Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Adoption issues versus gender rights.

124

Posts

  • MrMisterMrMister A pup must first get in the water to be successful as a seal!Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    ElJeffe wrote:
    Eh, whatever. Get back to me when you have a kid.

    Get back to us when you've adopted one.

    MrMister on
  • Regina FongRegina Fong Allons-y, Alonso Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    jeepguy wrote:
    However, the contract between the mother and the couple was recognized as law. The guardians had already given the baby their surname and were seeking child-support payments from the father.



    and were seeking child-support payments from the father.


    Fuck those adoptive parents. Fuck them in every orifice.

    Yeah, we pretty much all agree on that.

    My outrage is also dampened knowing now that the guy is an unfit parent. I still think the child support is bullshit though.

    Regina Fong on
  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    jeepguy wrote:
    jeepguy wrote:
    However, the contract between the mother and the couple was recognized as law. The guardians had already given the baby their surname and were seeking child-support payments from the father.



    and were seeking child-support payments from the father.


    Fuck those adoptive parents. Fuck them in every orifice.

    Yeah, we pretty much all agree on that.

    My outrage is also dampened knowing now that the guy is an unfit parent. I still think the child support is bullshit though.

    Yeah. I think a lot of us agree on that, too. :P

    Loren Michael on
    2ezikn6.jpg
  • DeathmongerDeathmonger Registered User
    edited February 2007
    Gender is a social construct. We should live in small collectivist communities wherein children are taken from their parents and raised by all responsible adults, as outlined in Huxley's The Island.

    Deathmonger on
  • MrMisterMrMister A pup must first get in the water to be successful as a seal!Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    Gender is a social construct. We should live in small collectivist communities wherein children are taken from their parents and raised by all responsible adults, as outlined in Huxley's The Island.

    Needs elaboration.

    For reference, Trobriander islanders don't believe that sex leads to conception, and consequently, they also don't believe in paternity at all.

    MrMister on
  • DeathmongerDeathmonger Registered User
    edited February 2007
    Let's do it.

    Deathmonger on
  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    Sheri wrote:

    Sorry, but I find this absolutely absurd. The bond between mother and child is not the same as between father and child. No, it doesn't make her a superior parent, but I didn't say it did. I said it's absurd to say that a mother and non-present father share the same connection to their child at birth. I still say that, hormonal fluctuations or not (and I'm not saying it's not true that there are hormonal influences, but I think it is a separate issue). I think what you've just said is just plain incorrect.

    The hormonal influence is what is created in the mother by the baby being in the womb. She is made ready to look after a child by hormonal influences on her brain and body. This is the 'special bond' you refer to when you talk about bonding in the womb.

    However this would work for any child, take the mothers baby away and switch it with another without telling her when it was born and she wouldnt know. The hormonal 'aww, baby!" effect would be just the same.

    The bond with the actual child is exactly equivalent between father and child and mother and child. The power of this bond is why people an be happy in adoptive families, and I dont for a second maintain that the child will have abad life just because it has been adopted. However it is this mans child, his son/daughter for goodness sake! How can you possibly think this is right?

    To remove a child from its mother against the will of the mother would be a travesty, only possible to enact in the most severe of cases such as child abuse or neglect. The same should be true of the father.

    Rights and responsibilities together. You cannot have a discussion of this issue while ignoring the fact that they forced him to pay child support.

    tbloxham on
    "That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
  • Low KeyLow Key Registered User
    edited February 2007
    There's also the possible importance of hormonal recognition and the long term developments. But let's just say endocrinology is probably not the most useful basis for custody decisions.

    Just from the OP, it seems like the father wouldn't have won any custody battles anyway. Surely this isn't the first time when a mother has chosen to put her child up for adoption, over leaving it with some skeezy ex.
    Shinto wrote:
    RedShell wrote:
    There is no substitute for biology. None. Adopted children frequently feel too guilty to say this out loud, but they overwhelmingly wish they could have grown up with their real families. It's not the adoptive family's fault, of course, but that's how people are. We want our real families.

    This is your opinion and that of how many other adopted children that you have spoken to?

    I remember a bunch of interviews with adopted children and adults (old soc sci. stuff that I was meant to be transcribing) that dealt with this. A lot of people comment about living with their biological families but mostly it seems like it's curiosity. There was a lot of stuff about what makes a "real" family and almost all of them went with the people they'd been brought up with. Only stolen generation children really felt like there'd been some sense of heritage taken from them. A lot of the others talked about feeling resentment towards the people that they thought of as having abandoned them.

    Low Key on
  • VRViperIIVRViperII Registered User
    edited February 2007
    If the father gets access to the child, he had damn well better be paying child support.

    What's more likely is that someone who never files a tax return wont make child support payments either. Then the adoptive parents will be able to deny him access.

    This case doesn't really seem like they are setting a dangerous precedent. I just see it as another custody battle where the father happens to be a douche. The judge is probably invisioning child services having to come and take the kid back in a year or two anyway, but this time the kid will end up in a foster home.

    Also, it is going to be VERY obvious that this kid is adopted. I mean, come on, it's Saskatchewan. I'm going to go out on a short limb and say that the Meth addict mother also managed to give the kid FAS. For this kid to have any sort of chance, you have to remove it from the cycle of shit that surrounds its parents.

    If the father wasn't a douche, I can totally see the judge giving him custody in the child's best interests. This case doesn't worry me at all. I applaud the decision.

    VRViperII on
    "Rhaegar fought valiantly, Rhaegar fought nobly, Rhaegar fought honorably.
    And Rhaegar died." -Jorah Mormont
  • RedShellRedShell Registered User
    edited February 2007
    Zek wrote:
    RedShell wrote:
    RedShell wrote:
    If the best interests of the child were really being considered, the child would end up with the biological father by the end of the day. Because children want to live with their biological parents. If this guy is remotely capable of raising a kid (and the fact that he wants to seems good enough for me), his child will be infinitely happier with one biological parent instead of none.

    In the long run, I'd say it's likely the kid will be better off with two parents than one, regardless of biology. Especially given that apparently the adoptive parents are financially secure, and not alcoholics.

    I really, really, really disagree.

    Adoption, in many ways, does not work. We've been sold on it because of abortion politics and because it's certainly a lot better than someone ending up in an orphanage. Someone is calling someone else an alcoholic, but there's no real reason to believe it. Those are the kinds of charges that always get thrown around in custody battles because most adults drink.

    There is no substitute for biology. None. Adopted children frequently feel too guilty to say this out loud, but they overwhelmingly wish they could have grown up with their real families. It's not the adoptive family's fault, of course, but that's how people are. We want our real families.

    In some cases that obviously isn't going to be possible. But in every case where it is possible (and this one obviously fits), it's a lie to say that anyone here is working in the best interest of the child -- they're working in the best interests of the adoptive parents, who want guarantees that the child is theirs. I don't blame them. But let's not be confused about who the state is protecting here.

    Most adopted kids make contact with their biologicals. Most desperately need to. There are real, hardwired, human being issues here that don't go away.
    I think this is absolutely absurd. On what basis are you making this claim? Is there a scientific study supporting your assertion that humans derive such happiness simply from being raised by biological parents that it overrules any and all concerns about how good they may actually be at parenting? I will acknowledge that many adopted children feel a desire to learn about their biological parents upon learning that they don't know them, though I'm dubious of your claim that this desire is "hardwired" and not societal, but to stretch this to claim that adopted families are so completely ineffective that a child is better off with a biological parent in the most unstable of situations than a happy adopted home is ridiculous. I don't know if you have a personal interest in this issue or what, but your position is way too extreme. Do you really believe that the quality of a child's upbringing is of absolutely no importance compared to the "Yes" or "No" answer to the question of whether or not they're with their biological parents?

    Here's the thing: my position isn't really extreme for most people who are adopted. I'm not really saying much other than: adoption bones the adopted. Who can still lead happy lives! But the act itself is inherently damaging.

    Is that extreme? I know a number of adopted people, some with wonderful parents and some with average parents and a couple with lousy parents. And they all, to a one, express some kind of regret over their situation. It hurts their feelings! Why would someone give them up? How can we take a baby from a woman and put it in a crib for a few days or a few weeks until the proper paperwork can be put together and call that situation optimal? The baby stops crying after a while! It is very obviously sub-optimal in ways that become clear over time. It's sub-optimal even when every party is doing their very best job. It's bad by definition.

    It's not like it's the greatest injustice that mankind ever conceived of. And it's not like people don't end up doing really well. It's not a death sentence.

    But it's bad news. People who think there's moral equivalence between keeping a baby and giving it up are nuts. The baby wants to be kept. Sure, sure.. if momma's a crackhead, adoption-issues are no longer at the top of the list of things that need to be taken into consideration.

    But that's not the vast majority of adoptions. The vast majority are optional-type adoptions and those are, to some degree or another, pretty unfair to the child. The reason they feel set apart isn't socialization. The reason is because they have been set actually apart.

    RedShell on
    Homing In Imperfectly?
    Pokemans D/P: 1289 4685 0522
  • ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS
    edited February 2007
    RedShell wrote:
    But that's not the vast majority of adoptions. The vast majority are optional-type adoptions and those are, to some degree or another, pretty unfair to the child.
    Numbers, please.

    ViolentChemistry on
    DAMM
    Drunks Against Mad Mothers
  • RedShellRedShell Registered User
    edited February 2007
    RedShell wrote:
    But that's not the vast majority of adoptions. The vast majority are optional-type adoptions and those are, to some degree or another, pretty unfair to the child.
    Numbers, please.

    So would you like to prove that the majority of adoptions are from drug abusers?

    I think I'm pretty safe in saying that in the states, people aren't giving babies up because they'd starve. Or because they'd have no roof over their head. It's pretty much up to you to prove that your much more counter-intuitive point is true.

    RedShell on
    Homing In Imperfectly?
    Pokemans D/P: 1289 4685 0522
  • ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS
    edited February 2007
    RedShell wrote:
    RedShell wrote:
    But that's not the vast majority of adoptions. The vast majority are optional-type adoptions and those are, to some degree or another, pretty unfair to the child.
    Numbers, please.

    So would you like to prove that the majority of adoptions are from drug abusers?

    I think I'm pretty safe in saying that in the states, people aren't giving babies up because they'd starve. Or because they'd have no roof over their head. It's pretty much up to you to prove that your much more counter-intuitive point is true.
    False. You made a positive claim. Burden of proof is all yours, ace. Also there's a lot more to raising a child than putting them in a room with food and making sure not to smoke crack.

    ViolentChemistry on
    DAMM
    Drunks Against Mad Mothers
  • RedShellRedShell Registered User
    edited February 2007
    RedShell wrote:
    RedShell wrote:
    But that's not the vast majority of adoptions. The vast majority are optional-type adoptions and those are, to some degree or another, pretty unfair to the child.
    Numbers, please.

    So would you like to prove that the majority of adoptions are from drug abusers?

    I think I'm pretty safe in saying that in the states, people aren't giving babies up because they'd starve. Or because they'd have no roof over their head. It's pretty much up to you to prove that your much more counter-intuitive point is true.
    False. You made a positive claim. Burden of proof is all yours, ace. Also there's a lot more to raising a child than putting them in a room with food and making sure not to smoke crack.

    Seriously, just deal with the thrust of my post. Which isn't about this tiny point that might be slightly shakier than you'd like it to be. Sorry that adoption records are closed and that we have to make a few assumptions to get a sense of what's going on out there.

    RedShell on
    Homing In Imperfectly?
    Pokemans D/P: 1289 4685 0522
  • MalkorMalkor Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    When you say 'optional type', do you mean when the birth family does not want or can't take care of the baby? It would seem to me that if they knew that there was no way they'd give the child a decent shot a life the only fair thing to do would be to find a suitable replacement to give the child a loving home.

    Malkor on
    14271f3c-c765-4e74-92b1-49d7612675f2.jpg
  • fjafjanfjafjan Registered User
    edited February 2007
    RedShell wrote:
    RedShell wrote:
    RedShell wrote:
    But that's not the vast majority of adoptions. The vast majority are optional-type adoptions and those are, to some degree or another, pretty unfair to the child.
    Numbers, please.

    So would you like to prove that the majority of adoptions are from drug abusers?

    I think I'm pretty safe in saying that in the states, people aren't giving babies up because they'd starve. Or because they'd have no roof over their head. It's pretty much up to you to prove that your much more counter-intuitive point is true.
    False. You made a positive claim. Burden of proof is all yours, ace. Also there's a lot more to raising a child than putting them in a room with food and making sure not to smoke crack.

    Seriously, just deal with the thrust of my post. Which isn't about this tiny point that might be slightly shakier than you'd like it to be. Sorry that adoption records are closed and that we have to make a few assumptions to get a sense of what's going on out there.

    Your whole claim is baseless and anekdotal, "I totally know alot of adoptive children and they are all unhappy about it!"
    Even if that WAS the case, it could very well be that it is considered "weird" to be adopted, and so they feel they are different.
    My dad was adopted, as far as I know here never cared that hugely about being adopted, he was a bit curius, looked them up a few years back.
    my story vs yours., you say the baby inherantly wants to be kept, and for some reason can FEEL if it's DNA is not that of it's mother figure. That is why alot of people live perfectly normal lives and find out in adult life that they were adopted, they must just have FORGOTTEN about that trauma.
    Rediculus.

    fjafjan on
    Yepp, THE Fjafjan (who's THE fjafjan?)
    - "Proving once again the deadliest animal of all ... is the Zoo Keeper" - Philip J Fry
  • ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS
    edited February 2007
    RedShell wrote:
    RedShell wrote:
    RedShell wrote:
    But that's not the vast majority of adoptions. The vast majority are optional-type adoptions and those are, to some degree or another, pretty unfair to the child.
    Numbers, please.

    So would you like to prove that the majority of adoptions are from drug abusers?

    I think I'm pretty safe in saying that in the states, people aren't giving babies up because they'd starve. Or because they'd have no roof over their head. It's pretty much up to you to prove that your much more counter-intuitive point is true.
    False. You made a positive claim. Burden of proof is all yours, ace. Also there's a lot more to raising a child than putting them in a room with food and making sure not to smoke crack.

    Seriously, just deal with the thrust of my post. Which isn't about this tiny point that might be slightly shakier than you'd like it to be. Sorry that adoption records are closed and that we have to make a few assumptions to get a sense of what's going on out there.
    That's the only point you made that isn't an opinion. What else is there to attack? Your unsubstantiated claim that the human brain would know the difference if it was raised by people other than the biological parents without being told? Your personal moral belief that adoption is only justifiable if the biological parents are homeless or junkies? The main "thrust" of your post is that adoption is primarily used as an easy-out. The rest of your claims you don't have evidence to support, and so I don't really count them as points since they directly conflict with common sense.

    ViolentChemistry on
    DAMM
    Drunks Against Mad Mothers
  • redxredx I(x)=2(x)+1 whole numbersRegistered User regular
    edited February 2007
    ummm... I this case, as well as many others that I have heard of, it seems the adoptive parents already were planing to adopt the child before it was born. It is not like it got dropped of in front of the hospital in a basket. All the paperwork and shit, would have pretty much been done ahead of time, and I don't think the infant would have spent any more time seperated from it's new parents than it would have from it's old ones.

    Unless you actually have refrence, showing that you asertion in the that rather large paragraph in the middle is in any way true, I'm going to call bullshit.


    you also seem to know a whole lot of adopted people. I hope you realise, that if that is due to something along the lines of a support group, your data is not reliable. Such self selecting groups can not be considered an accurate sample.

    redx on
    This machine kills threads.
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited February 2007
    MrMister wrote:
    ElJeffe wrote:
    Eh, whatever. Get back to me when you have a kid.

    Get back to us when you've adopted one.

    I don't think that's really necessary. We're talking about the emotional bond between a biological parent and the child versus two people with no connection at all and the child, prior to the kid even existing. I certainly think that adoptive parents who've been caring for a child for a good chunk of time can forge bonds every bit the equal of a biological parent.

    But I have been around lots and lots of kids being born. The children of extremely close friends, children with whom I'm extremely close, children for whom I could well become the guardian if something were to happen to the parents. While I love these kids, it's in no way remotely the same as the feelings I had towards Maddie before she was ever born, based solely on the fact that we had this fundamental biological link.

    Sheri and (I presume) you are trying to claim that that's not the case. You're very, very wrong.

    ElJeffe on
    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • LavaKnightLavaKnight Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    What if you were to raise this child from birth, Jeffe? I know that's not the specific case, but there are those that do exist. Most recently I heard about a Chinese couple that wanted their daughter back to take to China even though she was effectively raised as the daughter of the adopters, and is culturally American.

    I'm not denying the biological link you and Sheri are talking about. It certainly exists, and presents the strongest of emotional bonds between the adult and child. However, we can't really discount the bond that the child's adoptive parents form through however many years they raise him/her, despite a slightly "weaker" bond.

    LavaKnight on
  • SheriSheri Resident Fluffer My Living RoomRegistered User regular
    edited February 2007
    tbloxham wrote:
    Sheri wrote:

    Sorry, but I find this absolutely absurd. The bond between mother and child is not the same as between father and child. No, it doesn't make her a superior parent, but I didn't say it did. I said it's absurd to say that a mother and non-present father share the same connection to their child at birth. I still say that, hormonal fluctuations or not (and I'm not saying it's not true that there are hormonal influences, but I think it is a separate issue). I think what you've just said is just plain incorrect.

    The hormonal influence is what is created in the mother by the baby being in the womb. She is made ready to look after a child by hormonal influences on her brain and body. This is the 'special bond' you refer to when you talk about bonding in the womb.

    However this would work for any child, take the mothers baby away and switch it with another without telling her when it was born and she wouldnt know. The hormonal 'aww, baby!" effect would be just the same.

    The bond with the actual child is exactly equivalent between father and child and mother and child. The power of this bond is why people an be happy in adoptive families, and I dont for a second maintain that the child will have abad life just because it has been adopted. However it is this mans child, his son/daughter for goodness sake! How can you possibly think this is right?

    To remove a child from its mother against the will of the mother would be a travesty, only possible to enact in the most severe of cases such as child abuse or neglect. The same should be true of the father.

    Rights and responsibilities together. You cannot have a discussion of this issue while ignoring the fact that they forced him to pay child support.

    I can quite easily think this is right.

    He is, from everything I have read, an unfit father. The judge decided so. He's a tax-evading, alcoholic abusive man. He assaulted the mother.

    Sorry, I don't find it very difficult to think it was right.

    Additionally, yes you can talk about the issue as ignore the child support part because pretty much everyone has agreed that making him pay is wrong. So it's a non-issue. You can say 'This part is fucked up and we agree on it, now let's discuss this part.'

    Sheri on
  • Paul_IQ164Paul_IQ164 Registered User
    edited February 2007
    This discussion seems to me to be a lot less interesting since it transpired that the biological father was not a fit parent anyway. As someone who was siding with the father before it came to light, what I find interesting is that those people who were defending the decision based on the information we had to begin with, now seem to be arguing based solely on the new information about how he (in italics) assaulted the mother and so forth. Does this mean that a consensus has essentially been reached that a) in the situation as we originally understood it, the decision was wrong, and b) custody shouldn't be given to those guilty of assaulting the mother of their children? Or am I being too hopeful?

    Paul_IQ164 on
    But obviously to make that into a viable anecdote you have to tart it up a bit.
    Tetris: 337214-901184
    Puzzle League: 073119-160185
  • SheriSheri Resident Fluffer My Living RoomRegistered User regular
    edited February 2007
    Paul_IQ164 wrote:
    This discussion seems to me to be a lot less interesting since it transpired that the biological father was not a fit parent anyway. As someone who was siding with the father before it came to light, what I find interesting is that those people who were defending the decision based on the information we had to begin with, now seem to be arguing based solely on the new information about how he (in italics) assaulted the mother and so forth. Does this mean that a consensus has essentially been reached that a) in the situation as we originally understood it, the decision was wrong, and b) custody shouldn't be given to those guilty of assaulting the mother of their children? Or am I being too hopeful?

    Here I point out that I wasn't present in the discussion until after the second article had been posted.

    Up until then, I wasn't sure either way, really.

    Sheri on
  • EmperorSethEmperorSeth Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    Sheri wrote:
    Paul_IQ164 wrote:
    This discussion seems to me to be a lot less interesting since it transpired that the biological father was not a fit parent anyway. As someone who was siding with the father before it came to light, what I find interesting is that those people who were defending the decision based on the information we had to begin with, now seem to be arguing based solely on the new information about how he (in italics) assaulted the mother and so forth. Does this mean that a consensus has essentially been reached that a) in the situation as we originally understood it, the decision was wrong, and b) custody shouldn't be given to those guilty of assaulting the mother of their children? Or am I being too hopeful?

    Here I point out that I wasn't present in the discussion until after the second article had been posted.

    Up until then, I wasn't sure either way, really.

    Yeah, I think it's more ambiguous than that. Even the original story states that the plaintiff has issues with drugs and a criminal background, so their are child interest issues, and at the time of the ruling, the child was already with the adoptive family for nine months. I agree with Jeffe that a child is resilient and won't be affected at that age, but there should be some age limit here. What if he didnt' learn about this and launched a lawsuit until the child was, say, five?

    EmperorSeth on
    You know what? Nanowrimo's cancelled on account of the world is stupid.
  • MalkorMalkor Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    So no one here's seen or read 'The Face on the Milk Caron'?

    Malkor on
    14271f3c-c765-4e74-92b1-49d7612675f2.jpg
  • sanstodosanstodo Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    As an adopted child, I can say that adoption can be wonderful. My situation turned out very well; my parents love us as much as anyone could ever want. I know of some situations in which things didn't work out so well but that is honestly because the parents would have been bad parents with biological or adopted kids.

    I think it's ridiculous to say that adoption is universally bad or will automatically harm the child in some essential way. As I used to tell kids on the playground, "I have two sets of parents who love me and you don't have ANY!"

    :P

    Edit: I don't feel hurt by adoption at all. My birth parents had no money, two kids to feed, and probably couldn't give us a good life at all. Since it happened in South Korea, my birth father took us to the adoption agency and put us up for adoption. It was his way of trying to give us the best possible life; someone else could take better care of us and give us a better future.

    That is love, pure and simple. In fact, I take the fact that my birth parents put us up for adoption as an expression of parental love, a love I hope I can show to my future children.

    Seriously, watch the anecdotal evidence. Adoption cannot be treated as a monolithic institution because it varies wildly from country to country and person to person.

    sanstodo on
  • fjafjanfjafjan Registered User
    edited February 2007
    sanstodo wrote:
    As an adopted child, I can say that adoption can be wonderful. My situation turned out very well; my parents love us as much as anyone could ever want. I know of some situations in which things didn't work out so well but that is honestly because the parents would have been bad parents with biological or adopted kids.

    I think it's ridiculous to say that adoption is universally bad or will automatically harm the child in some essential way. As I used to tell kids on the playground, "I have two sets of parents who love me and you don't have ANY!"

    :P

    And then they punched you while they cried tears of loneliness?

    fjafjan on
    Yepp, THE Fjafjan (who's THE fjafjan?)
    - "Proving once again the deadliest animal of all ... is the Zoo Keeper" - Philip J Fry
  • JohannenJohannen Registered User
    edited February 2007
    I find the people who believe that homosexual parents create homosexual children through adoption funny.

    Johannen on
  • sanstodosanstodo Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    fjafjan wrote:
    sanstodo wrote:
    As an adopted child, I can say that adoption can be wonderful. My situation turned out very well; my parents love us as much as anyone could ever want. I know of some situations in which things didn't work out so well but that is honestly because the parents would have been bad parents with biological or adopted kids.

    I think it's ridiculous to say that adoption is universally bad or will automatically harm the child in some essential way. As I used to tell kids on the playground, "I have two sets of parents who love me and you don't have ANY!"

    :P

    And then they punched you while they cried tears of loneliness?

    No, they usually just cried :D I was pretty much the only asian kid on the playground so I learned to hit them where it hurt.

    sanstodo on
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited February 2007
    Paul_IQ164 wrote:
    This discussion seems to me to be a lot less interesting since it transpired that the biological father was not a fit parent anyway. As someone who was siding with the father before it came to light, what I find interesting is that those people who were defending the decision based on the information we had to begin with, now seem to be arguing based solely on the new information about how he (in italics) assaulted the mother and so forth. Does this mean that a consensus has essentially been reached that a) in the situation as we originally understood it, the decision was wrong, and b) custody shouldn't be given to those guilty of assaulting the mother of their children? Or am I being too hopeful?

    I wasn't around when the thread started, but having read through it now, I can safely say that I thought the guy was a dick before I found out about the assault thing. Think about it, we're talking about a dude who slept with some chick in a non-exclusive relationship (she didn't know who the father was, remember), walked away, and then basically chucked a tanty and yelled "MINE MINE MINE" when he found out there was a child involved. Never mind that he had no connection with the mother or child, never mind that he had other kids (of whom I get the impression that he's a non-custodial parent of), never mind that he was clearly unfit to care for the child in the first place. He simply feels entitled to what's "his" as if the child is some kind of status symbol rather than a person. Frankly, if he didn't want to pay child support he should have thought it through before claiming paternity - his possessive attitude towards the child caused that problem.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • fjafjanfjafjan Registered User
    edited February 2007
    The Cat wrote:
    Paul_IQ164 wrote:
    This discussion seems to me to be a lot less interesting since it transpired that the biological father was not a fit parent anyway. As someone who was siding with the father before it came to light, what I find interesting is that those people who were defending the decision based on the information we had to begin with, now seem to be arguing based solely on the new information about how he (in italics) assaulted the mother and so forth. Does this mean that a consensus has essentially been reached that a) in the situation as we originally understood it, the decision was wrong, and b) custody shouldn't be given to those guilty of assaulting the mother of their children? Or am I being too hopeful?

    I wasn't around when the thread started, but having read through it now, I can safely say that I thought the guy was a dick before I found out about the assault thing. Think about it, we're talking about a dude who slept with some chick in a non-exclusive relationship (she didn't know who the father was, remember), walked away, and then basically chucked a tanty and yelled "MINE MINE MINE" when he found out there was a child involved. Never mind that he had no connection with the mother or child, never mind that he had other kids (of whom I get the impression that he's a non-custodial parent of), never mind that he was clearly unfit to care for the child in the first place. He simply feels entitled to what's "his" as if the child is some kind of status symbol rather than a person. Frankly, if he didn't want to pay child support he should have thought it through before claiming paternity - his possessive attitude towards the child caused that problem.

    It says somewhere in there that it was her Ex boyfriend, so it was not outside of relationship, I agree that in this case, where he (for us) turned out to be a drunk/abusive, it was better to be adoptive, but if he was a fit parent then you are completely disregarding the right of a father to his child. A mother giving her child away is very hard for her, however she is allowed to make that choice, it is also hard for a father, but apparantly the woman can make that choice to for him without any particular reason, other than "well I already signed the papers when you didn't know".

    As for his "possesive attitude", it's because it's his fucking baby, people usually want them, how exactly is he only wanting the kid as a status symbol? "I want to raise my child because the mother does not want to"
    "FUCK YOU! YOU ARE BEING ALL POSSESIVE AND CRAZY YOU BITCH, NOW PAY THESE OTHER PEOPLE WHO WILL RAISE YOUR CHILD WHOM YOU WILL NOT GET TO MEET!".

    justice
    (I added the paying thing because it seems you are one of the very very few who actually seem to support the decision of forcing him to pay money for the child he will not get to see)

    fjafjan on
    Yepp, THE Fjafjan (who's THE fjafjan?)
    - "Proving once again the deadliest animal of all ... is the Zoo Keeper" - Philip J Fry
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD along with you if I get drunk well I know I'm gonna be gonna be the man whoRegistered User regular
    edited February 2007
    The Cat wrote:
    I wasn't around when the thread started, but having read through it now, I can safely say that I thought the guy was a dick before I found out about the assault thing. Think about it, we're talking about a dude who slept with some chick in a non-exclusive relationship (she didn't know who the father was, remember), walked away, and then basically chucked a tanty and yelled "MINE MINE MINE" when he found out there was a child involved.

    If a woman I'd been involved with had a baby, I'd want to be in that baby's life. It would really bother me to have a child out in the world who I'm not there for. It has nothing to do with a baby being a status symbol and everything to do with how important family is to me.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • YarYar Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    Feral wrote:
    If a woman I'd been involved with had a baby, I'd want to be in that baby's life. It would really bother me to have a child out in the world who I'm not there for. It has nothing to do with a baby being a status symbol and everything to do with how important family is to me.
    If family were important to you, maybe you shouldn't be sleeping around and then taking off.

    Yar on
  • taliosfalcontaliosfalcon Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    Yar wrote:
    Feral wrote:
    If a woman I'd been involved with had a baby, I'd want to be in that baby's life. It would really bother me to have a child out in the world who I'm not there for. It has nothing to do with a baby being a status symbol and everything to do with how important family is to me.
    If family were important to you, maybe you shouldn't be sleeping around and then taking off.
    Guess what? just because you sleep with someone, or even go out with them for a little while, does not make them family, we aren't living in the 1940's here.

    taliosfalcon on
    WII U NNID- talios
    steam-taliosfalcon
    XBL-AdeptPenguin
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD along with you if I get drunk well I know I'm gonna be gonna be the man whoRegistered User regular
    edited February 2007
    Yar wrote:
    Feral wrote:
    If a woman I'd been involved with had a baby, I'd want to be in that baby's life. It would really bother me to have a child out in the world who I'm not there for. It has nothing to do with a baby being a status symbol and everything to do with how important family is to me.
    If family were important to you, maybe you shouldn't be sleeping around and then taking off.

    Sleeping with somebody automatically makes them family?

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited February 2007
    Feral wrote:
    Yar wrote:
    Feral wrote:
    If a woman I'd been involved with had a baby, I'd want to be in that baby's life. It would really bother me to have a child out in the world who I'm not there for. It has nothing to do with a baby being a status symbol and everything to do with how important family is to me.
    If family were important to you, maybe you shouldn't be sleeping around and then taking off.

    Sleeping with somebody automatically makes them family?

    wow, did you ever miss the point of that.

    And I stand by my earlier statement. Making the decision to grow a baby neccessarily gives you more right to handle its life than ejaculating and leaving.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • Paul_IQ164Paul_IQ164 Registered User
    edited February 2007
    Yar wrote:
    Feral wrote:
    If a woman I'd been involved with had a baby, I'd want to be in that baby's life. It would really bother me to have a child out in the world who I'm not there for. It has nothing to do with a baby being a status symbol and everything to do with how important family is to me.
    If family were important to you, maybe you shouldn't be sleeping around and then taking off.
    Surely if the woman didn't know the identity of the father, it was her who was sleeping around. All that's given about the man is that he slept with a woman and sometime in the following few months they stopped seeing one another. Everything else is speculation (or was until some annoying facts ruined the lovely hypothetical discussion that was happening here).

    Paul_IQ164 on
    But obviously to make that into a viable anecdote you have to tart it up a bit.
    Tetris: 337214-901184
    Puzzle League: 073119-160185
  • fjafjanfjafjan Registered User
    edited February 2007
    The Cat wrote:
    And I stand by my earlier statement. Making the decision to grow a baby neccessarily gives you more right to handle its life than ejaculating and leaving.

    It gives you the right to do whatever?
    You tihnk this father has no rights to the baby, but he has an obligation?
    Where is the logic?

    fjafjan on
    Yepp, THE Fjafjan (who's THE fjafjan?)
    - "Proving once again the deadliest animal of all ... is the Zoo Keeper" - Philip J Fry
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD along with you if I get drunk well I know I'm gonna be gonna be the man whoRegistered User regular
    edited February 2007
    The Cat wrote:
    Feral wrote:
    Yar wrote:
    Feral wrote:
    If a woman I'd been involved with had a baby, I'd want to be in that baby's life. It would really bother me to have a child out in the world who I'm not there for. It has nothing to do with a baby being a status symbol and everything to do with how important family is to me.
    If family were important to you, maybe you shouldn't be sleeping around and then taking off.

    Sleeping with somebody automatically makes them family?

    wow, did you ever miss the point of that.

    Care to enlighten me?
    The Cat wrote:
    And I stand by my earlier statement. Making the decision to grow a baby neccessarily gives you more right to handle its life than ejaculating and leaving.

    Do I get to say that if I don't want to care for the baby?
    Or are double-standards okay as long as the only people who get screwed by them are the ones with Y chromosomes?

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited February 2007
    fjafjan wrote:
    The Cat wrote:
    And I stand by my earlier statement. Making the decision to grow a baby neccessarily gives you more right to handle its life than ejaculating and leaving.

    It gives you the right to do whatever?
    You tihnk this father has no rights to the baby, but he has an obligation?
    Where is the logic?

    I don't think he has an obligation, but the fact is that he put his hand up, knowing the current laws make you pay if you admit paternity. He could have just stayed quiet. God knows I would've :P

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
Sign In or Register to comment.