Posted on 09/30/2010 8:06:25 AM PDT by fathers1
That being said, I do support the rights of unmarried men to claim paternal rights to children born of unmarried women, especially if it means preventing an abortion.
It makes bout as much sense letting the adoptive parents keep the child because the child has been raised by them and it is “good for the child”, as it would leaving a kidnap victim with the kidnappers because the kid has always known them as the parents...
I have to disagree with that. Particularly your assertion that adoptive parents are the same as kidnappers. They legally gained custody of the child and they have loved and cared for him. It would not only be a terrible shock for the child to be taken from the parents he knows but also an incredible financial and emotional burden for the adoptive parents.
. . . Except restricting his amorous attentions to a woman he's actually married to. Personally, I don't see that he has any rights. Marriage is the price you pay to have authority over the children you father. Adulterers—if they know the woman is married—don't deserve anything except the end of a rope.
I applaud the fact that courts are beginning to recognize fathers' claims to their own kids. But it's sick—and seems typical of Marxist jurisprudence—that such a claim is essentially against the sanctity of marriage, rather than in support of it.
Fathers should have all kinds of rights if their current or ex-wives try to restrict their access to their own children. And fathers should get custody no-questions-asked if the wife is not leading an upright life. But this situation is weird. I guess hard cases make bad law; but occasionally, crazy cases can potentially lead to better law.
This has nothing to do with marriage. The married couple put the kid up for adoption. The biological father then tried to establish his rights. The people fighting him are a possible adoptive couple, not the cheating wife and her husband.
How do you know that he new she was married? He may have been told she was leaving her husband. What you assume is not in the article. He did not try to get custody until the child was put up for adoption.
When the biological mother does not want the child and gives the child up for adoption, your argument leaks. The woman was just as careless when she spread her legs. It was all about a cheap thrill for her, in this case, apparently. True in all to many similar cases.
Dad rights prevail.
Some of these posters sound like the legal team for the mother. Vigilanteman made several assumptions that were not in the article to justify his intial statement.
If I were trying to adopt a child and the father came forward, said he wanted the child, and appeared to be sincere and able to care for the child, I would simply step aside.
The woman may have actually been more careless because she knew she was married. What she actually told the guy who impregnated her is pure speculation.
What is not debatable, however, is:
As previously stated, the law is in place to protect traditional marriage and families, not the rights of men who wantonly poke their dicks where they don't belong or women who wantonly spread their legs for such men.
If neither are married then, yes, men should have equal rights, perhaps even more than equal rights since they are expected to financially support said children.
But when they are not married and the woman is, then the results of any semen squirted into said married woman ought to belong to the lawfully married couple.
You posted
“But when they are not married and the woman is, then the results of any semen squirted into said married woman ought to belong to the lawfully married couple. “
Only problem is they gave up the rights to the child by putting it up for adoption. The married couple is not involved in the court battle. Only the biological father and a possible adoptive couple.
Sticking your dick into the vagina of a woman you know you are not married to has consequences. From a pure fairness point of view, the guy may have an argument, but there is a reason for the traditional legal standard that all children born to a married couple belong to said couple, regardless of the actual biological origin of those children.
Another thing being forgotten by the "biology first" crowd is the rights of adoptive couples. Adoptive couples have invested considerable resources in the adoption-- not only legal fees, but love, care and time. Their invested resources are considerably greater than those of one man emptying his testicles, an activity which generally involves pleasure and not sacrifice.*
* unless the woman looks like Helen Thomas.
Just like they used to say at Burger King.
Relatives of mine have some recent experience (last ten years) with disputed parental rights. Their case, other cases they have become familiar with in the process and what they have learned from their various lawyers, in two states - California and Montana - is that NONE of the cases are permitted to be finalized expeditiously, even when the case evidence is very strong in one direction or another.
The system seems set up to INSURE that the child will be a legal football for years.
While I can agree with your moral sentiments, in this case the biological mother and her lawful husband DID NOT keep their own legal rights to the child, but passed them to another set of parents; while the biological father WAS the one seeking to KEEP the paternity that was his in favor of HIS relationship with the child.
Answer: our moral views must go to the spirit of the law and not stand on the black and white letter of the law.
The biological parents made an error and through that error a child was conceived. If the biological mother was not going to maintain her paternity with the child, she was morally obligated, I believe, to so inform the biological father and give him the opportunity to take up a father’s responsibility. They both made an error, but I believe he was the “better man” in this case.
You are also forgetting that the article clearly states the child is 3 years old and the battle for custody began 3 years ago, immediately after the child was born. Unfortunately, the adoptive couple refused to give up the newborn child back then. The adoptive couple would NOT have any invested love, time, or money if they had done the right thing and given up custody to the father 3 years ago.
Since you are so big on consequences for the father, then maybe the adoptive couple are now facing the consequences of their own selfish actions.
God gave us this gift not just for the wonderful physical pleasure which results but to ensure propagation of the human race whom he created.
What is not arguable is that the man knew he was not married to the woman whom he was emptying his testicles into. In this day and age when single motherhood is celebrated, it is entirely possible his mind was also hoping for the pleasures of single fatherhood.
But it is far, far more likely he was simply hoping for the age old thrill of an erect penis repeatedly thrust in and out of a woman's vagina with the pleasure resulting from the biological activity of emptying testicles which generally follows said action.
I am not so cold as to fail to understand that said things happen and, indeed, are often inevitable when a man gets alone with a woman, particularly when either or both may be inebriated and/or undressed. I am also not so cold as to understand that nudity (or at least the partial nudity necessary for successful intercourse) also is a generally inevitable result of inebriation and/or simply being alone together.
But a man has plenty of choices to make before he gets himself into said situation and this guy made all the wrong choices-- the first one being a basic inquiry as to what the woman wanted long before she spread her legs for him.
Yes, women have an unfair advantage because their brain cells still function once the process of seduction, undress, foreplay, erection, entry of the penis into the vagina, thrusting and ejaculation progress whereas a man's brain cells generally cease to function sometime between the point of undress and foreplay, but a man still has plenty of choices to make before he gets to that point. Undressing for a woman to whom you are not married is probably a good boundary to consider. Ditto for necking, petting, heavy kissing and all such activty which can proceed but can also follow the activity of undressing.
It's not that difficult to draw that line before reaching the point where all the blood which supplies your brain is transferred so making your penis erect. Sorry if I embarrassed anyone with the straight language, but it is the straight truth.
And, if this is true, then it may have created a unique ruling in this case which justifies the unique outcome.
A key issue here would be whether the married woman (and her husband) were motivated more by the best interests of the child or simple revenge against a guy who poked his dick where it didn't belong, albeit with the full cooperation (and possible or even probable seduction) of the married woman.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.