Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And the average woman adopts right off the bat eh? Instead of wanting her own behind it?
No, but if she found out after 5 years that the hospital had given her the wrong baby, I dont think she would dump the child and bulk at continuing to support it. There are many people that use surrogates and sperm donors, adopt and are happy to raise other peoples biological children.
Quote:
If you found out one you cared for for years, on top of it was someone you'd trusted implicitly...
You know what, never mind....It has nothing to do with discarding the child. But for you it's to hell with the guy and his life?
There are all kinds of circumstances. I understand that it hurts to find the one you trusted had decieved you. I thought the discussion was not wanting to pay support for a child you accepted and raised as your own for yrs. so if you divorce and dont want to pay that is disgarding the child. It dosent necessarily mean the end of your life.
I agree the laws are messed up. Especially those dealing with support and custody.
No, but if she found out after 5 years that the hospital had given her the wrong baby, I dont think she would dump the child and bulk at continuing to support it. There are many people that use surrogates and sperm donors, adopt and are happy to raise other peoples biological children.
There are all kinds of circumstances. I understand that it hurts to find the one you trusted had decieved you. I thought the discussion was not wanting to pay support for a child you accepted and raised as your own for yrs. so if you divorce and dont want to pay that is disgarding the child. It dosent necessarily mean the end of your life.
I agree the laws are messed up. Especially those dealing with support and custody.
I really can't fathom being in the situation, but I know at the very least I would not wish to be "legally" bound in any way.
I rather wonder however if the man could cheat, bring home an fertilized egg, implant it, then tell the wife about 17yrs down the road while married how many lawsuits, criminal charges and such that would generate.
There are many that use surrogates, but it is extreme in the absolute that another woman's egg is used. The woman still goes through hell and high water to try and make it her own genetics behind it first.
And there have been a few incidents of nursery SNAFU's at hospitals. Some not until far later down the road, while tearful at first, they do switch back and then essentially want to put it behind them depending. Many single men and women still do adopt, but usually after assessing having their own biological one(s) through some means. It also gets to be a carefully thought out choice for the individuals, rather than a deception carried out by another.
Last edited by Waynec613; 06-29-2009 at 02:39 PM..
I rather wonder however if the man could cheat, bring home an fertilized egg, implant it, then tell the wife about 17yrs down the road while married how many lawsuits, criminal charges and such that would generate.
A man could cheat, have children with other women and siphon money out of his family to support his mistresses and their children -- and the wife would have absolutely no recourse against the husband and no way to get the money back. None.
A man could cheat, have children with other women and siphon money out of his family to support his mistresses and their children -- and the wife would have absolutely no recourse against the husband and no way to get the money back. None.
That's true, and that has happened as well for ages. Now, assuming he's named, it becomes court ordered. However, that's still a deception that has no direct biological impact on the wife or the children she has given birth to.
That's true, and that has happened as well for ages. Now, assuming he's named, it becomes court ordered. However, that's still a deception that has no direct biological impact on the wife or the children she has given birth to.
If a woman has a child with another man, what biological impact does that have on the husband or her other children?
If a woman has a child with another man, what biological impact does that have on the husband or her other children?
It's keeping him from reproducing his own if this is a woman married to that man, the man is going through the years under a presumption that the child(ren) are both of theirs biologically.
Like I stated in the example, if it were possible to deceptively implant his own fertilized egg from another female and run under that presumption for years, once found out there would be lawsuits, criminal charges, etc.. Instead, the best you can wish for is to not be legally bound for the child's overall well-being, after being discovered, if that much.
It's keeping him from reproducing his own if this is a woman married to that man, the man is going through the years under a presumption that the child(ren) are both of theirs biologically.
One, how is it biologically keeping him from reproducing? Two, if a man has a mistress, or several mistresses, he may sleep with his wife less, or not at all, or have a lower sperm count when he does, so by your logic, a cheating husband is also "keeping her from reproducing her own" -- although the biological argument is nonsense. Three, would you be okay with a wife having a child by someone else if the husband doesn't care about "reproducing his own"? Four, how does it biologically affect her other children?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waynec613
Like I stated in the example, if it were possible to deceptively implant his own fertilized egg from another female and run under that presumption for years, once found out there would be lawsuits, criminal charges, etc..
Well, the clincher here is that a woman's act of getting pregnant by another man does not involve physically assaulting her husband -- whereas your example with the fertilized egg does involve a physical assault on the wife.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waynec613
Instead, the best you can wish for is to not be legally bound for the child's overall well-being, after being discovered, if that much.
Legally yes, morally and emotionally -- I have to agree with 2mares here. I don't know whether you have children, Wayne, so you can take a cool approach to this, but I fail to see how it's possible to raise and love a child for years, have that child call you "Daddy", hug you, kiss you, love you, comfort this child when he is crying, feel your heart flutter every morning when your kid comes into your bedroom and tugs at the sheets to wake you up -- and then just turn it off completely like the flip of a switch the moment you learn the kid isn't biologically yours. How can somebody be like this?? How horrible it must be, a marriage to someone so cold and unfeeling; no wonder their wives step out on them. It's hard to fathom the monstrosity of people whose love for their children is so mercurial, but it's clear they see children as mere physical extensions of themselves, not individuals; these are parents who often become abusive, by the way. My husband and I were musing once how we would feel if we found out one day that the hospital switched our baby at birth. It turns out we feel the same: fairness aside, we would want to get our biological baby, but still keep the one we initially got; and given the choice between the lesser of two evils, we would let things continue as they are and stay with the kid we bonded with from birth. (Yeah, that's a stylistically crappy sentence, but I'm in a hurry.) I could give up my biological child; but I could never give up the child I loved and cared for since the day he was born. Of course, if one is a monster with no capacity to love at all, then I could see how the only thing the person would care about is where his gametes would end up. This category includes men who believe they shouldn't have to pay child support at all, even for their biological offspring, since they no longer have the "use" of their family.
One, how is it biologically keeping him from reproducing? Two, if a man has a mistress, or several mistresses, he may sleep with his wife less, or not at all, or have a lower sperm count when he does, so by your logic, a cheating husband is also "keeping her from reproducing her own" -- although the biological argument is nonsense. Three, would you be okay with a wife having a child by someone else if the husband doesn't care about "reproducing his own"? Four, how does it biologically affect her other children?
Well, the clincher here is that a woman's act of getting pregnant by another man does not involve physically assaulting her husband -- whereas your example with the fertilized egg does involve a physical assault on the wife.
Legally yes, morally and emotionally -- I have to agree with 2mares here. I don't know whether you have children, Wayne, so you can take a cool approach to this, but I fail to see how it's possible to raise and love a child for years, have that child call you "Daddy", hug you, kiss you, love you, comfort this child when he is crying, feel your heart flutter every morning when your kid comes into your bedroom and tugs at the sheets to wake you up -- and then just turn it off completely like the flip of a switch the moment you learn the kid isn't biologically yours. How can somebody be like this?? How horrible it must be, a marriage to someone so cold and unfeeling; no wonder their wives step out on them. It's hard to fathom the monstrosity of people whose love for their children is so mercurial, but it's clear they see children as mere physical extensions of themselves, not individuals; these are parents who often become abusive, by the way. My husband and I were musing once how we would feel if we found out one day that the hospital switched our baby at birth. It turns out we feel the same: fairness aside, we would want to get our biological baby, but still keep the one we initially got; and given the choice between the lesser of two evils, we would let things continue as they are and stay with the kid we bonded with from birth. (Yeah, that's a stylistically crappy sentence, but I'm in a hurry.) I could give up my biological child; but I could never give up the child I loved and cared for since the day he was born. Of course, if one is a monster with no capacity to love at all, then I could see how the only thing the person would care about is where his gametes would end up. This category includes men who believe they shouldn't have to pay child support at all, even for their biological offspring, since they no longer have the "use" of their family.
You know, I know you really only seem to do this just to hone your arguments, but skipping over answering my own questions to you in every single thread does get old.
We're talking about choices here. Not abandoning the child. You should be legally bound to a child you did not conceive AND were deceived by the other who's child it is?
NO it is not assault, if it could be delivered during normal intercourse. How would that be any more of an assault then cheating on a spouse previously to do the nasty later?
It is biologically keeping him from reproducing due to the fact he is living under a false pretense that the child or children before him are his own, stopping him from wanting more. No, the logic of a comparison to a mistress doesn't hold, it has repercussions, as you just stated, and if they have children then the few or one that they did have would be her own, so that argument holds no water.
Your # three there happens all the time from men with reproductive issues themselves, there's a chasm of difference between someone willingly adopting (essentially even in this case), then to having a choice forced upon them. I would think YOU of all people would realize this. Your argument to the contrary is ludicrous.
As to # four, meaning how would having a child with a different father biologically her other children? It's a biologically different father that is biologically it's own. You can't tell me this does not have repercussions once known.
We're talking about choices here. Not abandoning the child. You should be legally bound to a child you did not conceive AND were deceived by the other who's child it is?
If you waived your objections and only brought them up for leverage in a divorce action, then yes, you should be legally bound. Otherwise, no. Legally speaking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waynec613
NO it is not assault, if it could be delivered during normal intercourse. How would that be any more of an assault then cheating on a spouse previously to do the nasty later?
Ahem. Introducing a foreign object into the body of another person without that person's consent constitutes physical assault. Even if the object is very small and even if it's "delivered during normal intercourse" (love the euphemisms here). Just a bit of legal trivia that, I don't know, might come in handy one day.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waynec613
It is biologically keeping him from reproducing due to the fact he is living under a false pretense that the child or children before him are his own, stopping him from wanting more.
That's a social reason -- not a biological one. Adultery doesn't render a man infertile. Also, you haven't answered how this supposedly "biologically" affects the other children.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waynec613
No, the logic of a comparison to a mistress doesn't hold, it has repercussions, as you just stated, and if they have children then the few or one that they did have would be her own, so that argument holds no water.
So, you think if a woman had one or two kids, her biological imperative is satisfied? Okay -- so if a man already has one or two kids of his own, then it's fine for his wife to have a child with someone else, right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waynec613
Your # three there happens all the time from men with reproductive issues themselves, there's a chasm of difference between someone willingly adopting (essentially even in this case), then to having a choice forced upon them. I would think YOU of all people would realize this. Your argument to the contrary is ludicrous.
My argument is that a man whose love for a child can be completely cut off after many years of parenthood by the revelation that this child is not his biological offspring is a cold, unfeeling a**hole. Even an a**hole should have rights, I agree with that. But he is an a**hole nonetheless. And if you think many of these men did not willingly adopt, only to disclaim it later, you are being naive. (And please, Wayne, please -- don't take it in that direction of arguments about how there should be some payback for women's enjoyment of the wonderful, sweet boon of abortion.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waynec613
As to # four, meaning how would having a child with a different father biologically her other children? It's a biologically different father that is biologically it's own. You can't tell me this does not have repercussions once known.
That makes no sense whatsoever. How does having a half-sibling biologically affect a person? Please describe all the physiological and chemical changes that you are claiming this triggers.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
