• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Fathers

Should a woman have the right to not tell the biological father he is a father

  • yes

    Votes: 7 31.8%
  • no

    Votes: 15 68.2%

  • Total voters
    22
talloulou said:
In the eyes of the law it would seem so.

No. A good, determined Father can get his way. I stood before the court and was awarded custody. This thread is about arguing about what you people know nothing about. You are arguing from the far rights position here talloulou, not the reality of things, the law, as it truly stands. A woman who does not give the Father the option to be a good parent is a piece of shi*t. A Father who wants nothing to do with his child is a piece of shi*t. By law, a good parent has more power in this nation far and above anything else. This nation is much too smart to squelch the rights of a good parent. I sat on the stand and scolded the prosecutor for daring to tell me I was not a good parent. The judge told the prosecutor to shut up. You want to see a true revolution? Try to take a child away from a good parent. Not gonna happen.
 
teacher said:
No. A good, determined Father can get his way. I stood before the court and was awarded custody.

That's really good for you.

This thread is about arguing about what you people know nothing about.

Perhaps as I am happiily married and my kids are my husbands....you could very well be right. But I do hear men complaining all the time.

You are arguing from the far rights position here talloulou, not the reality of things, the law, as it truly stands.

Well I do tend to argue from the right.....but the thread is about whether a man has the right to know he is a father or not. And currently there are no laws that demand a woman notify a man that he has fathered a child. She simply does not have to tell him if she would rather not. And if he finds out about the deception later....the women is not guilty of any wrong doing.

I started this thread because someone else noted in the men's rights thread that perhaps women should not have to tell men when they've fathered a child. In my opinion that's feminism gone very bad. Also I am not sure it's a good idea to continue to force men to pay for children that are not actually theirs.

A woman who does not give the Father the option to be a good parent is a piece of shi*t.
:agree

A Father who wants nothing to do with his child is a piece of shi*t.

:agree

By law, a good parent has more power in this nation far and above anything else. This nation is much too smart to squelch the rights of a good parent. I sat on the stand and scolded the prosecutor for daring to tell me I was not a good parent. The judge told the prosecutor to shut up. You want to see a true revolution? Try to take a child away from a good parent. Not gonna happen.

I must admit I have often felt that perhaps men don't have as many parental rights because they have never stood up as a group and demanded them. I am glad to hear that in your case you were persistent and the outcome was good. I have heard stories where men complain that the women dragged their kids across country against their will so they could no longer see them. No one would drag my kids anywhere without me following so I can see your point about how a determined man will get his parental rights.

Hopefully the recent lawsuits mean more men are organizing and they are determined to get their rights, assuming of course that they actually know they have a child in the first place!
 
Last edited:
Befuddled_Stoner said:
No, women should not have to right to deny that knowledge to men. Even if she's the victim of incest or rape or something like that, I think the scumbag deserves to know he'll be expected to pay out the *** for the next 18 years. I can't think of any good reasons why she should be allowed to not tell him he's a father. Maybe if he's incommunicado or mentally incapable of dealing with the news, but that would only be in extremely rare cases.

Uh... wouldn't he notice having to pay child support? :roll:
 
the extremely rare cases I was thinking about were more along the lines of something out of a cheap movie plot: the father being in a coma, trapped as a PoW for several years, or locked away in a mental hospital
 
Not if he raped her, or was abusive. Otherwise yeah, it's his right to know.
 
vergiss said:
Not if he raped her, or was abusive. Otherwise yeah, it's his right to know.

Except currently there is no law giving him that right and there are no consequences for a women who takes that away from him.
 
I didn't bother to read this whole thread, so I'm sure someone has probably already said this: I think that she should be obligated to tell the father that he is a father, unless she has reason to believe that he's abusive.
 
Kandahar said:
I didn't bother to read this whole thread, so I'm sure someone has probably already said this: I think that she should be obligated to tell the father that he is a father, unless she has reason to believe that he's abusive.

Are you saying the law should stay out of it though? We should just let women decide if a man is worthy enough or not to know he has fathered a child? And we should just trust her judgement if she decided he was unworthy?
 
Couple of comments, TallyLou:

I know this Vietnam Veteran that married a woman who has a dependent child. Of course the child was not the veteran's biological child. The child's real father stop paying child support--and cannot be found to honor the commitment. The child's new step dad is being forced to pay child support for his stepson, despite proving he isn't the child's dad. This veteran has PTSD and is rated at 100% disability, yet a good portion of his income goes to child support to his former wife. That's right, they're divorced yet the guy still has to pony up a good chunk of his pay until the 13 year old reaches 18. Talk about your double standards. Of course, liberal feminist women will find no problem with this outrage., I'm sure.
 
talloulou said:
Are you saying the law should stay out of it though? We should just let women decide if a man is worthy enough or not to know he has fathered a child? And we should just trust her judgement if she decided he was unworthy?

If the choice is between trusting her judgment or trusting the government's judgment, then yes, I think she should make the decision.
 
Kandahar said:
If the choice is between trusting her judgment or trusting the government's judgment, then yes, I think she should make the decision.

That's very interesting. Its weird I get why so many men would be prochoice and go with the idea that a women should decide the fate of that which grows in her womb. But the idea that some men think she should also have the right to raise a born child without ever telling the father of the childs existence is hard for me to wrap my head around.
 
talloulou said:
That's very interesting. Its weird I get why so many men would be prochoice and go with the idea that a women should decide the fate of that which grows in her womb. But the idea that some men think she should also have the right to raise a born child without ever telling the father of the childs existence is hard for me to wrap my head around.

I don't think she has the "right" to not tell him unless she's afraid of him for herself or her child. But if the question is how to ensure that she does, I don't see how government solves the problem. The government is ill-equipped to render such judgments about the lives of people it barely knows.

I've no doubt that a few women will not tell the father when they probably should. But that's better than having the government tell a potentially abusive father the news, over the objections of a terrified mother.
 
Kandahar said:
I don't think she has the "right" to not tell him unless she's afraid of him for herself or her child. But if the question is how to ensure that she does, I don't see how government solves the problem. The government is ill-equipped to render such judgments about the lives of people it barely knows.

I've no doubt that a few women will not tell the father when they probably should. But that's better than having the government tell a potentially abusive father the news, over the objections of a terrified mother.

hmmm well that's another thing I can't wrap my head around....why women are making babies with horrible men who terrify them but I guess that's the topic of another thread.
 
Yes she should tell him she dicided to have the baby. He should accept the responsibility for help bring the baby into the world, whether he lives with it or not. ;)
 
talloulou said:
hmmm well that's another thing I can't wrap my head around....why women are making babies with horrible men who terrify them but I guess that's the topic of another thread.

Accident? Unprotected sex? *shrug* It happens a lot.
 
talloulou said:
hmmm well that's another thing I can't wrap my head around....why women are making babies with horrible men who terrify them but I guess that's the topic of another thread.

lack of self respect.
 
talloulou said:
But the idea that some men think she should also have the right to raise a born child without ever telling the father of the child's existence is hard for me to wrap my head around.

In my mind, this is simple.

Until he is aware of the child's existence and he steps in to act as the child's father, he is not the child's father. I also do not believe, unless the biological parents are married, that the mother is under any obligation to allow him to declare paternity. She has an automatic claim simply by virtue of being the first person capable of taking responsibility for the child.

The converse of this, of course, is that if she does not inform the biological father and does not allow him to claim paternity-- or he refuses-- she should have no legal recourse to child support. It's not his child and he has neither legal nor social obligations to it.

That is the purpose of marriage: to provide legal and social backing for family obligations. It creates legal recognition of the relationship between husband and wife-- or other arrangements, where allowed-- and stipulates mutual agreement to several other obligations, including that of parent to the other's children.

That's also why I support requiring child support for children conceived by infidelity. He was married to the mother at the time of the child's birth and he agreed at the time that he was the child's father; he has neither the right nor the legal grounds to disown the child for the mother's sins.

And... if he is willing to disown a child that he has raised as his own because of the results of a paternity test, he is a scumbag. If he wishes to avoid paying child support to the mother-- which I sure as Hell can't blame him for-- he should demand custody.
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
In my mind, this is simple.

Until he is aware of the child's existence and he steps in to act as the child's father, he is not the child's father. I also do not believe, unless the biological parents are married, that the mother is under any obligation to allow him to declare paternity. She has an automatic claim simply by virtue of being the first person capable of taking responsibility for the child.

The converse of this, of course, is that if she does not inform the biological father and does not allow him to claim paternity-- or he refuses-- she should have no legal recourse to child support. It's not his child and he has neither legal nor social obligations to it.

That is the purpose of marriage: to provide legal and social backing for family obligations. It creates legal recognition of the relationship between husband and wife-- or other arrangements, where allowed-- and stipulates mutual agreement to several other obligations, including that of parent to the other's children.

That's also why I support requiring child support for children conceived by infidelity. He was married to the mother at the time of the child's birth and he agreed at the time that he was the child's father; he has neither the right nor the legal grounds to disown the child for the mother's sins.

And... if he is willing to disown a child that he has raised as his own because of the results of a paternity test, he is a scumbag. If he wishes to avoid paying child support to the mother-- which I sure as Hell can't blame him for-- he should demand custody.

hmmm well I can see trying to set things up so children aren't punished for the sins of their parents but at the same time it sure seems like you're saying a father doesn't make a father.......a father is assigned by the mother who owns the child which is more like property. And while men are treated a little unfairly here and there so as to avoid hurting children.....women are given pretty much free reign. If all mothers were the most beautiful people in the world and the majority of fathers were scum I'd understand that type of set up better but honestly I don't think either sex has truely earned the cliche.
 
talloulou said:
hmmm well I can see trying to set things up so children aren't punished for the sins of their parents but at the same time it sure seems like you're saying a father doesn't make a father.......a father is assigned by the mother who owns the child which is more like property.

A sperm donor doesn't make a father. It is acting as a father-- fulfilling the role of fatherhood-- that makes a man a father.

Yes, I am saying that women have sole authority in choosing the father of their children, except for the right of an unmarried man to refuse. This may be less than fully equitable, but it is a natural extension of the mother's original obligation to the child.

talloulou said:
And while men are treated a little unfairly here and there so as to avoid hurting children... women are given pretty much free reign.

I agree, and I think that this must be corrected. Note that I do not make any provision for the mother rescinding fatherhood; once a child has a father, he has a father for life unless the father is killed or stripped of this role for just cause.

Once a man is declared and known to be the father of a child, his rights and responsibilities as a parent are equal to the mother's. However, the initial choice-- just like the decision to bear the child-- must remain solely with the mother.

talloulou said:
If all mothers were the most beautiful people in the world and the majority of fathers were scum I'd understand that type of set up better but honestly I don't think either sex has truely earned the cliche.

It really doesn't have anything to do with either men or women-- fathers or mothers-- being scum or paragons of virtue. They're going to be both, and there ain't much the law can do about it either way.

It's a matter of who is first responsible for the child; biologically, this can be noone other than the mother.

After that, the only way to avoid cases of gross injustice is to allow the mother to choose the father of her child-- and to allow the named father to choose whether or not to accept this responsibility.

I mean no offense to the single parents of this forum, but this is why marriage exists and why having children within wedlock is preferable. Marriage makes such claims automatic and legally secure, so that there is no question of who a child's parents are.

It was the invention of the genetic paternity test that confused this issue in the first place; since we cannot seem to resolve the issues created by these tests, I think we would be best served by learning to ignore them.
 
Back
Top Bottom