Finnish man ordered by court to pay alimony for a child resulting from his wife cheating: this week in the strange death of Europe

[laughing dog]

If he had a vasectomy, he would have known the child was not his even before the birth. So he would have had plenty of time to file for annulment. Sorry, that is really basic logic and it has nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing with the request of "Please get a vasectomy if you don't want children".

That's an incredibly victim-blaming 'logic', especially when we don't even know if he previously did or didn't want any more children with his wife.

No, it points out the logic of the proposition - if he had a vasectomy, he could have easily avoided this situation. If I had proposed it as the solution, you'd have a point. But since I explicitly ended my observation with explicitly pointing out that it is basic logic and that it has nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing with the vasectomy proposition, it ought to be clear that I did not agree or disagree with the proposition.

 

[ruby sparks]

If he had a vasectomy, he would have known the child was not his even before the birth. So he would have had plenty of time to file for annulment. Sorry, that is really basic logic and it has nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing with the request of "Please get a vasectomy if you don't want children".

That's an incredibly victim-blaming 'logic', especially when we don't even know if he previously did or didn't want any more children with his wife.

No, it points out the logic of the proposition - if he had a vasectomy, he could have easily avoided this situation. If I had proposed it as the solution, you'd have a point. But since I explicitly ended my observation with explicitly pointing out that it is basic logic and that it has nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing with the vasectomy proposition, it ought to be clear that I did not agree or disagree with the proposition.

Nice try.

Toni (who for whatever reasons has very one-sided views imo) says it in such situations, therefore you effectively more or less back it up automatically. It's what you do. It's been one of the more obvious and predictable features of this forum ever since I joined.

 

[Metaphor]

I see you and Toni don't really understand consent.

It seems they understand female consent. When a man does not consent, it's essentially his fault, one way or another, apparently.

It seems you understand nothing about 'them.'

Not at all a surprise.

As far as I can tell, no one forced the husband to have sex with his wife, much less in such a way that he could get her pregnant and make his fatherhood very plausible, at least to him.

Those are equivalencies.

AFAIK, there is nothing preventing him from going after custody and seeking child support for his child. Yeah, I said HIS child because legally, it appears to be his child.

He doesn't want custody of the child. It isn't his child, and it's the product of a betrayal by his wife.

I know you claim that he is a monster for that making a difference, but it makes a difference to him. And so he is not going to be a father to this child, and extracting every last cent from him wouldn't make him one, either.

 

[Jarhyn]

If he had a vasectomy, he would have known the child was not his even before the birth. So he would have had plenty of time to file for annulment. Sorry, that is really basic logic and it has nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing with the request of "Please get a vasectomy if you don't want children".

That's an incredibly victim-blaming 'logic', especially when we don't even know if he previously did or didn't want any more children with his wife.

No, it points out the logic of the proposition - if he had a vasectomy, he could have easily avoided this situation. If I had proposed it as the solution, you'd have a point. But since I explicitly ended my observation with explicitly pointing out that it is basic logic and that it has nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing with the vasectomy proposition, it ought to be clear that I did not agree or disagree with the proposition.

The thing is, and it's pretty important: he did want a child.

He became a father of choice. Which brings me to back to my own point: lots of people have children that aren't exactly what they were expecting. He wanted to have a child to raise and guide through the world and he got one. Then, he displayed the ability to love a child and then abandon the same child, showing that he probably doesn't deserve children in the first place.

 

[ruby sparks]

He became a father of choice.

That does not seem to fit the facts as we know them without quite a bit of contortion, semantics and speculation.

I think it's a downright odd interpretation of what a choice is. I do not even understand how you could possibly even know it.

I think you continue to conflate your own situation with a very different one.

But, since you agree that you are being harsh, perhaps that is all there is to say. I do not agree with you that it is a good thing.

 

[Metaphor]

When all else fails, march in your pedantry.

It wasn't my pedantry, it was Toni's.

Fine, if he had a vasectomy, then he would have had an immediate reason to doubt his paternity and he would (or should) have had the dna test, and then annulled the paternity. That is really basic logic and it has nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing with the request of "Please get a vasectomy if you don't want children".

What he could have done to avoid being a victim of the State is all well and fine, but it doesn't make the law any better that there are actions he could have taken to protect himself from a cuckolding women--actions he only needs to take because of an unjust law.

Toni made - and makes - all and any kinds of excuses she can imagine for the woman who betrayed her husband, even invoking the spectre of rape!

Toni's double standards beggar belief. If this woman had instead wanted to abort the baby, Toni would have undoubtedly supported that. After all, taking actions (like having sex) that could end up in pregnancy does not mean you are consenting to be a parent. Except for men. And even if you didn't actually cause a pregnancy.

And, won't somebody think of the children? That child deserves a father, don't you know? Even a monster. And, even though parenting is about loving your child and spending time with them, the court can't actually order that. But that doesn't matter. The court can seize assets.

(Not a word from Toni on why the actual, genetic father isn't on the hook. As long as some man somewhere is).

 

[Metaphor]

No, it points out the logic of the proposition - if he had a vasectomy, he could have easily avoided this situation. If I had proposed it as the solution, you'd have a point. But since I explicitly ended my observation with explicitly pointing out that it is basic logic and that it has nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing with the vasectomy proposition, it ought to be clear that I did not agree or disagree with the proposition.

The thing is, and it's pretty important: he did want a child.

He became a father of choice. Which brings me to back to my own point: lots of people have children that aren't exactly what they were expecting. He wanted to have a child to raise and guide through the world and he got one. Then, he displayed the ability to love a child and then abandon the same child, showing that he probably doesn't deserve children in the first place.

No, he did not become a father by choice. In fact, he isn't a father, socially or biologically.

What he may have consented to was becoming a father, to his own genetic child, with a woman he thought he knew. None of that applies here.

And your insistence that he ought feel a certain way beggars belief. You have no empathy whatsoever for his position. You have imagined finding out that a child isn't genetically yours when you thought it was would make no difference whatsoever to you. Yet you cannot allow that it might make a difference to someone else. And if it does make a difference, that person is a monster that probably shouldn't be a father at all. But, he should pay, in cash, for his monstrous feelings.

And when I say 'beggars belief', I don't really mean that. I mean, it's fucking outrageous, but I am hardly surprised by your attitude.

EDIT: By the way, I know Jarhyn has me on ignore and won't see my replies, but I do want to illustrate for the rest of the message board his lack of logic, his vainglorious moralising, and his smug disconnection from ordinary human experience.

 

[Metaphor]

If he had a vasectomy, he would have known the child was not his even before the birth. So he would have had plenty of time to file for annulment. Sorry, that is really basic logic and it has nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing with the request of "Please get a vasectomy if you don't want children".

That's an incredibly victim-blaming 'logic', especially when we don't even know if he previously did or didn't want any more children with his wife.

It's not at all victim blaming. He is not a victim of this child's birth! As far as we can tell, he welcomed the child and loved the child! Now he's pissed at the mom, justifiably, and likely devastated as well. Very understandable right up to the point where he rejects the child who regards him as daddy. That's emotionally cruel, far more cruel than the mother having sex with someone else.

Tell me, Toni, what percentage of this cruel monster's money, forcibly extracted from him each fortnight, will make him love that child again?

 

[Jarhyn]

He became a father of choice.

That does not seem to fit the facts as we know them without quite a bit of contortion, semantics and speculation.

I think it's a downright odd interpretation of what a choice is. I do not even understand how you could possibly even know it.

I think you continue to conflate your own situation with a very different one.

But, since you agree that you are being harsh, perhaps that is all there is to say. I do not agree with you that it is a good thing.

No, he absolutely became a father of his own choice. He wanted to have a child. He CHOSE to try and have a child. Either they were actively trying to have a child, or when he heard his wife was pregnant, he chose to stick around. Obviously he thought it could have been his, so that means that they were having sex, within a marriage, that could ostensibly produce a child. That's a choice. And the result is a child. He chose to have a child. Sucks to be him that he didn't get exactly the child he was looking to have.

Child is born a grotesquery of genetics? Congratulations, enjoy the next three years as the child you had withers and dies of some fatal abnormality. It's yours and you get to foot the bill. Have a perfectly normal child born to your home that will live and love and learn? Go ahead and abandon them!

 

[Toni]

It seems you understand nothing about 'them.'

Not at all a surprise.

As far as I can tell, no one forced the husband to have sex with his wife, much less in such a way that he could get her pregnant and make his fatherhood very plausible, at least to him.

Those are equivalencies.

AFAIK, there is nothing preventing him from going after custody and seeking child support for his child. Yeah, I said HIS child because legally, it appears to be his child.

He doesn't want custody of the child. It isn't his child, and it's the product of a betrayal by his wife.

I know you claim that he is a monster for that making a difference, but it makes a difference to him. And so he is not going to be a father to this child, and extracting every last cent from him wouldn't make him one, either.

Legally, it is his child. Biologically, genetically? No. So what? He's been a father to this child in every way that counts for the past two years. It is cruel to the child to lose his father because the man is angry with his mother. It's outright cruelty.

I will be the first to say that people in monogamous relationships should not cheat. If you are having sex with multiple partners, you should be sure of birth control and disease prevention. If there is a question about either one of these: a condom breaks, then everyone involved should know as soon as possible. Presumably the people involved in the condom breaking know immediately.

Men cheat all the time. Sometimes, they father children outside of the marriage and must support said child, drawing resources from the marriage, the wife, any children the married couple have together. The wife ends up supporting some other woman's child. Sometimes men bring home sexually transmitted diseases. Sometimes women do. People really, really, really ought to take more care of their health and the health of their partner/spouse. They really, really, really ought to take better care of their relationships.

They really, really ought to be familiar with family law in their country/state.

 

[Toni]

It's not at all victim blaming. He is not a victim of this child's birth! As far as we can tell, he welcomed the child and loved the child! Now he's pissed at the mom, justifiably, and likely devastated as well. Very understandable right up to the point where he rejects the child who regards him as daddy. That's emotionally cruel, far more cruel than the mother having sex with someone else.

Tell me, Toni, what percentage of this cruel monster's money, forcibly extracted from him each fortnight, will make him love that child again?

Nothing can make him not a monster except himself. Parents blaming the child for the other parent's behavior is monstrous--and all too common. He can grow the fuck up and think of the child which is what the court is doing: thinking of the child. Also of the people's interest in ensuring that children are provided for, hopefully by the legal parent.

The court can order whatever is usual and customary support for the child.

If someone only loves a child because they believe there is a genetic connection to the child then that's not really love.

 

[Toni]

He became a father of choice.

That does not seem to fit the facts as we know them without quite a bit of contortion, semantics and speculation.

I think it's a downright odd interpretation of what a choice is. I do not even understand how you could possibly even know it.

I think you continue to conflate your own situation with a very different one.

But, since you agree that you are being harsh, perhaps that is all there is to say. I do not agree with you that it is a good thing.

Of course it fits the facts as far as we know. He did not challenge paternity. He acted as father to the child.

 

[Jarhyn]

If someone only loves a child because they believe there is a genetic connection to the child then that's not really love.

I would say that someone could, in fact, do this thing, love someone and then abandon them.

I am not going to gatekeep love.

I will however say that it DOES make him a monster.

 

[Jokodo]

Several people in this thread have made the proposition that legal parenthood should be *automatically* anulled when it turns out the man who accepted fatherhood on the premise that is the biological father is not in fact the biological father. Have you really thought this through? Does it work both ways?

I mean, I have two kids aged 10 and 2, and I love those and believe I've earned myself a place in their life. If either of them turned out not to be biologically mine, I may be angry at their mother for lying to me but I'd certainly want to continue to play a role in their life. Under your proposal, I'd have no basis to claim even as much as visitation rights, right? Is that what you want?

Or what about other (admittedly more far-fetched) scenarios where the father, or both parents, have been misled about the identity of a child's biological parents, where the wife is not at fault? Say for example, a couple is opting for in-vitro fertilization and five years later, it turns out the hospital messed up their sperm samples so the husband isn't actually the child's biological father. Does he now get to rescind all obligations towards the child? Does the wife get to deny him visitation should they divorce? What if he *knew* it wasn't his child since they made use of a sperm donor due to his infertility, but they were misled about the sperm donor's identity. Do they now get to send the child to an orphanage?

I'm not at all saying that that what the OP reports is fair. What I am saying is that an automatic nullification of parental obligation even after many years when it turns out they were uninformed about the biological parents of the child is a cure worse than the disease.

 

[Toni]

Several people in this thread have made the proposition that legal parenthood should be *automatically* anulled when it turns out the man who accepted fatherhood on the premise that is the biological father is not in fact the biological father. Have you really thought this through? Does it work both ways?

I mean, I have two kids aged 10 and 2, and I love those and believe I've earned myself a place in their life. If either of them turned out not to be biologically mine, I may be angry at their mother for lying to me but I'd certainly want to continue to play a role in their life. Under your proposal, I'd have no basis to claim even as much as visitation rights, right? Is that what you want?

Or what about other (admittedly more far-fetched) scenarios where the father, or both parents, have been misled about the identity of a child's biological parents, where the wife is not at fault? Say for example, a couple is opting for in-vitro fertilization and five years later, it turns out the hospital messed up their sperm samples so the husband isn't actually the child's biological father. Does he now get to rescind all obligations towards the child? Does the wife get to deny him visitation should they divorce? What if he *knew* it wasn't his child since they made use of a sperm donor due to his infertility, but they were misled about the sperm donor's identity. Do they now get to send the child to an orphanage?

I'm not at all saying that that what the OP reports is fair. What I am saying is that an automatic nullification of parental obligation even after many years when it turns out they were uninformed about the biological parents of the child is a cure worse than the disease.

Exactly.

 

[Jarhyn]

Several people in this thread have made the proposition that legal parenthood should be *automatically* anulled when it turns out the man who accepted fatherhood on the premise that is the biological father is not in fact the biological father. Have you really thought this through? Does it work both ways?

I mean, I have two kids aged 10 and 2, and I love those and believe I've earned myself a place in their life. If either of them turned out not to be biologically mine, I may be angry at their mother for lying to me but I'd certainly want to continue to play a role in their life. Under your proposal, I'd have no basis to claim even as much as visitation rights, right? Is that what you want?

Or what about other (admittedly more far-fetched) scenarios where the father, or both parents, have been misled about the identity of a child's biological parents, where the wife is not at fault? Say for example, a couple is opting for in-vitro fertilization and five years later, it turns out the hospital messed up their sperm samples so the husband isn't actually the child's biological father. Does he now get to rescind all obligations towards the child? Does the wife get to deny him visitation should they divorce? What if he *knew* it wasn't his child since they made use of a sperm donor due to his infertility, but they were misled about the sperm donor's identity. Do they now get to send the child to an orphanage?

I'm not at all saying that that what the OP reports is fair. What I am saying is that an automatic nullification of parental obligation even after many years when it turns out they were uninformed about the biological parents of the child is a cure worse than the disease.

Yeah, see, this is my point. Personally, if I was the not-biological still-a-father-though, I would fight for primary custody on grounds of the embezzlement and infidelity. I wouldn't abandon them just because I have a problem with their other father, and anyone who would doesn't deserve to raise children anyway.

In fact, I don't think it's even really appropriate to ask him to pay money. I am firmly of the position, with respect to my principles, that he ought have parental rights in the future only under the consent of the child he already abandoned, and that the money for child support should be offered by the state. But alas society isn't shaped in such a way for this to be possible, and imperfect solutions will abound.

 

[Toni]

When all else fails, march in your pedantry.

It wasn't my pedantry, it was Toni's.
.

You seem to be confused about what that word means.

 

[Metaphor]

Legally, it is his child. Biologically, genetically? No. So what?

So, he doesn't want to be a father to a child that is not his genetically. He did not consent to that.

Remember consent?

He's been a father to this child in every way that counts for the past two years.

So what?

It is cruel to the child to lose his father because the man is angry with his mother. It's outright cruelty.

You don't know that it is because he is angry with the mother. In fact, it seems to me to have very little to do with that.

Guess what, Toni? Biology matters to people. In fact, it matters to most of humanity, which is why people have their own babies even when many children go unadopted.

But, given you cannot seem to comprehend that biology matters to some people, for the sake of argument, let's say it matters to this man. What do you think making him the legal father accomplishes? It certainly won't accomplish what you want - that he will somehow start loving the child again or want to father the child. If anything, it seems to me it would drive the wedge deeper.

I will be the first to say that people in monogamous relationships should not cheat. If you are having sex with multiple partners, you should be sure of birth control and disease prevention. If there is a question about either one of these: a condom breaks, then everyone involved should know as soon as possible. Presumably the people involved in the condom breaking know immediately.

Men cheat all the time. Sometimes, they father children outside of the marriage and must support said child, drawing resources from the marriage, the wife, any children the married couple have together. The wife ends up supporting some other woman's child. Sometimes men bring home sexually transmitted diseases. Sometimes women do. People really, really, really ought to take more care of their health and the health of their partner/spouse. They really, really, really ought to take better care of their relationships.

They really, really ought to be familiar with family law in their country/state.

Toni, no law can make it moral to force a man to be a father against his will. Indeed, no law can force a man to be a father against his will.

You support this law because it punishes men for having the wrong feelings. That is deeply despicable of you. But it's exactly what I expected.

 

[Metaphor]

When all else fails, march in your pedantry.

It wasn't my pedantry, it was Toni's.
.

You seem to be confused about what that word means.

I'm familiar with what laughing dog's relentless sycophantry means. It means that when I repeat a point you made, he calls me the pedant.

 

[Metaphor]

Several people in this thread have made the proposition that legal parenthood should be *automatically* anulled when it turns out the man who accepted fatherhood on the premise that is the biological father is not in fact the biological father. Have you really thought this through? Does it work both ways?

I mean, I have two kids aged 10 and 2, and I love those and believe I've earned myself a place in their life. If either of them turned out not to be biologically mine, I may be angry at their mother for lying to me but I'd certainly want to continue to play a role in their life. Under your proposal, I'd have no basis to claim even as much as visitation rights, right? Is that what you want?

Who in this thread is proposing that legal parenthood be automatically extinguished?

Or what about other (admittedly more far-fetched) scenarios where the father, or both parents, have been misled about the identity of a child's biological parents, where the wife is not at fault? Say for example, a couple is opting for in-vitro fertilization and five years later, it turns out the hospital messed up their sperm samples so the husband isn't actually the child's biological father. Does he now get to rescind all obligations towards the child? Does the wife get to deny him visitation should they divorce? What if he *knew* it wasn't his child since they made use of a sperm donor due to his infertility, but they were misled about the sperm donor's identity. Do they now get to send the child to an orphanage?

I'm not at all saying that that what the OP reports is fair. What I am saying is that an automatic nullification of parental obligation even after many years when it turns out they were uninformed about the biological parents of the child is a cure worse than the disease.

Who in this thread is proposing that legal parenthood be automatically extinguished?