Total Posts:21|Showing Posts:1-21
Jump to topic:

Definition of Fatherhood?

daniel_t
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2009 12:06:03 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
http://www.nytimes.com...
"""
It was in July 2007 when Mike L. asked the Pennsylvania courts to declare that he was no longer the father of his daughter. For four years, Mike had known that the girl he had rocked to sleep and danced with across the living-room floor was not, as they say, "his." The revelation from a DNA test was devastating and prompted him to leave his wife — but he had not renounced their child. He continued to feel that in all the ways that mattered, she was still his daughter, and he faithfully paid her child support. It was only when he learned that his ex-wife was about to marry the man who she said actually was the girl's biological father that Mike flipped. Supporting another man's child suddenly became unbearable.
"""

There's a debate in the making here, I'm not sure where it is or what side I would want to defend though...
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2009 12:12:20 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/23/2009 12:06:03 PM, daniel_t wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com...
"""
It was in July 2007 when Mike L. asked the Pennsylvania courts to declare that he was no longer the father of his daughter. For four years, Mike had known that the girl he had rocked to sleep and danced with across the living-room floor was not, as they say, "his." The revelation from a DNA test was devastating and prompted him to leave his wife — but he had not renounced their child. He continued to feel that in all the ways that mattered, she was still his daughter, and he faithfully paid her child support. It was only when he learned that his ex-wife was about to marry the man who she said actually was the girl's biological father that Mike flipped. Supporting another man's child suddenly became unbearable.
"""

There's a debate in the making here, I'm not sure where it is or what side I would want to defend though...

As the law holds that a man is financially responsible for their children, we can not now claim that the man is still responsible for a child he did not father, but was tricked into forming an emotional bond with.

It is very unfortunate, and hopefully the man can still be there for the girl in some capacity.

The woman should, if she can afford it pay back all monies, plus interest, plus compensation. Until she does so the court must supervise her finances.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
daniel_t
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2009 10:07:55 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/23/2009 12:12:20 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:

As the law holds that a man is financially responsible for their children, we can not now claim that the man is still responsible for a child he did not father, but was tricked into forming an emotional bond with.

The law does not hold that a man is financially responsible for his children. The law holds that a husband is responsible for the children his wife bears. That's dramatically different.

It is very unfortunate, and hopefully the man can still be there for the girl in some capacity.

The woman should, if she can afford it pay back all monies, plus interest, plus compensation. Until she does so the court must supervise her finances.

If the law was changed so that a father is responsible for his biological children, then you would have no problem with a man having to pay child support to a happily married woman whose husband encouraged her to have one night stands?
feverish
Posts: 2,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2009 12:53:19 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/24/2009 10:07:55 AM, daniel_t wrote:
At 11/23/2009 12:12:20 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:

As the law holds that a man is financially responsible for their children, we can not now claim that the man is still responsible for a child he did not father, but was tricked into forming an emotional bond with.

The law does not hold that a man is financially responsible for his children. The law holds that a husband is responsible for the children his wife bears. That's dramatically different.

Cerebral, like me is from the UK and here the law dictates biological rather than marital responsibility which seems fairest to me. I am surprised the law is different in the states.

It is very unfortunate, and hopefully the man can still be there for the girl in some capacity.

The woman should, if she can afford it pay back all monies, plus interest, plus compensation. Until she does so the court must supervise her finances.

The guy is a saint if he's been paying for a kid he knows isn't his all this time but if that's been voluntary then he can't really claim it back.

If she's now marrying the kids real dad then I'm not surprised he flipped.

If the law was changed so that a father is responsible for his biological children, then you would have no problem with a man having to pay child support to a happily married woman whose husband encouraged her to have one night stands?

What kind of crazy scenario is that? Yes I think men have a responsibility if they create life to provide for it but I think support payments should be based on the income of both parties, payee as well as payer. If the mother in a case like this marries (or is already married to) someone else then the father should pay less.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2009 2:10:18 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Free market in child support-- i.e., no one has to pay it unless they sign a contract that happens to say it :).

Avoids getting into annoying crap about who is the real father.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2009 2:14:44 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/24/2009 2:10:18 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Free market in child support-- i.e., no one has to pay it unless they sign a contract that happens to say it :).

I swear, you allow people far too much leeway.

In my books, making a baby = consent to obligations. And, if you decide not to act on your obligations, the government will help you with that. By selling your possessions to pay for your son/daughter's upkeep. Maybe some hard labor.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2009 2:52:17 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/24/2009 2:14:44 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 11/24/2009 2:10:18 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Free market in child support-- i.e., no one has to pay it unless they sign a contract that happens to say it :).

I swear, you allow people far too much leeway.

In my books, making a baby = consent to obligations.
I don't think many vaginae have that fine print tattooed on them.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2009 5:21:12 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/24/2009 2:52:17 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 11/24/2009 2:14:44 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 11/24/2009 2:10:18 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Free market in child support-- i.e., no one has to pay it unless they sign a contract that happens to say it :).

I swear, you allow people far too much leeway.

In my books, making a baby = consent to obligations.
I don't think many vaginae have that fine print tattooed on them.

Well, not all of us are objectivists who must have everything be literal and explicit. :)
daniel_t
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2009 5:57:36 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/24/2009 12:53:19 PM, feverish wrote:

Yes I think men have a responsibility if they create life to provide for it but I think support payments should be based on the income of both parties, payee as well as payer. If the mother in a case like this marries (or is already married to) someone else then the father should pay less.

So why should the husband's income be taken into account? Why is he responsible to provide for the child?
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2009 8:06:30 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/24/2009 5:57:36 PM, daniel_t wrote:
At 11/24/2009 12:53:19 PM, feverish wrote:

Yes I think men have a responsibility if they create life to provide for it but I think support payments should be based on the income of both parties, payee as well as payer. If the mother in a case like this marries (or is already married to) someone else then the father should pay less.

So why should the husband's income be taken into account? Why is he responsible to provide for the child?

So your question is, why should the husband (the head of the family and father of the child) be responsible for providing for the child?

Lol.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2009 9:27:34 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/24/2009 5:21:12 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 11/24/2009 2:52:17 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 11/24/2009 2:14:44 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 11/24/2009 2:10:18 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Free market in child support-- i.e., no one has to pay it unless they sign a contract that happens to say it :).

I swear, you allow people far too much leeway.

In my books, making a baby = consent to obligations.
I don't think many vaginae have that fine print tattooed on them.

Well, not all of us are objectivists who must have everything be literal and explicit. :)

Well, flowery and metaphorical shouldn't be present in too many court decisions. Literal and explicit removes ambiguity. Ambiguity in law is a tyrant's tool. Of course, not all of us dislike tyrants, you are living proof of that.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2009 9:35:36 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/24/2009 9:27:34 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 11/24/2009 5:21:12 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 11/24/2009 2:52:17 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 11/24/2009 2:14:44 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 11/24/2009 2:10:18 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Free market in child support-- i.e., no one has to pay it unless they sign a contract that happens to say it :).

I swear, you allow people far too much leeway.

In my books, making a baby = consent to obligations.
I don't think many vaginae have that fine print tattooed on them.

Well, not all of us are objectivists who must have everything be literal and explicit. :)

Well, flowery and metaphorical shouldn't be present in too many court decisions. Literal and explicit removes ambiguity. Ambiguity in law is a tyrant's tool. Of course, not all of us dislike tyrants, you are living proof of that.

The point that I was making was, consent can be implied. Example: If you choose to drive a car, you consent to wearing a seat belt. If you choose to have sex with some girl, you consent to the obligation of caring for the child if that outcome occurs. Think of it as a way of establishing personal accountability. :)

Plus, ambiguity can have just as much use to a defendant as to a judge. I'm curious as to how many people have been free to walk on a technicality or a loophole in the law. That's one reason that the constitution was written the way it was; it had to be malleable, just like today's laws. Granted, I don't always care for the way that the constitution is interpreted, but the point remains that ambiguity is often necessary for both the citizens AND the government. The government does, after all, need room to do its job.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2009 9:45:39 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/24/2009 9:35:36 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 11/24/2009 9:27:34 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 11/24/2009 5:21:12 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 11/24/2009 2:52:17 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 11/24/2009 2:14:44 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 11/24/2009 2:10:18 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Free market in child support-- i.e., no one has to pay it unless they sign a contract that happens to say it :).

I swear, you allow people far too much leeway.

In my books, making a baby = consent to obligations.
I don't think many vaginae have that fine print tattooed on them.

Well, not all of us are objectivists who must have everything be literal and explicit. :)

Well, flowery and metaphorical shouldn't be present in too many court decisions. Literal and explicit removes ambiguity. Ambiguity in law is a tyrant's tool. Of course, not all of us dislike tyrants, you are living proof of that.

The point that I was making was, consent can be implied. Example: If you choose to drive a car, you consent to wearing a seat belt.
No. If I buckle a seat belt I consent to wear a seat belt. If I go into a car without buckling a seat belt I consent to the exact chance there is of dying in a crash from not wearing a seat belt-- and nothing more.

If you choose to have sex with some girl, you consent to the obligation of caring for the child if that outcome occurs.
No, I don't. I just (hypothetically) wear a condom. If she insists and I can afford it, I may agree to be liable for abortion costs in the event of condom failure (If I can't afford it and she does not desire such liability, I'll back out of the arrangement).


Plus, ambiguity can have just as much use to a defendant as to a judge. I'm curious as to how many people have been free to walk on a technicality or a loophole in the law.
All that does is-- A. permit those criminals who do violate someone's rights to be a tyrant (the government isn't always the bad guy) and B. Encourage bad laws to continue to be on the books by letting the cleverer sort of folk off the hook.

That's one reason that the constitution was written the way it was; it had to be malleable
It has to be malleable for tyrants to use it. And they do. It does not have to be malleable for those who desire to live freely.

but the point remains that ambiguity is often necessary for both the citizens AND the government.
Which ambiguity does any government I'd agree with need? There is no such entity as "the citizens."

The government does, after all, need room to do its job.
It's job is or should be to enforce objective, unambigouos laws.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2009 9:57:20 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/24/2009 9:45:39 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 11/24/2009 9:35:36 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 11/24/2009 9:27:34 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 11/24/2009 5:21:12 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 11/24/2009 2:52:17 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 11/24/2009 2:14:44 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 11/24/2009 2:10:18 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Free market in child support-- i.e., no one has to pay it unless they sign a contract that happens to say it :).

I swear, you allow people far too much leeway.

In my books, making a baby = consent to obligations.
I don't think many vaginae have that fine print tattooed on them.

Well, not all of us are objectivists who must have everything be literal and explicit. :)

Well, flowery and metaphorical shouldn't be present in too many court decisions. Literal and explicit removes ambiguity. Ambiguity in law is a tyrant's tool. Of course, not all of us dislike tyrants, you are living proof of that.

The point that I was making was, consent can be implied. Example: If you choose to drive a car, you consent to wearing a seat belt.
No. If I buckle a seat belt I consent to wear a seat belt. If I go into a car without buckling a seat belt I consent to the exact chance there is of dying in a crash from not wearing a seat belt-- and nothing more.

The purpose of law is to restrict freedom for the sake of safety, not the other way around. Under your philosophy, you're essentially saying that the law should do whatever you want it to do. But there's no way that every citizen is ever going to agree to every law. That's just not going to happen. And laws cannot be optional. That just makes them guidelines.


If you choose to have sex with some girl, you consent to the obligation of caring for the child if that outcome occurs.
No, I don't. I just (hypothetically) wear a condom.

I should probably point out that I don't support contraceptives.

If she insists and I can afford it, I may agree to be liable for abortion costs in the event of condom failure (If I can't afford it and she does not desire such liability, I'll back out of the arrangement).

Do you honestly expect to believe that this whole contractual agreement is going to come into existence before the deed is done? I don't see a guy and a girl stopping just before they get down and dirty to agree on terms.



Plus, ambiguity can have just as much use to a defendant as to a judge. I'm curious as to how many people have been free to walk on a technicality or a loophole in the law.
All that does is-- A. permit those criminals who do violate someone's rights

I don't really believe in the idea of rights. The term implies inalienability. The only license that a person has is the institutionalized liberty granted within society, which can be taken away in the event of a crime.

to be a tyrant (the government isn't always the bad guy)

That made me happy.

and B. Encourage bad laws to continue to be on the books by letting the cleverer sort of folk off the hook.

How do we know if they are bad laws?


That's one reason that the constitution was written the way it was; it had to be malleable
It has to be malleable for tyrants to use it. And they do. It does not have to be malleable for those who desire to live freely.

Why does someone's desire to live how they want justify letting them live how they want? You're assuming that human desires ought to generally be respected.


but the point remains that ambiguity is often necessary for both the citizens AND the government.
Which ambiguity does any government I'd agree with need? There is no such entity as "the citizens."

Any government that you would agree to is hardly a government at all. And "the citizens" is a group of individuals; it's not a conscious, breathing entity, but it is a disembodied entity.


The government does, after all, need room to do its job.
It's job is or should be to enforce objective, unambigouos laws.

If there's no room for open interpretation of the laws (IE, without an interpreting judiciary), the government obviously can't do its job.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2009 10:20:29 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
The purpose of law is to restrict freedom for the sake of safety , not the other way around.
That's the purpose of your laws. Nevertheless, laws can also be put to the far more proper purpose of restricting government action in the name of freedom.

Under your philosophy, you're essentially saying that the law should do whatever you want it to do.
That has nothing to do with what I'm saying. Everyone says that the government should do what they want it to do (that's what advocating something means) but this says nothing about what it is they want it to do.

But there's no way that every citizen is ever going to agree to every law.
I in no way expect such agreement.

And laws cannot be optional.
This also has nothing to do with my arguments.
The laws I advocate are not "optional," or justified by unanimity, or whatnot. They are limits on what one person can do to another without their consent.



If you choose to have sex with some girl, you consent to the obligation of caring for the child if that outcome occurs.
No, I don't. I just (hypothetically) wear a condom.

I should probably point out that I don't support contraceptives.
The pope wants to meet you. I think he was asking about a few... measurements.


If she insists and I can afford it, I may agree to be liable for abortion costs in the event of condom failure (If I can't afford it and she does not desire such liability, I'll back out of the arrangement).

Do you honestly expect to believe that this whole contractual agreement is going to come into existence before the deed is done? I don't see a guy and a girl stopping just before they get down and dirty to agree on terms.
I don't expect it. Someone's body is their own damn responsibility until and unless they take the unexpected step of discussing contracting with someone else to take over liability. If they do so, I am quite open to negotiations, desperate nerd that I am :).




Plus, ambiguity can have just as much use to a defendant as to a judge. I'm curious as to how many people have been free to walk on a technicality or a loophole in the law.
All that does is-- A. permit those criminals who do violate someone's rights

I don't really believe in the idea of rights. The term implies inalienability.
Actually, the term inherently implies alienability-- alienability by the actions of the possessor-- otherwise the term would have no meaning as it would be unenforceable (If you think the right to life inalienable, you can hardly find a way to deter the fellow who wishes to take yours away, as deterrents would be taking his).

The only license that a person has is the institutionalized liberty granted within society
And what made it society's to give?

which can be taken away in the event of a crime.
For those things I do think ought be crimes (i.e. those that do violate rights to life) taking away is unnecessary-- one surrenders it in the commission.


and B. Encourage bad laws to continue to be on the books by letting the cleverer sort of folk off the hook.

How do we know if they are bad laws?
I do because they violate someone's rights.
You do when they get enforced on your arse. Lol.



That's one reason that the constitution was written the way it was; it had to be malleable
It has to be malleable for tyrants to use it. And they do. It does not have to be malleable for those who desire to live freely.

Why does someone's desire to live how they want justify letting them live how they want?
You wish to live how you want do you not? If so, then I recommend heavily you respect those with similar desires, as if you do so-- they will be motivate to reciprocate to encourage you to continue to do so-- and if you don't-- they will be motivated to prevent you from living how you want if at all.

Any government that you would agree to is hardly a government at all.
Then you're getting nowhere with this, for as you just proved, "The citizens" do not need it-- you need it, I don't, yet I am also a citizen :).

And "the citizens" is a group of individuals; it's not a conscious, breathing entity, but it is a disembodied entity.
What makes it an entity-- a distinct whole?

If there's no room for open interpretation of the laws (IE, without an interpreting judiciary), the government obviously can't do its job.
Proof?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2009 1:46:06 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/24/2009 10:07:55 AM, daniel_t wrote:
At 11/23/2009 12:12:20 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:

As the law holds that a man is financially responsible for their children, we can not now claim that the man is still responsible for a child he did not father, but was tricked into forming an emotional bond with.

The law does not hold that a man is financially responsible for his children. The law holds that a husband is responsible for the children his wife bears. That's dramatically different.


Not true in the UK.
If you have a one night stand apparently produces issue the child support agency can and will bill you.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
daniel_t
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2009 2:32:41 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/24/2009 8:06:30 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 11/24/2009 5:57:36 PM, daniel_t wrote:
At 11/24/2009 12:53:19 PM, feverish wrote:

Yes I think men have a responsibility if they create life to provide for it but I think support payments should be based on the income of both parties, payee as well as payer. If the mother in a case like this marries (or is already married to) someone else then the father should pay less.

So why should the husband's income be taken into account? Why is he responsible to provide for the child?

So your question is, why should the husband (the head of the family and father of the child) be responsible for providing for the child?

The scenario assumes that the wife's husband and the father of the child are two different people.

Why do you presuppose that the husband is the head of the family?

I also wonder why feverish chose not to include the father's wife as well as the mother's husband in the financial obligation calculation?
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2009 2:35:00 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/24/2009 2:10:18 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Free market in child support-- i.e., no one has to pay it unless they sign a contract that happens to say it :).

Avoids getting into annoying crap about who is the real father.

Amen.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
feverish
Posts: 2,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2009 8:48:12 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/7/2009 2:32:41 PM, daniel_t wrote:
At 11/24/2009 8:06:30 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 11/24/2009 5:57:36 PM, daniel_t wrote:
At 11/24/2009 12:53:19 PM, feverish wrote:

Yes I think men have a responsibility if they create life to provide for it but I think support payments should be based on the income of both parties, payee as well as payer. If the mother in a case like this marries (or is already married to) someone else then the father should pay less.


If a man chooses to marry or live with and support a woman he assumes a share of her responsibilities. Why should the estranged dad pay the mother to support another man?

I also wonder why feverish chose not to include the father's wife as well as the mother's husband in the financial obligation calculation?

I certainly wouldn't exclude this. If the dad marries a rich bint, he should pay more.