yet more more money is spent on our pets... oh the humanity!
What does spending one's personal income on pets have to do with the above subject?
-------------------- All this time I've loved you And never known your face All this time I've missed you And searched this human race Here is true peace Here my heart knows calm Safe in your soul Bathed in your sighs
|
lIllIIIllIlIIlIlIIllIllIIl
Stranger
Registered: 12/16/04
Posts: 11,123
Loc: Texas
|
|
Quote:
So instead of bickering on who's viewpoint is right, let's look at how this situation is handled within the legal system, and then discuss which is most ethical.
Thanks.
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 14,794
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 years, 15 days
|
|
I thought it was part of your argumentation.
-------------------- All this time I've loved you And never known your face All this time I've missed you And searched this human race Here is true peace Here my heart knows calm Safe in your soul Bathed in your sighs
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,441
Loc: Under the C
|
|
Quote:
MushroomTrip said:
Quote:
Yet more more money is spent on our pets... oh the humanity!
What does spending one's personal income on pets have to do with the above subject?
First we must cloud the issue before we get to the meat. Makes for a more convoluted thread.
--------------------
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 14,794
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 years, 15 days
|
|
Ahhhh
-------------------- All this time I've loved you And never known your face All this time I've missed you And searched this human race Here is true peace Here my heart knows calm Safe in your soul Bathed in your sighs
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,441
Loc: Under the C
|
|
In most cases the erstwhile father, who has already been fucked over by his wife, now gets fucked over by the state. I think it is wrong. The woman should bear the full brunt for her deception and infidelity. The non-biological father owes the child NOTHING!
Case closed.
--------------------
Edited by OrgoneConclusion (01/11/09 10:55 AM)
|
lIllIIIllIlIIlIlIIllIllIIl
Stranger
Registered: 12/16/04
Posts: 11,123
Loc: Texas
|
|
What I meant was that I think it is more ethical just to gloss over the fact that your partner cheated/decieved you because the child is blameless, and still needs a provider to look after them regardless. So legally I don't think it is ethical to force the mother to repay the cost of raising the child, as is done in Australia currently.
I added that last part because it was an example of favoring one group over the other, which is what I hinted was the real heart of the issue, ie the child suddenly being revealed as not being part of the father's genetic group.
But you still haven't said how you feel about the issue, which I am interested to know.
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,441
Loc: Under the C
|
|
The 'father' is also blameless and has no reason whatsoever (other than societal convenience) to be held accountable - none!
--------------------
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 14,794
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 years, 15 days
|
|
I think that an universal rule regarding matters that only seem the same but are so different in so many other aspects is kind of stupid and superficial, and also I think that ethics is just another word that points towards one's inability to cope with reality.
Quote:
I added that last part because it was an example of favoring one group over the other, which is what I hinted was the real heart of the issue, ie the child suddenly being revealed as not being part of the father's genetic group.
Show me one example where one group or individual isn't favored over another.
-------------------- All this time I've loved you And never known your face All this time I've missed you And searched this human race Here is true peace Here my heart knows calm Safe in your soul Bathed in your sighs
|
lIllIIIllIlIIlIlIIllIllIIl
Stranger
Registered: 12/16/04
Posts: 11,123
Loc: Texas
|
|
If you were bisexual you would favor men and women equally, right? Maybe you like both large and small breasted women too?
|
lIllIIIllIlIIlIlIIllIllIIl
Stranger
Registered: 12/16/04
Posts: 11,123
Loc: Texas
|
|
This is really unlikely, but let's say there was a mix up at birth and you got the wrong baby. So the baby would have no genetic relation to the mom or the dad. I guess that means that once you find out about this you can drop the kid off at the hospital and charge all them the expenses raising them, right? Poor kid.
Probably a simpler solution would be mandatory paternity tests at birth, since they already do tons of tests on newborns and a paternity test only costs about 50 dollars to do.
|
Amber_Glow
Sat Chit Anand
Registered: 09/02/02
Posts: 1,543
Last seen: 11 years, 20 days
|
|
Compensate the deceived father's time and money out of the pocket of the biological father. Hopefully the lady didn't go too crazy and we won't have to turn to Maury.
|
lIllIIIllIlIIlIlIIllIllIIl
Stranger
Registered: 12/16/04
Posts: 11,123
Loc: Texas
|
Re: Fatherly ethics [Re: Amber_Glow]
#9588995 - 01/11/09 12:11 PM (15 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
I love those paternity test shows.
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,441
Loc: Under the C
|
|
Quote:
I guess that means that once you find out about this you can drop the kid off at the hospital and charge all them the expenses raising them, right? Poor kid.
Sounds good. You fail to address why the non-biological father holds any responsibility for another's child.
--------------------
|
Indigenous
Stranger
Registered: 01/08/09
Posts: 814
Loc: Celestial Realm
|
|
If you order Coke and the bring Pepsi are you legally responsible for the bill?
|
lIllIIIllIlIIlIlIIllIllIIl
Stranger
Registered: 12/16/04
Posts: 11,123
Loc: Texas
|
|
It just seems like such an arbitrary thing that the guy who's sperm wins the race is automatically responsible. If you look at the way men and women have sex, it seems obvious, and is borne out through research, that women have a higher sex drive and a greater capacity for sex than men. You also find things in men like blocker sperm that block the passageway to the egg, preventing enemy sperm from reaching the goal. Why would that have evolved if it wasn't an advantage?
I think women evolved from a situation where they usually had multiple partners, just like you see in the great apes where the females use sex as a tool. The only reason this is a big deal in our society is because it is male dominated and we can't come to terms with the fact that women tend to be deceptive when it comes to sexuality.
I can't "prove" to you who is responsible for raising a child. I just find it callous and unethical that a father would disown his child simply because of a mix up that has nothing to do with the personal relationship they have together, let alone demand to be payed back for the cost of raising the child. You obviously feel the opposite.
|
lIllIIIllIlIIlIlIIllIllIIl
Stranger
Registered: 12/16/04
Posts: 11,123
Loc: Texas
|
|
Quote:
OrgoneConclusion said: I think the teachings of Christ, whether real or mythical man, are highly commendable tenets to follow.
I assume you mean treat others as you would like to be treated? Forgive enemies etc? Yes, highly commendable. Whoops wrong thread. Sorry.
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 14,794
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 years, 15 days
|
|
Quote:
adjust said: If you were bisexual you would favor men and women equally, right? Maybe you like both large and small breasted women too?
What does this have to do with my reply to you? Earlier, when I questioned a statement you made in your post, you were asking to stay on topic even though I was. It'd be nice if you could follow your own advice and actually reply to me in a way that makes sense.
-------------------- All this time I've loved you And never known your face All this time I've missed you And searched this human race Here is true peace Here my heart knows calm Safe in your soul Bathed in your sighs
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,441
Loc: Under the C
|
|
Just an aside: when a new male lion takes over a pride, the first thing he does is to kill all the cubs as they were fathered by the previous leader.
--------------------
|
Indigenous
Stranger
Registered: 01/08/09
Posts: 814
Loc: Celestial Realm
|
|
Quote:
adjust said: I can't "prove" to you who is responsible for raising a child. I just find it callous and unethical that a father would disown his child simply because of a mix up that has nothing to do with the personal relationship they have together, let alone demand to be payed back for the cost of raising the child. You obviously feel the opposite.
I was watching a tv show and a father was protecting his 20 year old son from the police. The police proved to him that it wasn't his biological son and the man turned him in immediately. I thought that was a pretty cold thing to do.
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger
Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
|
Re: Fatherly ethics [Re: Indigenous]
#9589538 - 01/11/09 01:57 PM (15 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Sounds like a horrible script to me, or a horrible person. I understand quite well why someone who was tricked into thinking a new baby was theirs would react by separating themselves from the bitch and the kid, but someone who raised a kid for twenty years, with the exception of the most moronic human beings, would surely shrug off any biological differences.
-------------------- If I should die this very moment I wouldn't fear For I've never known completeness Like being here Wrapped in the warmth of you Loving every breath of you
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
|
|
Quote:
OrgoneConclusion said: Just an aside: when a new male lion takes over a pride, the first thing he does is to kill all the cubs as they were fathered by the previous leader.
In addition, the Bruce effect is pretty cool: when a recently impregnated female mouse encounters a normal male mouse other than the one with which she mated, the pregnancy is very likely to fail. This is caused by a substance secreted in the male's urine.
-------------------- We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,441
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: Fatherly ethics [Re: deCypher]
#9589643 - 01/11/09 02:21 PM (15 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
(Not to DC)
Some of you seem to complicate things. Our #2 biological imperative is to pass on our genetic material. This supersedes ALL other endeavors after basic survival. Raising a child is almost certainly the most time-consuming activity in a human's life for those who have children.
Now put these together and what do you get?
--------------------
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
|
|
People claiming idealism and love for a newborn soul should supercede our biological imperative?
-------------------- We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
lIllIIIllIlIIlIlIIllIllIIl
Stranger
Registered: 12/16/04
Posts: 11,123
Loc: Texas
|
Re: Fatherly ethics [Re: deCypher]
#9589761 - 01/11/09 02:48 PM (15 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
We are basically just a genetic vehicle with the ability to solve problems on the fly. Unfortunately we don't have total control and are guided by a few basic instincts, at least I am. But if you follow the evolutionary trend of mammals it is towards higher brain function and less instincts.
I would rather be part of a species that reproduces for rational reasons than 2-4 seconds of bliss and/or a satisfied feeling that you've left your mark on the gene pool. Oh well I guess I'm stuck being a human for now...
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
|
|
Quote:
adjust said: I would rather be part of a species that reproduces for rational reasons than 2-4 seconds of bliss and/or a satisfied feeling that you've left your mark on the gene pool.
What rational reasons?
-------------------- We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
lIllIIIllIlIIlIlIIllIllIIl
Stranger
Registered: 12/16/04
Posts: 11,123
Loc: Texas
|
Re: Fatherly ethics [Re: deCypher]
#9589799 - 01/11/09 02:54 PM (15 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
More workers.
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
|
|
More efficient to enslave other people than to wait eighteen years, no?
-------------------- We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
lIllIIIllIlIIlIlIIllIllIIl
Stranger
Registered: 12/16/04
Posts: 11,123
Loc: Texas
|
Re: Fatherly ethics [Re: deCypher]
#9589853 - 01/11/09 03:03 PM (15 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Maybe there is no rational reason to reproduce. Maybe that's why we have to be tricked into doing so.
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
|
|
I think we reproduce because it's the nature of life to do so.
When it comes down to it, almost nothing we do derives from purely rational reasons.
-------------------- We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
figmentfragment
leaving shroomery
Registered: 04/10/07
Posts: 1,226
Loc:
Last seen: 13 years, 3 months
|
|
As the title suggests, this is a completely ethical issue and is determined by whatever bond may have formed between the "father" and the child. Nothing more. I would like to think for the child's sake that the "father" would continue his duties out of love, but ultimately it is up to the "father." My Brother is engaged to a woman, with a child from a previous relationship, and he has taken this child on as his own...I think it is admirable and it does occur. However on the flip side, many biological fathers ditch their kids (as well as mothers) so
-------------------- Goodbye Shroomery.
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,441
Loc: Under the C
|
|
Quote:
My Brother is engaged to a woman, with a child from a previous relationship, and he has taken this child on as his own...I think it is admirable and it does occur.
Two issues here.
1. Your brother is doing this voluntarily and with full awareness. No comparison to being blindsided and deceived.
2. What is admirable about somebody doing something that they freely want to do for their own benefit? Your brother certainly has selfish reasons for making such a choice.
--------------------
|
figmentfragment
leaving shroomery
Registered: 04/10/07
Posts: 1,226
Loc:
Last seen: 13 years, 3 months
|
|
Quote:
OrgoneConclusion said:
Quote:
My Brother is engaged to a woman, with a child from a previous relationship, and he has taken this child on as his own...I think it is admirable and it does occur.
Two issues here.
1. Your brother is doing this voluntarily and with full awareness. No comparison to being blindsided and deceived.
2. What is admirable about somebody doing something that they freely want to do for their own benefit? Your brother certainly has selfish reasons for making such a choice.
1. It was not meant to be comparative to being deceived, it was an example that it is possible to feel for a child that is blatantly not your own.
2. I don't see any human actions as having no self serving motivations.
-------------------- Goodbye Shroomery.
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
|
|
Quote:
figmentfragment said: I don't see any human actions as having no self serving motivations.
None whatsoever?
I'm sure there are plenty of people who anonymously donate their money to charities purely out of the desire to help the poor and the suffering.
-------------------- We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,441
Loc: Under the C
|
|
What is the admirable part?
--------------------
|
figmentfragment
leaving shroomery
Registered: 04/10/07
Posts: 1,226
Loc:
Last seen: 13 years, 3 months
|
Re: Fatherly ethics [Re: deCypher]
#9590168 - 01/11/09 03:55 PM (15 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
There has been a whole other thread about this...However if one's motives are to donate money to feel better about oneself, or a sense of justice then IMO this is still self serving.
Perhaps I am wrong, I am yet to see an example though.
-------------------- Goodbye Shroomery.
|
figmentfragment
leaving shroomery
Registered: 04/10/07
Posts: 1,226
Loc:
Last seen: 13 years, 3 months
|
|
The decision to forgo other parts of his life, for the responsibility.
True it was his decision, but there are many easier options available.
-------------------- Goodbye Shroomery.
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
|
|
Yeah, I agree that a lot of people help others purely to feel better about themselves or to live up to an arbitrary sense of justice.
I just don't think you can claim that all people automatically fall into this category. I have done things in my life purely because I wished the best for the other person (and although you could argue that I merely repressed the self-serving motivation, I still don't think this is necessarily true).
-------------------- We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,441
Loc: Under the C
|
|
As I want people to feel good about themselves, I volunteer to accept anonymous donations.
--------------------
|
figmentfragment
leaving shroomery
Registered: 04/10/07
Posts: 1,226
Loc:
Last seen: 13 years, 3 months
|
Re: Fatherly ethics [Re: deCypher]
#9590199 - 01/11/09 04:01 PM (15 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Well that is a beautiful thing really, kudos to you.
Perhaps I am just too cynical to see it.
-------------------- Goodbye Shroomery.
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
|
|
Personally I think most people fall into two camps:
The first sees every action as inherently stemming from selfishness, and embroils their perception of the world in rank cynicism.
The second sees every human as inherently goodhearted, and views selfishness as merely ignorance that can be improved upon further understanding of their place in the world and how their own actions eventually come back to effect themselves.
I think you can almost attribute any motivation to any action--in reality, things are a lot less black and white than they appear.
-------------------- We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector
Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02
|
Re: Fatherly ethics [Re: deCypher]
#9591380 - 01/11/09 07:44 PM (15 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
I think those are powerful and insightful statements. Many times we superimpose what is in ourselves on to others.
"Death scares me"="Death scares everyone" "I need God"="Everyone needs God" "I am selfish"="Everyone is selfish"
Regarding the OP's question: I think it is up to the husband to decide what, if any, benefits the child should receive from him. In a free society people should always have the option to choose who they bestow their resources upon. If you marry a woman with children from another man you know, in advance, who you should take care of--her and her children. If you are defrauded by duplicitous behavior, it is fraud. The responsibility lies with those who committed the fraud, i.e. the biological mother and father. That way the child is taken care of and no one has to pay that isn't responsible for the creation of the child.
--------------------
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,441
Loc: Under the C
|
|
Quote:
Regarding the OP's question: I think it is up to the husband to decide what, if any, benefits the child should receive from him. In a free society people should always have the option to choose who they bestow their resources upon. If you marry a woman with children from another man you know, in advance, who you should take care of--her and her children. If you are defrauded by duplicitous behavior, it is fraud. The responsibility lies with those who committed the fraud, i.e. the biological mother and father. That way the child is taken care of and no one has to pay that isn't responsible for the creation of the child.
This is a longer form of what I wrote. The whole idea that it is just too bad for the duped 'father' because of the needs of the child is not logical. Wrong place, wrong time = justice? Not in my view.
--------------------
|
lIllIIIllIlIIlIlIIllIllIIl
Stranger
Registered: 12/16/04
Posts: 11,123
Loc: Texas
|
Re: Fatherly ethics [Re: deCypher]
#9593349 - 01/12/09 05:16 AM (15 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
deCypher said: Personally I think most people fall into two camps:
The first sees every action as inherently stemming from selfishness, and embroils their perception of the world in rank cynicism.
The second sees every human as inherently goodhearted, and views selfishness as merely ignorance that can be improved upon further understanding of their place in the world and how their own actions eventually come back to effect themselves.
I think you can almost attribute any motivation to any action--in reality, things are a lot less black and white than they appear.
I think selfish and goodhearted could be considered rival survival strategies. I don't think it's a coincidence that the only organism I know of that acts completely altruistically are eusocial insects, whose colonies happen share nearly the exact same genes. Bees are willing to sacrifice themselves for their sisters that are basically clones. If they didn't share so much genetic material in common I don't think they would do it.
In humans I would imagine there is some kind of equilibrium between selfish and altruistic individuals as both are valid survival strategies to some extent.
You can see for example that in a society of totally altruistic individuals who all worked towards the common good, a small group of selfish individuals in their ranks could easily take advantage. You can also see that in a group of totally selfish individuals a small group that worked together for the common good of the group could easily out compete individuals who only worked in their own self interest.
I think that equilibrium is tipped far in favor of selfish behavior where I am, based on my observations. It could be different elsewhere, not sure.
|
Roadkill
Retired Shroomery Mod
Registered: 12/11/01
Posts: 22,674
Loc: Montana
|
|
this is an interesting topic...
there are several different things going on in here that touch base with me.
One of my best friends(Kevin) was married to his high school sweetheart(Tara) for about 8 years...they had 2 children. They ended up getting a divorce. She said "You keep your son, and I'll keep mine". It turns out that the youngest son wasn't Kevin's. He had no idea that she had an affair and that the youngest wasn't his. He had to pay child support for this boy that wasn't his...til a dna test was done. Which took the State of Washington 6 months to get done and into court back then.
My friend was devastated.
He ended up raising his son by himself... and his X raised the other boy by herself.
--------
next subject...
I dated a girl named Carol for 4 months... she seemed like a great gal.
She came and told me she was pregnant.
I didn't think either one of us were ready to have a child... but I was willing to support her in any way.
She wanted to get married... and I agreed to doing that, since I thought she was worthy.
A month later she comes and tells me that she has been to the Doctor... and she is farther along in her pregnacy than they 1st thought. And that I'm not the father of the baby, because the dates didn't add up... so it was her X boy friends baby, not mine.
I told her that I didn't care... that I really liked her alot and that I was falling in love with her... and wanted to keep seeing her and such.
After another month... She wanted to go off and have the baby on her own... and didn't want to be a so called burden on me. She refused to see me anymore. I tryed a couple of times, but I gave up after a few attempts of trying to talking to her.
I waited a few months, and approached her again... asking her "Are you sure the baby isn't mine?". She said "No Jim, the baby isn't your's". and she told me to go on with my life.
A year later I ran into her with one of my friends... she had the baby with her. Again I asked her if the baby was mine... and asked her how she was doing. Again she said it wasn't mine and that she was doing fine. I told her not to come knocking on my door someday and tell me that I had a Daughter. She said "Don't worry that will never happen!~".
12 years go by...
I get a knock on my door and it's Carol... and I get this ugly feeling in my gut why she is there to see me.
Sure enough, she came to tell me that I had a 12 year old Daughter.
She had recently gone through a divorce... and her husband(that had raised my daughter) didn't want to take my daughter with his kids on visitations anymore. And he had told my daughter to ask her mother who her real father was... and that maybe she should get to know him(me). ***He sounded like a real fucktard treating this young girl like this after raising her as his own***
So I got fucked out of the 1st 12 years of my Daughters life... because her Mother got scared and didn't want to share her with me.
Since her Mother hid the fact that I was this girls Father... should I be responsible to pay for those 12 years that I wasn't aware of her being my Daughter?
I don't think so.
I was never asked to step up to the plate and pay any kind of child support after the fact either.
My daughter is now 21 years old... she has a daughter now, so now I'm a grand father.
--------
next subject...
I have several children of my own, that I have raised.
I am divorced.
Because of what happened to my best friend... I had dna testing done to prove that these children are truely mine.
I am part Native American...1/8 Sioux
I have blue eyes.
One X had green eyes.
One X had brown eyes.
All of my children have blue eyes.
tc
-------------------- Laterz, Road Who the hell you callin crazy? You wouldn't know what crazy was if Charles Manson was eating froot loops on your front porch! Brainiac said: PM the names with on there names, that means they have mushrooms for sale.
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
|
|
Quote:
adjust said: You can see for example that in a society of totally altruistic individuals who all worked towards the common good, a small group of selfish individuals in their ranks could easily take advantage. You can also see that in a group of totally selfish individuals a small group that worked together for the common good of the group could easily out compete individuals who only worked in their own self interest.
Exactly, although I'm not so sure that a static equilibrium exists. In all probability it's more like a predator/prey relationship where the ratio alters chaotically.
-------------------- We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector
Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02
|
|
Quote:
OrgoneConclusion said:
Quote:
Regarding the OP's question: I think it is up to the husband to decide what, if any, benefits the child should receive from him. In a free society people should always have the option to choose who they bestow their resources upon. If you marry a woman with children from another man you know, in advance, who you should take care of--her and her children. If you are defrauded by duplicitous behavior, it is fraud. The responsibility lies with those who committed the fraud, i.e. the biological mother and father. That way the child is taken care of and no one has to pay that isn't responsible for the creation of the child.
This is a longer form of what I wrote. The whole idea that it is just too bad for the duped 'father' because of the needs of the child is not logical. Wrong place, wrong time = justice? Not in my view.
Nor in mine. I was just elaborating on your succinct, elegant point because I'm a chatterhead.
In reference to subsequent posts, I find it useless to speculate on anthropomorphic altruism with other species that are programmed by their instincts when man alone has the capacity of reason, i.e. conceptual abstraction. I'll listen to the other species when they start using prepositions, particularly whereas. I just love that word.
--------------------
|
|