Mother who gave birth after one-night stand wins right to keep baby secret from the f - Page 2

crazyflamingos · #11 (**permalink**) 11-25-2007, 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KnightOfSappho

From a moral veiw, I would be inclined to agree with you on the fact that he should know. From a legal position, as I said, it's not something that can actually be enforced.

What, exactly, would the courts be able to do if she does not KNOW the identity of the father?

My best friend has said that if she had it to do over again, she would rather be known as having once been the biggest whore in Alabama than have her son's father in his life.

Her revised answer to the item, "Father's name", on the birth certificate would be, "Hell, I don't know; there have to be at least 25 or 30 men that it could be."

This is not true, of course. But that way the child would not be spending every other weekend with a deadbeat, pot smoking, alcoholic, unemployed most of his adult life, wackjob, father.

cnredd · #12 (**permalink**) 11-25-2007, 07:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crazyflamingos

My best friend has said that if she had it to do over again, she would rather be known as having once been the biggest whore in Alabama than have her son's father in his life.

Her revised answer to the item, "Father's name", on the birth certificate would be, "Hell, I don't know; there have to be at least 25 or 30 men that it could be."

This is not true, of course. But that way the child would not be spending every other weekend with a deadbeat, pot smoking, alcoholic, unemployed most of his adult life, wackjob, father.

And the child ends up with a woman who has such good judgement that she would bang a deadbeat, pot smoking, alcoholic, unemployed most of his adult life, wackjob, father...

MUCH better decision...

Just Me · #13 (**permalink**) 11-25-2007, 08:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KnightOfSappho

From a moral veiw, I would be inclined to agree with you on the fact that he should know. From a legal position, as I said, it's not something that can actually be enforced.

What, exactly, would the courts be able to do if she does not KNOW the identity of the father?

Not knowing is very different then purposely keeping the child from the father. I think much of what is wrong with our youth today is the lack of a father figure so to just dismiss one that may very well have been wonderful is wrong. What many women don't understand is that it may be your body but that baby is part of that man also.

crazyflamingos · #14 (**permalink**) 11-25-2007, 09:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cnredd

And the child ends up with a woman who has such good judgement that she would bang a deadbeat, pot smoking, alcoholic, unemployed most of his adult life, wackjob, father...

MUCH better decision...

The difference is that she cleaned up her life and has become a responsible adult and parent. The father didn't. So yes it would have been a much better decision.

Young people make stupid mistakes sometimes. Some of them grow out of it.

KnightOfSappho · #15 (**permalink**) 11-25-2007, 10:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Just Me

Not knowing is very different then purposely keeping the child from the father. I think much of what is wrong with our youth today is the lack of a father figure so to just dismiss one that may very well have been wonderful is wrong. What many women don't understand is that it may be your body but that baby is part of that man also.

My point was that there would be no way to PROVE that she DOES know, thus making the law unenforcable if she says this.

I think that you have your second point backwards though. The child is not part of the father and the mother; the mother and the father are part of the CHILD. Unless a parent is a danger to the child they should have contact when possible IMO.

knot_e_lady · #16 (**permalink**) 11-26-2007, 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KnightOfSappho

This situation is messy.

Personally, I believe that if the mother wants to give up the child, the father should be given first option to take the baby. (And the mother should pay child support.)

I'm curious.

Why should she have to pay child support when she would be giving over all her rights to the father?

When the father does that (sign over his rights) he doesn't have to pay.

Just Me · #17 (**permalink**) 11-26-2007, 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KnightOfSappho

My point was that there would be no way to PROVE that she DOES know, thus making the law unenforcable if she says this.

I see what you are saying but I don't feel woman should be able to just do whatever they want when they get pregnant. I do think the fathers have some rights.

Quote:

I think that you have your second point backwards though. The child is not part of the father and the mother; the mother and the father are part of the CHILD. Unless a parent is a danger to the child they should have contact when possible IMO.

I was thinking more from a scientific POV. It took both the mother and the father to create that child so he should have some say and yes providing he is fit. However I don't think it is the womens decision to make that determination.

KnightOfSappho · #18 (**permalink**) 11-26-2007, 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Just Me

I see what you are saying but I don't feel woman should be able to just do whatever they want when they get pregnant. I do think the fathers have some rights.

Understood. How would you propose such a law? Just curious...

I don't see how it can reasonably be done.

Quote:

I was thinking more from a scientific POV. It took both the mother and the father to create that child so he should have some say and yes providing he is fit. However I don't think it is the womens decision to make that determination.

It took both, yes. I will admit that my statement was more from a spiritual/emotional POV. The child should have access to the parents because it is made from both.

At the same time, how would one determine such a thing? Genetic links can be determined before birth at risk to the fetus, or they can be determined after birth. Chorionic (sp?) Villus testing can be done as early as 7 weeks, with a relatively high risk of miscarriage. Later in the pregnancy the risk to the fetus decreases while risk to the mother increases.

Now we get into 'risk for the mother' as part of the conversation. As with any law that can be put in place to protect people, it can be abused. At what level does the veto by the father become an issue? 10% risk of maternal death? 25%? 50%?

I digress...

How could an enforcilble law be developed here?

talloulou · #19 (**permalink**) 11-27-2007, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saltwn

saltwn=devil's advocate again:
Perhaps in this individual instance the father nor the grandparents are appropriate to raise this child.

If that were perhaps the case then the woman should have no trouble showing that in court. But you don't just stand around while a mother violates a father's rights to a BORN child and freaking assume that the mother's an angel and "perhaps" the father is a worthless piece of crap.

What if perhaps the mothers a violent crazy fvck tard? Huh? What if perhaps that?

talloulou · #20 (**permalink**) 11-27-2007, 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KnightOfSappho

Understood. How would you propose such a law? Just curious...

I don't see how it can reasonably be done.

It took both, yes. I will admit that my statement was more from a spiritual/emotional POV. The child should have access to the parents because it is made from both.

At the same time, how would one determine such a thing? Genetic links can be determined before birth at risk to the fetus, or they can be determined after birth. Chorionic (sp?) Villus testing can be done as early as 7 weeks, with a relatively high risk of miscarriage. Later in the pregnancy the risk to the fetus decreases while risk to the mother increases.

Now we get into 'risk for the mother' as part of the conversation. As with any law that can be put in place to protect people, it can be abused. At what level does the veto by the father become an issue? 10% risk of maternal death? 25%? 50%?

I digress...

How could an enforcilble law be developed here?

Once the child is born the biological father should have rights. End of story.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

LinkBacks (?) LinkBack to this Thread: http://www.politicalwrinkles.com/abortion/593-mother-who-gave-birth-after-one-night-stand-wins-right-keep-baby-secret-f.html
Posted By	For	Type	Date
Political Wrinkles	This thread	Refback	11-25-2007 02:35 PM