• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Colorado man forced to pay child support despite DNA test results

RVonse

Veteran Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2005
Messages
2,267
Location
USA
Basic Beliefs
that people in the US are living in the matrx
http://wgno.com/2016/07/28/colorado-man-forced-to-pay-child-support-despite-dna-test-results/

I am hoping someone here can help me understand how a legal system which promotes this will be a good thing for society in general. Why would any guy get married if the contract between a man and a woman means nothing for the woman must do but everything for what the man will pay later? If we don't recognize marriage as meaning anything for the guy, would we not expect in the future for pretty much every male to just impregnate as many females as possible and forget about marriage? According to most studies, over 4% of the married fathers do not know they are not the biological father of their children! How soon do we wait until most of the fathers do not know whether they are the biological father's of their own offspring?

I would not expect most people to fix this type of behavior by going back to biblical norms where a woman would be stoned for such conduct. But without some sort of legal or social norms to follow (as is the case we see today), I don't see how you can expect anything except utter chaos to end up ensuing in society.

And before someone says "what would you do to correct this?", my answer is plenty of ways to correct proper conduct from females not resorting to stoning them to death. For one thing, if it were to be found that either party of marriage was guilty of infidelity, they could automatically forfeit custody rights in a domestic lawsuit. Or I could think of a lot of other sanctions to prevent bad behavior.

But doing nothing is a recipe for a broken society IMO.
 

coloradoatheist

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2004
Messages
4,294
Location
Colorado
Basic Beliefs
Atheist, libertarian
I'm confused. If the decree says he has visitation rights and he is not allowed to visit then there are ways the court can facilitate visits.
 

Tom Sawyer

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jun 25, 2002
Messages
17,030
Location
Toronto
Basic Beliefs
That I'm God
Well, the real problem here seems to be the rules of evidence in family court. The gist that I got from the article was that the judge made him continue to pay child support because he didn't submit the DNA test evidence at the correct time and therefore the judge couldn't consider it. More leeway should be given for that sort of thing so that people who can't afford lawyers for every hearing don't have a separate standard of justice from the rich.

Also, the two parts of the custody agreement - visitation and child support - should be tied together. The ex-wife doesn't need to be arrested as per the judge's snitty comment, but if she's mandated to let him see her X number of times in a month and she doesn't let him, she shouldn't get any money that month.
 

coloradoatheist

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2004
Messages
4,294
Location
Colorado
Basic Beliefs
Atheist, libertarian
Well, the real problem here seems to be the rules of evidence in family court. The gist that I got from the article was that the judge made him continue to pay child support because he didn't submit the DNA test evidence at the correct time and therefore the judge couldn't consider it. More leeway should be given for that sort of thing so that people who can't afford lawyers for every hearing don't have a separate standard of justice from the rich.

Also, the two parts of the custody agreement - visitation and child support - should be tied together. The ex-wife doesn't need to be arrested as per the judge's snitty comment, but if she's mandated to let him see her X number of times in a month and she doesn't let him, she shouldn't get any money that month.

Do courts normally just take away the money if someone doesn't allow visitation? Or do they assign court supervised visitation followed by contempt of court charges if not followed?
 

Deepak

Veteran Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2007
Messages
2,365
Location
MA, USA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Anybody who wants to appear in court pro se should be required to read Kafka's Before the Law first
 

Shadowy Man

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2002
Messages
3,287
Location
West Coast
Basic Beliefs
Rational Pragmatism
Well, that's a hot mess that the judicial system is clearly not configured to handle.
 

Tom Sawyer

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jun 25, 2002
Messages
17,030
Location
Toronto
Basic Beliefs
That I'm God
Well, the real problem here seems to be the rules of evidence in family court. The gist that I got from the article was that the judge made him continue to pay child support because he didn't submit the DNA test evidence at the correct time and therefore the judge couldn't consider it. More leeway should be given for that sort of thing so that people who can't afford lawyers for every hearing don't have a separate standard of justice from the rich.

Also, the two parts of the custody agreement - visitation and child support - should be tied together. The ex-wife doesn't need to be arrested as per the judge's snitty comment, but if she's mandated to let him see her X number of times in a month and she doesn't let him, she shouldn't get any money that month.

Do courts normally just take away the money if someone doesn't allow visitation? Or do they assign court supervised visitation followed by contempt of court charges if not followed?

I have no idea. If it's the latter, that just seems like a needless expense and a poor way of handling things. Spending money on having a social worker of the like there to supervise the visit seems like the kind of thing which should only be done if there's some kind of potential danger to the child from the visiting parent. Giving the offending parent a fine or arresting them for contempt of court seems like an overly complex way of punishing them for violating the custody agreement when there's the much simpler solution of just cancelling the next month's child support payment to punish them instead.
 

AthenaAwakened

Contributor
Joined
Sep 18, 2003
Messages
5,282
Location
Right behind you so ... BOO!
Basic Beliefs
non-theist, anarcho-socialist
http://wgno.com/2016/07/28/colorado-man-forced-to-pay-child-support-despite-dna-test-results/

I am hoping someone here can help me understand how a legal system which promotes this will be a good thing for society in general. Why would any guy get married if the contract between a man and a woman means nothing for the woman must do but everything for what the man will pay later? If we don't recognize marriage as meaning anything for the guy, would we not expect in the future for pretty much every male to just impregnate as many females as possible and forget about marriage? According to most studies, over 4% of the married fathers do not know they are not the biological father of their children! How soon do we wait until most of the fathers do not know whether they are the biological father's of their own offspring?

I would not expect most people to fix this type of behavior by going back to biblical norms where a woman would be stoned for such conduct. But without some sort of legal or social norms to follow (as is the case we see today), I don't see how you can expect anything except utter chaos to end up ensuing in society.

And before someone says "what would you do to correct this?", my answer is plenty of ways to correct proper conduct from females not resorting to stoning them to death. For one thing, if it were to be found that either party of marriage was guilty of infidelity, they could automatically forfeit custody rights in a domestic lawsuit. Or I could think of a lot of other sanctions to prevent bad behavior.

But doing nothing is a recipe for a broken society IMO.

Or you could join a marriage reform group in your state and lobby to have laws regarding marriage and children changed.
 

Deepak

Veteran Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2007
Messages
2,365
Location
MA, USA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Do courts normally just take away the money if someone doesn't allow visitation? Or do they assign court supervised visitation followed by contempt of court charges if not followed?

I have no idea. If it's the latter, that just seems like a needless expense and a poor way of handling things. Spending money on having a social worker of the like there to supervise the visit seems like the kind of thing which should only be done if there's some kind of potential danger to the child from the visiting parent. Giving the offending parent a fine or arresting them for contempt of court seems like an overly complex way of punishing them for violating the custody agreement when there's the much simpler solution of just cancelling the next month's child support payment to punish them instead.

Does that really punish the parent preventing visitation, or instead does it punish the child?
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,155
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
This situation is pretty messed up. According to the article
Lonnquist said she would agree to stop collecting child support from Atkins if he would agree to terminate his parental rights.
. The current custodial father is not complaining about the past child support (at least in the cited article he is not). So it would seem that is a that is clearly a fair solution to this situation. I find it hard to believe that the legal system cannot find a method to make it so.
 

zorq

Veteran Member
Joined
May 9, 2002
Messages
1,708
Location
Republic of Korea
Basic Beliefs
Atheist, Moderate
I have no idea. If it's the latter, that just seems like a needless expense and a poor way of handling things. Spending money on having a social worker of the like there to supervise the visit seems like the kind of thing which should only be done if there's some kind of potential danger to the child from the visiting parent. Giving the offending parent a fine or arresting them for contempt of court seems like an overly complex way of punishing them for violating the custody agreement when there's the much simpler solution of just cancelling the next month's child support payment to punish them instead.

Does that really punish the parent preventing visitation, or instead does it punish the child?
I agree with this. Child support money isn't for the parent (theoretically) it's meant to be spent on the child. If you start taking away money from children because of the behavior of the parents the children may suffer even more.
 

Tom Sawyer

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jun 25, 2002
Messages
17,030
Location
Toronto
Basic Beliefs
That I'm God
And having the custodial parent fined or jailed for contempt of court doesn't do that?

Either the court orders matter or they don't. If there's no consequences enforced for not paying support or not allowing visitation, those things are going to be ignored ... well ... about as much as they are now.
 

Bronzeage

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 27, 2011
Messages
7,494
Location
Deep South
Basic Beliefs
Pragmatic
http://wgno.com/2016/07/28/colorado-man-forced-to-pay-child-support-despite-dna-test-results/

I am hoping someone here can help me understand how a legal system which promotes this will be a good thing for society in general. Why would any guy get married if the contract between a man and a woman means nothing for the woman must do but everything for what the man will pay later? If we don't recognize marriage as meaning anything for the guy, would we not expect in the future for pretty much every male to just impregnate as many females as possible and forget about marriage? According to most studies, over 4% of the married fathers do not know they are not the biological father of their children! How soon do we wait until most of the fathers do not know whether they are the biological father's of their own offspring?

I would not expect most people to fix this type of behavior by going back to biblical norms where a woman would be stoned for such conduct. But without some sort of legal or social norms to follow (as is the case we see today), I don't see how you can expect anything except utter chaos to end up ensuing in society.

And before someone says "what would you do to correct this?", my answer is plenty of ways to correct proper conduct from females not resorting to stoning them to death. For one thing, if it were to be found that either party of marriage was guilty of infidelity, they could automatically forfeit custody rights in a domestic lawsuit. Or I could think of a lot of other sanctions to prevent bad behavior.

But doing nothing is a recipe for a broken society IMO.

It's actually quite simple. In most states, a minor child cannot be repudiated or disinherited, for any reason. The only qualification of this principle requires the father to deny paternity at birth, and afterward provide no care or affection for the child. Once a man accepts a child, it cannot be abandoned.

This Draconian concern for the welfare of infants, over the financial condition of grown men, shocks some people.

From what I read in the linked article, the man is not attempting to repudiate his daughter, he simply seeks fair visitation rights.
 

RVonse

Veteran Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2005
Messages
2,267
Location
USA
Basic Beliefs
that people in the US are living in the matrx
http://wgno.com/2016/07/28/colorado-man-forced-to-pay-child-support-despite-dna-test-results/

I am hoping someone here can help me understand how a legal system which promotes this will be a good thing for society in general. Why would any guy get married if the contract between a man and a woman means nothing for the woman must do but everything for what the man will pay later? If we don't recognize marriage as meaning anything for the guy, would we not expect in the future for pretty much every male to just impregnate as many females as possible and forget about marriage? According to most studies, over 4% of the married fathers do not know they are not the biological father of their children! How soon do we wait until most of the fathers do not know whether they are the biological father's of their own offspring?

I would not expect most people to fix this type of behavior by going back to biblical norms where a woman would be stoned for such conduct. But without some sort of legal or social norms to follow (as is the case we see today), I don't see how you can expect anything except utter chaos to end up ensuing in society.

And before someone says "what would you do to correct this?", my answer is plenty of ways to correct proper conduct from females not resorting to stoning them to death. For one thing, if it were to be found that either party of marriage was guilty of infidelity, they could automatically forfeit custody rights in a domestic lawsuit. Or I could think of a lot of other sanctions to prevent bad behavior.

But doing nothing is a recipe for a broken society IMO.

Or you could join a marriage reform group in your state and lobby to have laws regarding marriage and children changed.
Thank you Athena for being the first one to actually understand my OP. And your solution seems reasonable to me too, excepting that the people most affected would be least able to mount a campaign to change anything. And the other shortcoming I can see is that any legal changes would only affect laws in 1 state of the union.
 

RVonse

Veteran Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2005
Messages
2,267
Location
USA
Basic Beliefs
that people in the US are living in the matrx
This Draconian concern for the welfare of infants, over the financial condition of grown men, shocks some people.
Everyone seems to be talking about the legal minutia of the example case I provided and the welfare of the kids.. but that is not what I intended my OP to be about. The example I provided is not the only time this has occurred anyway.

A marriage is supposed to be a contract between a man and woman or at least it used to be thought of that way. When a man and woman gets married, they are probably not considering the welfare of the children they might have that might not yet be born yet. They are probably considering what they want from the marriage..the woman wants financial security and the husband wants blood related children and a legacy. Or something like that. And they are supposed to both be exclusive to each other sexually or something like that.

Because if they aren't...and nobody cares....why even get married? I get that the kids are more important than anything else in the universe, but for the purpose of society functioning is it not also important for the adults to be motivated to do the right thing?

Paying child support on someone else's kid makes about as much sense as paying property taxes on someone else's house? Would you pay the property taxes for your neighbors house? And if not, why would you want to pay for someone else's kid?
 

RVonse

Veteran Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2005
Messages
2,267
Location
USA
Basic Beliefs
that people in the US are living in the matrx
From what I read in the linked article, the man is not attempting to repudiate his daughter, he simply seeks fair visitation rights.
Other than this case represents an example of others that are similar, I could care less whether or not this man is attempting to repudiate his daughter. When all is said and done, he will pay a very large sum of money for kid that is not even his. If I broke into an ATM and took the same amount of money and then gave the bank the same amount of consideration his exwife gave to him, I would be going to jail. If we have laws to tell us not to break into ATM's why do we have laws to encourage women to have other men's kids in a marriage?
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,155
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
From what I read in the linked article, the man is not attempting to repudiate his daughter, he simply seeks fair visitation rights.
Other than this case represents an example of others that are similar, I could care less whether or not this man is attempting to repudiate his daughter. When all is said and done, he will pay a very large sum of money for kid that is not even his.
Since there is no indication that this bothers him one bit, why does it bother you?

If we have laws to tell us not to break into ATM's why do we have laws to encourage women to have other men's kids in a marriage?
What evidence do you have that the law ENCOURAGED this woman to have another man's child while in marriage to this fellow?
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,290
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Well, the real problem here seems to be the rules of evidence in family court. The gist that I got from the article was that the judge made him continue to pay child support because he didn't submit the DNA test evidence at the correct time and therefore the judge couldn't consider it. More leeway should be given for that sort of thing so that people who can't afford lawyers for every hearing don't have a separate standard of justice from the rich.

Also, the two parts of the custody agreement - visitation and child support - should be tied together. The ex-wife doesn't need to be arrested as per the judge's snitty comment, but if she's mandated to let him see her X number of times in a month and she doesn't let him, she shouldn't get any money that month.

He didn't submit it because he didn't know it. You are right about the time issue, though--the courts routinely take the position that once someone has accepted the kid as theirs for a substantial period of time that they can't contest paternity.

What they really should do is flip it over--no order of child support can be issued without either a DNA test or evidence he's the father anyway (his signature on adoption/artificial insemination etc paperwork.) This would nip such problems in the bud.

- - - Updated - - -

Well, the real problem here seems to be the rules of evidence in family court. The gist that I got from the article was that the judge made him continue to pay child support because he didn't submit the DNA test evidence at the correct time and therefore the judge couldn't consider it. More leeway should be given for that sort of thing so that people who can't afford lawyers for every hearing don't have a separate standard of justice from the rich.

Also, the two parts of the custody agreement - visitation and child support - should be tied together. The ex-wife doesn't need to be arrested as per the judge's snitty comment, but if she's mandated to let him see her X number of times in a month and she doesn't let him, she shouldn't get any money that month.

Do courts normally just take away the money if someone doesn't allow visitation? Or do they assign court supervised visitation followed by contempt of court charges if not followed?

Realistically, they order compliance. When that's not followed they order compliance. Rarely is anything meaningful done.

- - - Updated - - -

This situation is pretty messed up. According to the article
Lonnquist said she would agree to stop collecting child support from Atkins if he would agree to terminate his parental rights.
. The current custodial father is not complaining about the past child support (at least in the cited article he is not). So it would seem that is a that is clearly a fair solution to this situation. I find it hard to believe that the legal system cannot find a method to make it so.

Apparently you did not note that the article said that the courts normally will not do this unless someone else is ready to step in.

Better to have a slave parent than no parent.

- - - Updated - - -

It's actually quite simple. In most states, a minor child cannot be repudiated or disinherited, for any reason. The only qualification of this principle requires the father to deny paternity at birth, and afterward provide no care or affection for the child. Once a man accepts a child, it cannot be abandoned.

This Draconian concern for the welfare of infants, over the financial condition of grown men, shocks some people.

From what I read in the linked article, the man is not attempting to repudiate his daughter, he simply seeks fair visitation rights.

It made sense in the old days. It doesn't make sense now.
 

RVonse

Veteran Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2005
Messages
2,267
Location
USA
Basic Beliefs
that people in the US are living in the matrx
Other than this case represents an example of others that are similar, I could care less whether or not this man is attempting to repudiate his daughter. When all is said and done, he will pay a very large sum of money for kid that is not even his.
Since there is no indication that this bothers him one bit, why does it bother you?
Because he is getting screwed over even if he is too stupid to know it.

If we have laws to tell us not to break into ATM's why do we have laws to encourage women to have other men's kids in a marriage?
What evidence do you have that the law ENCOURAGED this woman to have another man's child while in marriage to this fellow?
Most laws seem to be designed to discourage bad behavior and not to encourage any type of behavior. Take for example laws that demand a fine for speeding in traffic. That is a negative reinforcement to prevent a negative behavior. What you won't ever see is the police going around and giving everyone a bonus check if they stay within the speed limit.

So to answer your question I see no evidence the law encouraged this woman to engage in bad behavior. What is important though is that the law did nothing to discourage bad behavior to take place. And if people are allowed to do things that are bad for society without consequence, they will do it.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,155
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
Since there is no indication that this bothers him one bit, why does it bother you?
Because he is getting screwed over even if he is too stupid to know it.
If he is not bothered by the fact the child is not his biological child and he feels like a father towards her, how is he getting screwed over?

Most laws seem to be designed to discourage bad behavior and not to encourage any type of behavior. Take for example laws that demand a fine for speeding in traffic. That is a negative reinforcement to prevent a negative behavior. What you won't ever see is the police going around and giving everyone a bonus check if they stay within the speed limit.

So to answer your question I see no evidence the law encouraged this woman to engage in bad behavior. What is important though is that the law did nothing to discourage bad behavior to take place. And if people are allowed to do things that are bad for society without consequence, they will do it.
What exactly did this woman do that is bad for society that some law would have discouraged?
 

RVonse

Veteran Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2005
Messages
2,267
Location
USA
Basic Beliefs
that people in the US are living in the matrx
Because he is getting screwed over even if he is too stupid to know it.
If he is not bothered by the fact the child is not his biological child and he feels like a father towards her, how is he getting screwed over?
Blood is thicker than water. Im sorry but it just is. After thousands of years of evolution, there is programming that is present in biology. In the animal kingdom, there are examples of species that fight to the death for the right to reproduce with their female. It may not be thought about in a cognitive sense by you are any of your male friends, but I can assure you this is an instinct carried over to humankind as well. It is why marriage was invented in the first place by humans and we certainly have not evolved that much in 500 years to make this obsolete.

Most laws seem to be designed to discourage bad behavior and not to encourage any type of behavior. Take for example laws that demand a fine for speeding in traffic. That is a negative reinforcement to prevent a negative behavior. What you won't ever see is the police going around and giving everyone a bonus check if they stay within the speed limit.

So to answer your question I see no evidence the law encouraged this woman to engage in bad behavior. What is important though is that the law did nothing to discourage bad behavior to take place. And if people are allowed to do things that are bad for society without consequence, they will do it.
What exactly did this woman do that is bad for society that some law would have discouraged?
Infidelity with another man while being married. Its pretty hard to have some others guys kid if you are only having sex with your husband.
 

RVonse

Veteran Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2005
Messages
2,267
Location
USA
Basic Beliefs
that people in the US are living in the matrx
I might also add to this. Sex by itself outside of marriage IMO is a soft core infidelity as long as she used birth control and was careful. But by actually knowingly bringing to term another mans baby while still married....in my view that is a hard core infidelity. It is an infidelity of whole different color.
 

Bronzeage

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 27, 2011
Messages
7,494
Location
Deep South
Basic Beliefs
Pragmatic
This Draconian concern for the welfare of infants, over the financial condition of grown men, shocks some people.
Everyone seems to be talking about the legal minutia of the example case I provided and the welfare of the kids.. but that is not what I intended my OP to be about. The example I provided is not the only time this has occurred anyway.

A marriage is supposed to be a contract between a man and woman or at least it used to be thought of that way. When a man and woman gets married, they are probably not considering the welfare of the children they might have that might not yet be born yet. They are probably considering what they want from the marriage..the woman wants financial security and the husband wants blood related children and a legacy. Or something like that. And they are supposed to both be exclusive to each other sexually or something like that.

Because if they aren't...and nobody cares....why even get married? I get that the kids are more important than anything else in the universe, but for the purpose of society functioning is it not also important for the adults to be motivated to do the right thing?

Paying child support on someone else's kid makes about as much sense as paying property taxes on someone else's house? Would you pay the property taxes for your neighbors house? And if not, why would you want to pay for someone else's kid?

The problem you seem to have, is with the concept of "your kid". The child you feed and clothe is your kid. Whether somewhere in the deep past, one of the billions of sperm cells you have produced, actually was part of creating this kid, is irrelevant.

I know this idea is totally contrary to all the rules of playground justice, but that's why playground precedence is not allowed to decide things when adults are involved. The child may not be your biological child. The mother may have deceived you in the most wicked way. People may be laughing at you. None of that matters. It's your kid because you once thought it was your kid, and you can't take that back.

Unfair? Please refer to the ruling on playground justice.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
36,423
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
And having the custodial parent fined or jailed for contempt of court doesn't do that?

Either the court orders matter or they don't. If there's no consequences enforced for not paying support or not allowing visitation, those things are going to be ignored ... well ... about as much as they are now.
These situations show that the judicial system is rigged in the sociopath's favor.... kind of like life in general.
 

braces_for_impact

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2002
Messages
3,398
Location
Clearwater, FL.
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
As someone who's been completely fucked by this system, and is even still taking it up the ass without lube, I'm going to tell you how it really is.

It is not an issue of the courts being biased against men. It's also not about the courts being biased against women. It's about a fucked up legal system to begin with, going in both directions. If you cannot afford a lawyer, and try to do this pro se, you're screwed. Do not do this. That's rule number 1, and one I learned the hard way. If you're like me and cannot afford a lawyer because, well, they're taking half your paycheck, sorry about ya.
 

thebeave

Veteran Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2001
Messages
3,435
Location
Silicon Valley, CA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
This won't help the guy in the OP, but maybe for the future, we could require a DNA paternity test when the kid is born. Make it as routine as weighing the kid and counting the number of fingers and toes. It would put Maury Povich out of business, but he can always find a new job.
 

RVonse

Veteran Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2005
Messages
2,267
Location
USA
Basic Beliefs
that people in the US are living in the matrx
This won't help the guy in the OP, but maybe for the future, we could require a DNA paternity test when the kid is born. Make it as routine as weighing the kid and counting the number of fingers and toes. It would put Maury Povich out of business, but he can always find a new job.
Not a bad idea.

But then what happens when the kid is found with the wrong DNA? He can divorce her yes and that will work out great if there aren't already other kids in the mix.

At least this idea brings the issue to attention faster though.
 

RVonse

Veteran Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2005
Messages
2,267
Location
USA
Basic Beliefs
that people in the US are living in the matrx
Everyone seems to be talking about the legal minutia of the example case I provided and the welfare of the kids.. but that is not what I intended my OP to be about. The example I provided is not the only time this has occurred anyway.

A marriage is supposed to be a contract between a man and woman or at least it used to be thought of that way. When a man and woman gets married, they are probably not considering the welfare of the children they might have that might not yet be born yet. They are probably considering what they want from the marriage..the woman wants financial security and the husband wants blood related children and a legacy. Or something like that. And they are supposed to both be exclusive to each other sexually or something like that.

Because if they aren't...and nobody cares....why even get married? I get that the kids are more important than anything else in the universe, but for the purpose of society functioning is it not also important for the adults to be motivated to do the right thing?

Paying child support on someone else's kid makes about as much sense as paying property taxes on someone else's house? Would you pay the property taxes for your neighbors house? And if not, why would you want to pay for someone else's kid?

The problem you seem to have, is with the concept of "your kid". The child you feed and clothe is your kid. Whether somewhere in the deep past, one of the billions of sperm cells you have produced, actually was part of creating this kid, is irrelevant.
Not according to science, evolution, and biology. Pretty much all the reasons we exist in the first place, it does not get any more fundamental then that.
I know this idea is totally contrary to all the rules of playground justice, but that's why playground precedence is not allowed to decide things when adults are involved. The child may not be your biological child. The mother may have deceived you in the most wicked way. People may be laughing at you. None of that matters. It's your kid because you once thought it was your kid, and you can't take that back.

Unfair? Please refer to the ruling on playground justice.
The young boys molested by the Catholic priests can not take that back either. Does that mean the law should allow this practice to be encouraged too?

There is only 1 way to prevent a bastard child from being born in a marriage and that is to sanction the adult when it happens. She is the only one who has the full knowledge of what is going on, her own actions, and what has happened. It should be done for the good of society or society will break down.
 

Bronzeage

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 27, 2011
Messages
7,494
Location
Deep South
Basic Beliefs
Pragmatic
This won't help the guy in the OP, but maybe for the future, we could require a DNA paternity test when the kid is born. Make it as routine as weighing the kid and counting the number of fingers and toes. It would put Maury Povich out of business, but he can always find a new job.

There may come a day when registering a person's unique DNA profile at birth is part of the birth certificate, but I would not want to be part of a society where an infant is presumed a bastard until proven legitimate.

It's only the latest scientific progress which has put us in this situation. Truly reliable paternity tests are a fairly new thing for the human race. Perhaps science could offer a solution for the men who discover they have been deceived by a person whom they trusted with their sperm, only to discover she used sperm from another source.

Along with proving or disproving fatherhood at birth, we could require all males to receive a reversible vasectomy(a mechanical device know as the "ball valve") at the age of 14. Once the boy reaches the age of majority, he will have to pass a series of psychological exams, which will determine if he is mature enough to deal with the burdens and occasional disappointments which are an inevitable part of parenthood.

Once his certificate of manhood is obtained, he has the option of having his ball valves(2 are required) turned on.

This will prevent the creation of children who discover too late in life that fortune and circumstance has put them in the wrong place at the wrong time, and are thus no longer loved by the man who they called Daddy.
 

Jolly_Penguin

Banned
Banned
Joined
Aug 22, 2003
Messages
10,366
Location
South Pole
Basic Beliefs
Skeptic
This Draconian concern for the welfare of infants, over the financial condition of grown men, shocks some people.

What shocks me isn't the call for support to exist for the child, but the call to extract it from one individual who is not responsible for that child any more than any other. Why not let the support come from the state so we all pay into it? How is singling a non-father out to pay any different than singling out any other random individual? And why would lending a hand or giving a gift to help support the child create a requirement to support that child on a long term basis? That seems to discourage men from being good people and helping out. Why punish kindness?
 

RVonse

Veteran Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2005
Messages
2,267
Location
USA
Basic Beliefs
that people in the US are living in the matrx
This won't help the guy in the OP, but maybe for the future, we could require a DNA paternity test when the kid is born. Make it as routine as weighing the kid and counting the number of fingers and toes. It would put Maury Povich out of business, but he can always find a new job.

There may come a day when registering a person's unique DNA profile at birth is part of the birth certificate, but I would not want to be part of a society where an infant is presumed a bastard until proven legitimate.
Then change the law so that bastard children won't be born in the first place.
It's only the latest scientific progress which has put us in this situation. Truly reliable paternity tests are a fairly new thing for the human race. Perhaps science could offer a solution for the men who discover they have been deceived by a person whom they trusted with their sperm, only to discover she used sperm from another source.

Along with proving or disproving fatherhood at birth, we could require all males to receive a reversible vasectomy(a mechanical device know as the "ball valve") at the age of 14. Once the boy reaches the age of majority, he will have to pass a series of psychological exams, which will determine if he is mature enough to deal with the burdens and occasional disappointments which are an inevitable part of parenthood.

Once his certificate of manhood is obtained, he has the option of having his ball valves(2 are required) turned on.

This will prevent the creation of children who discover too late in life that fortune and circumstance has put them in the wrong place at the wrong time, and are thus no longer loved by the man who they called Daddy.
Not sure what all this means. But it does not seem to address a big reason why men choose to get married in the first place. To pass on their line.
 

RVonse

Veteran Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2005
Messages
2,267
Location
USA
Basic Beliefs
that people in the US are living in the matrx
This won't help the guy in the OP, but maybe for the future, we could require a DNA paternity test when the kid is born. Make it as routine as weighing the kid and counting the number of fingers and toes. It would put Maury Povich out of business, but he can always find a new job.

There may come a day when registering a person's unique DNA profile at birth is part of the birth certificate, but I would not want to be part of a society where an infant is presumed a bastard until proven legitimate.

It's only the latest scientific progress which has put us in this situation. Truly reliable paternity tests are a fairly new thing for the human race. Perhaps science could offer a solution for the men who discover they have been deceived by a person whom they trusted with their sperm, only to discover she used sperm from another source.

Along with proving or disproving fatherhood at birth, we could require all males to receive a reversible vasectomy(a mechanical device know as the "ball valve") at the age of 14. Once the boy reaches the age of majority, he will have to pass a series of psychological exams, which will determine if he is mature enough to deal with the burdens and occasional disappointments which are an inevitable part of parenthood.

Once his certificate of manhood is obtained, he has the option of having his ball valves(2 are required) turned on.

This will prevent the creation of children who discover too late in life that fortune and circumstance has put them in the wrong place at the wrong time, and are thus no longer loved by the man who they called Daddy.
Despite all the advancement of science, having children is the closest any of us can or will ever get to immortality. How is installing a vasectomy going to help fulfill what nature and instinct has brought to all of us?
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,155
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
If he is not bothered by the fact the child is not his biological child and he feels like a father towards her, how is he getting screwed over?
Blood is thicker than water. Im sorry but it just is. After thousands of years of evolution, there is programming that is present in biology. In the animal kingdom, there are examples of species that fight to the death for the right to reproduce with their female. It may not be thought about in a cognitive sense by you are any of your male friends, but I can assure you this is an instinct carried over to humankind as well. It is why marriage was invented in the first place by humans and we certainly have not evolved that much in 500 years to make this obsolete.
I fail to see how that answers my question - If he is not bothered by the fact the child is not his biological child and he feels like a father towards her, how is he getting screwed over?

Infidelity with another man while being married. Its pretty hard to have some others guys kid if you are only having sex with your husband.
Infidelity has been around for millenia and society seems to function fine. So, I fail to see how your response addresses my question.
 

RVonse

Veteran Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2005
Messages
2,267
Location
USA
Basic Beliefs
that people in the US are living in the matrx
This Draconian concern for the welfare of infants, over the financial condition of grown men, shocks some people.

How is singling a non-father out to pay any different than singling out any other random individual? And why would lending a hand or giving a gift to help support the child create a requirement to support that child on a long term basis? That seems to discourage men from being good people and helping out. Why punish kindness?
People like Bronzeage will tell you that singling out a non-father is the right way because those people enjoy being cuckolds. And even if they didn't, they should be trained to.
 

RVonse

Veteran Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2005
Messages
2,267
Location
USA
Basic Beliefs
that people in the US are living in the matrx
Blood is thicker than water. Im sorry but it just is. After thousands of years of evolution, there is programming that is present in biology. In the animal kingdom, there are examples of species that fight to the death for the right to reproduce with their female. It may not be thought about in a cognitive sense by you are any of your male friends, but I can assure you this is an instinct carried over to humankind as well. It is why marriage was invented in the first place by humans and we certainly have not evolved that much in 500 years to make this obsolete.
I fail to see how that answers my question - If he is not bothered by the fact the child is not his biological child and he feels like a father towards her, how is he getting screwed over?
If a prostitute is not bothered by the fact that she is getting money for her service, how he she getting screwed over? If a victim of a kidnapping gets his offspring back for a lot of money and is not bothered by that fact, how are they not being screwed over?
Infidelity with another man while being married. Its pretty hard to have some others guys kid if you are only having sex with your husband.
Infidelity has been around for millenia and society seems to function fine. So, I fail to see how your response addresses my question.
Some will argue that society has functioned better when marriage and the family unit is strengthened.

But yes, man was still able to evolve without having laws in the past.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,155
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
If a prostitute is not bothered by the fact that she is getting money for her service, how he she getting screwed over? If a victim of a kidnapping gets his offspring back for a lot of money and is not bothered by that fact, how are they not being screwed over?
Answering a question with a question is non-responsive. This man has not indicate he is bothered by the child support. He is bothered by the denial of access to his legal daughter. Apparently, the fact she does not share his DNA does not bother him at all. Apparently, the fact his former wife deceived him does not bother him at all. From the reports so far, he does not feel screwed over by the child support. Apparently he values his relationship with his legal daughter enough that this other stuff does not bother him. If that is the case, what makes you a better judge of his situation than him?
Some will argue that society has functioned better when marriage and the family unit is strengthened.
Are you making that argument? If so, make it. Otherwise, stop wasting time and effort with these irrelevant responses.
 

RVonse

Veteran Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2005
Messages
2,267
Location
USA
Basic Beliefs
that people in the US are living in the matrx
Answering a question with a question is non-responsive. This man has not indicate he is bothered by the child support.
Those examples I provide are exactly the same thing. I am responding that harm has been done even if in this specific case an individual happens not to be bothered by it. If someone were to eat shit out of a toilet and claim it was a good meal, I would still not argue everyone else would enjoy it too.
Some will argue that society has functioned better when marriage and the family unit is strengthened.
Are you making that argument? If so, make it. Otherwise, stop wasting time and effort with these irrelevant responses.
????Is that not what the OP says? That domestic law if uncorrected will eventually cause a breakdown of families?
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,155
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
Those examples I provide are exactly the same thing. I am responding that harm has been done even if in this specific case an individual happens not to be bothered by it. If someone were to eat shit out of a toilet and claim it was a good meal, I would still not argue everyone else would enjoy it too.
Unfortunately for your position, you have not identified any harm to this man. Nor is anyone claiming that this man's reaction is appropriate for everyone else.
????Is that not what the OP says? That domestic law if uncorrected will eventually cause a breakdown of families?
If that is the OP argument, it is truly reactionary. Families do not require marriage.
 

Bronzeage

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 27, 2011
Messages
7,494
Location
Deep South
Basic Beliefs
Pragmatic
There may come a day when registering a person's unique DNA profile at birth is part of the birth certificate, but I would not want to be part of a society where an infant is presumed a bastard until proven legitimate.

It's only the latest scientific progress which has put us in this situation. Truly reliable paternity tests are a fairly new thing for the human race. Perhaps science could offer a solution for the men who discover they have been deceived by a person whom they trusted with their sperm, only to discover she used sperm from another source.

Along with proving or disproving fatherhood at birth, we could require all males to receive a reversible vasectomy(a mechanical device know as the "ball valve") at the age of 14. Once the boy reaches the age of majority, he will have to pass a series of psychological exams, which will determine if he is mature enough to deal with the burdens and occasional disappointments which are an inevitable part of parenthood.

Once his certificate of manhood is obtained, he has the option of having his ball valves(2 are required) turned on.

This will prevent the creation of children who discover too late in life that fortune and circumstance has put them in the wrong place at the wrong time, and are thus no longer loved by the man who they called Daddy.
Despite all the advancement of science, having children is the closest any of us can or will ever get to immortality. How is installing a vasectomy going to help fulfill what nature and instinct has brought to all of us?

If you want to be immortal, write a poem.

It's an easily demonstrable fact that some men reach adulthood, without the prerequisite skills to perform as a father to a child. My vasectomy idea would require a man to demonstrate his proficiency before being allowed the opportunity to become a biological father and risk raising sons who would be too self centered and selfish to be a good father, thus perpetuating the problem.

Such a system would save society a lot of time by eliminating the need for discussions such as this one.
 

Jolly_Penguin

Banned
Banned
Joined
Aug 22, 2003
Messages
10,366
Location
South Pole
Basic Beliefs
Skeptic
Despite all the advancement of science, having children is the closest any of us can or will ever get to immortality. How is installing a vasectomy going to help fulfill what nature and instinct has brought to all of us?

If you want to be immortal, write a poem.

It's an easily demonstrable fact that some men reach adulthood, without the prerequisite skills to perform as a father to a child. My vasectomy idea would require a man to demonstrate his proficiency before being allowed the opportunity to become a biological father and risk raising sons who would be too self centered and selfish to be a good father, thus perpetuating the problem.

Such a system would save society a lot of time by eliminating the need for discussions such as this one.

Wouldn't it be more efficient to do this to the mothers to be? Especially after they have one child? Or if they have a gynocologist? They are already right there in the medical system and you don't have to go find them. Or would demanding that women demonstrate their proficiency to be competent mothers meet outrage?
 

ronburgundy

Contributor
Joined
Dec 6, 2014
Messages
5,757
Location
Whale's Vagina
Basic Beliefs
Atheist/Scientist
Everyone seems to be talking about the legal minutia of the example case I provided and the welfare of the kids.. but that is not what I intended my OP to be about. The example I provided is not the only time this has occurred anyway.

A marriage is supposed to be a contract between a man and woman or at least it used to be thought of that way. When a man and woman gets married, they are probably not considering the welfare of the children they might have that might not yet be born yet. They are probably considering what they want from the marriage..the woman wants financial security and the husband wants blood related children and a legacy. Or something like that. And they are supposed to both be exclusive to each other sexually or something like that.

Because if they aren't...and nobody cares....why even get married? I get that the kids are more important than anything else in the universe, but for the purpose of society functioning is it not also important for the adults to be motivated to do the right thing?

Paying child support on someone else's kid makes about as much sense as paying property taxes on someone else's house? Would you pay the property taxes for your neighbors house? And if not, why would you want to pay for someone else's kid?

The problem you seem to have, is with the concept of "your kid". The child you feed and clothe is your kid. Whether somewhere in the deep past, one of the billions of sperm cells you have produced, actually was part of creating this kid, is irrelevant.

I know this idea is totally contrary to all the rules of playground justice, but that's why playground precedence is not allowed to decide things when adults are involved. The child may not be your biological child. The mother may have deceived you in the most wicked way. People may be laughing at you. None of that matters. It's your kid because you once thought it was your kid, and you can't take that back.

Unfair? Please refer to the ruling on playground justice.

Your "No take backsies" rule is the most childish playground rule of all, and has no place in any reasonable justice system.

Having previously provided financial assistance to someone because you were the victim of fraud and were mislead to think you were obligated to provide that support does not then make you obligated to keep doing so. And the law disagrees with your "no take backsies" rule. The law allows him to stop providing parental support via DNA evidence. Its just that some asshole judge that clearly should be removed from the bench is abusing their authority to ignore the evidence based on technicalities.

If anything, he should be able to sue the mother for all previous support, including during the 11 years of marriage. Any concerns about the child's welfare should be dealt with separate from this legal dispute between the parents. The obligation to ensure the child has sufficient care is societies, not solely that of some unrelated person who was conned. The law should not pervert justice in order to shift a societal responsibility onto specific person's who were unfortunate enough to get conned into thinking they had a responsibility.

Note that, as it should be, my approach is sensitive to whether the child's welfare is actually harmed by the mother not getting financial assistance. Actual fathers are obligated to assist with child's regardless of whether the mother could provide for them on her own. But non-fathers like this guy would have no obligation to provide support. If the mother could not provide that support on here own, then societal assistance kicks in just like in any circumstance.
In this way the issue of ensuring the child has sufficient support is separated from the issue of who is obligated to foot the bill for it, rather than creating absurd miscarriages of justice in determining those obligations as a way ensuring the child has sufficient support.
 
Last edited:

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
9,957
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
The problem you seem to have, is with the concept of "your kid". The child you feed and clothe is your kid. Whether somewhere in the deep past, one of the billions of sperm cells you have produced, actually was part of creating this kid, is irrelevant.

I know this idea is totally contrary to all the rules of playground justice, but that's why playground precedence is not allowed to decide things when adults are involved. The child may not be your biological child. The mother may have deceived you in the most wicked way. People may be laughing at you. None of that matters. It's your kid because you once thought it was your kid, and you can't take that back.

Unfair? Please refer to the ruling on playground justice.

Your "No take backsies" rule is the most childish playground rule of all, and has no place in any reasonable justice system.

Having previously provided financial assistance to someone because you were the victim of fraud and were mislead to think you were obligated to provide that support does not then make you obligated to keep doing so. And the law disagrees with your "no take backsies" rule. The law allows him to stop providing parental support via DNA evidence. Its just that some asshole judge that clearly should be removed from the bench is abusing their authority to ignore the evidence based on technicalities.

If anything, he should be able to sue the mother for all previous support, including during the 11 years of marriage. Any concerns about the child's welfare should be dealt with separate from this legal dispute between the parents. The obligation to ensure the child has sufficient care is societies, not solely that of some unrelated person who was conned. The law should not pervert justice in order to shift a societal responsibility onto specific person's who were unfortunate enough to get conned into thinking they had a responsibility.

Note that, as it should be, my approach is sensitive to whether the child's welfare is actually harmed by the mother not getting financial assistance. Actual fathers are obligated to assist with child's regardless of whether the mother could provide for them on her own. But non-fathers like this guy would have no obligation to provide support. If the mother could not provide that support on here own, then societal assistance kicks in just like in any circumstance.
In this way the issue of ensuring the child has sufficient support is separated from the issue of who is obligated to foot the bill for it, rather than creating absurd miscarriages of justice in determining those obligations as a way ensuring the child has sufficient support.

Or maybe people should just learn to accept that humans should not put any stock at any time in those parts of our psyche driven by darwinistic concerns, and instead use whatever means we have available to subvert those mechanisms. This means raising children that don't share your particular differences to the basic human genome, instead focusing on raising them on your ideas and philosophy because exposing lots of genetic variations to lots of different philosophies is more likely to produce more interesting and dare I say more FUNCTIONAL world views.

In other words, I would not just say it is OK to have people be parents of children that 'arent theirs' but that it is preferable.
 

RVonse

Veteran Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2005
Messages
2,267
Location
USA
Basic Beliefs
that people in the US are living in the matrx
The problem you seem to have, is with the concept of "your kid". The child you feed and clothe is your kid. Whether somewhere in the deep past, one of the billions of sperm cells you have produced, actually was part of creating this kid, is irrelevant.

I know this idea is totally contrary to all the rules of playground justice, but that's why playground precedence is not allowed to decide things when adults are involved. The child may not be your biological child. The mother may have deceived you in the most wicked way. People may be laughing at you. None of that matters. It's your kid because you once thought it was your kid, and you can't take that back.

Unfair? Please refer to the ruling on playground justice.

Your "No take backsies" rule is the most childish playground rule of all, and has no place in any reasonable justice system.

Having previously provided financial assistance to someone because you were the victim of fraud and were mislead to think you were obligated to provide that support does not then make you obligated to keep doing so. And the law disagrees with your "no take backsies" rule. The law allows him to stop providing parental support via DNA evidence. Its just that some asshole judge that clearly should be removed from the bench is abusing their authority to ignore the evidence based on technicalities.

If anything, he should be able to sue the mother for all previous support, including during the 11 years of marriage. Any concerns about the child's welfare should be dealt with separate from this legal dispute between the parents. The obligation to ensure the child has sufficient care is societies, not solely that of some unrelated person who was conned. The law should not pervert justice in order to shift a societal responsibility onto specific person's who were unfortunate enough to get conned into thinking they had a responsibility.

Note that, as it should be, my approach is sensitive to whether the child's welfare is actually harmed by the mother not getting financial assistance. Actual fathers are obligated to assist with child's regardless of whether the mother could provide for them on her own. But non-fathers like this guy would have no obligation to provide support. If the mother could not provide that support on here own, then societal assistance kicks in just like in any circumstance.
In this way the issue of ensuring the child has sufficient support is separated from the issue of who is obligated to foot the bill for it, rather than creating absurd miscarriages of justice in determining those obligations as a way ensuring the child has sufficient support.
+1 Agree
 

RVonse

Veteran Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2005
Messages
2,267
Location
USA
Basic Beliefs
that people in the US are living in the matrx
Your "No take backsies" rule is the most childish playground rule of all, and has no place in any reasonable justice system.

Having previously provided financial assistance to someone because you were the victim of fraud and were mislead to think you were obligated to provide that support does not then make you obligated to keep doing so. And the law disagrees with your "no take backsies" rule. The law allows him to stop providing parental support via DNA evidence. Its just that some asshole judge that clearly should be removed from the bench is abusing their authority to ignore the evidence based on technicalities.

If anything, he should be able to sue the mother for all previous support, including during the 11 years of marriage. Any concerns about the child's welfare should be dealt with separate from this legal dispute between the parents. The obligation to ensure the child has sufficient care is societies, not solely that of some unrelated person who was conned. The law should not pervert justice in order to shift a societal responsibility onto specific person's who were unfortunate enough to get conned into thinking they had a responsibility.

Note that, as it should be, my approach is sensitive to whether the child's welfare is actually harmed by the mother not getting financial assistance. Actual fathers are obligated to assist with child's regardless of whether the mother could provide for them on her own. But non-fathers like this guy would have no obligation to provide support. If the mother could not provide that support on here own, then societal assistance kicks in just like in any circumstance.
In this way the issue of ensuring the child has sufficient support is separated from the issue of who is obligated to foot the bill for it, rather than creating absurd miscarriages of justice in determining those obligations as a way ensuring the child has sufficient support.

Or maybe people should just learn to accept that humans should not put any stock at any time in those parts of our psyche driven by darwinistic concerns, and instead use whatever means we have available to subvert those mechanisms. This means raising children that don't share your particular differences to the basic human genome, instead focusing on raising them on your ideas and philosophy because exposing lots of genetic variations to lots of different philosophies is more likely to produce more interesting and dare I say more FUNCTIONAL world views.

In other words, I would not just say it is OK to have people be parents of children that 'arent theirs' but that it is preferable.
I disagree that biological parents aren't the best parents a child should have. But regardless, it is off topic to my OP which was originally meant to be about full filling the contract of marriage.
 

RVonse

Veteran Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2005
Messages
2,267
Location
USA
Basic Beliefs
that people in the US are living in the matrx
Unfortunately for your position, you have not identified any harm to this man. Nor is anyone claiming that this man's reaction is appropriate for everyone else.
????Is that not what the OP says? That domestic law if uncorrected will eventually cause a breakdown of families?
If that is the OP argument, it is truly reactionary. Families do not require marriage.
In the final analysis, a civilization has to has some rules of conduct. Otherwise everyone does just what they like without consequence and society becomes a dog eat dog world. Is that what you are proposing?
 

Tom Sawyer

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jun 25, 2002
Messages
17,030
Location
Toronto
Basic Beliefs
That I'm God
Or maybe people should just learn to accept that humans should not put any stock at any time in those parts of our psyche driven by darwinistic concerns, and instead use whatever means we have available to subvert those mechanisms. This means raising children that don't share your particular differences to the basic human genome, instead focusing on raising them on your ideas and philosophy because exposing lots of genetic variations to lots of different philosophies is more likely to produce more interesting and dare I say more FUNCTIONAL world views.

In other words, I would not just say it is OK to have people be parents of children that 'arent theirs' but that it is preferable.

So, you're saying that the government should force you to pay a monthly fee for the care of a random orphan? If she's not his child then there should be nothing forcing him to provide for her anymore than there should be something forcing him to provide for any other unrelated person.
 

Jolly_Penguin

Banned
Banned
Joined
Aug 22, 2003
Messages
10,366
Location
South Pole
Basic Beliefs
Skeptic
How about we take all children at birth and raise them all together by experts trained in early childhood education in childhood communes? Uniform upbringing and equal opportunity for all. Nobody born into poverty. Nobody born with a silver spoon.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
9,957
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Or maybe people should just learn to accept that humans should not put any stock at any time in those parts of our psyche driven by darwinistic concerns, and instead use whatever means we have available to subvert those mechanisms. This means raising children that don't share your particular differences to the basic human genome, instead focusing on raising them on your ideas and philosophy because exposing lots of genetic variations to lots of different philosophies is more likely to produce more interesting and dare I say more FUNCTIONAL world views.

In other words, I would not just say it is OK to have people be parents of children that 'arent theirs' but that it is preferable.
I disagree that biological parents aren't the best parents a child should have. But regardless, it is off topic to my OP which was originally meant to be about full filling the contract of marriage.

I can give a plethora of examples where your claim that biological parents are the best parents for a child are clearly wrong. And it isnt off topic, it actually directly addresses the (perhaps unstated) claim that parents ought be able to vacate the raising of a child based on who contributed the sperm. That is significant to the discussion.

And yes Tom, I do think that people seeking to have a child should be entered into a draft of sorts, where they can be assigned any child had in a similarly unplanned situation. And that care of children is enough of a public interest that yes, care for them ought be provided by government regardless of the income of the parents. It isn't quite what is happening here, but it is clearly caused by a bad assumption that the not-biological father has made in favor of social darwinism.

As to the idea proposed by JP, I can see how that would go foul. There are lots of mistakes that parents make, that parents are SUPPOSED to make, which result in interesting and valuable individuals. I'm not about to sacrifice the idea of small families to factory families just yet.
 
Top Bottom