Is this common now or has it been going on for years?

[Pekka]

I think the issue here is that you didn't get the kid and you still end up paying for it, while the other couple can then save for other things you can't.

That is, if I get to see a kid every other weekend, if I pay money to support the kid, shouldn't I get to see the kid more, especially if the decisions was made by the wife only?

That's not a burden, that's immoral.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I thought children were a blessing Asher.

Most men think so, but obviously not the kind that want nothing to do with their children...isn't that obvious? I thought it would be.

Why should the dad complain about paying child support if it is a blessing to be supporting the child that he helped to create?

Your density is truly infuriating sometimes.

Not all people consider children a blessing. You describe them a "burden", for instance.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
By allowing a father who wants to make amends by playing a larger role into the life of their child

Huh??

The premise was repeatedly an explicitly stated that the father wanted nothing to do with the child. Not the opposite.

[Ben Kenobi]

Asher, I said I was dealing with the case where the leopard changes his spots, and wants to be involved with his children, even if he did not wish to do so previously. So you were asking the wrong question.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Asher, I said I was dealing with the case where the leopard changes his spots, and wants to be involved with his children, even if he did not wish to do so previously. So you were asking the wrong question.

I asked the question well before you answered with your **** about changing spots.

What you said, verbatim, was this:

I agree with you that if the dad does not want to be the dad, then he should relinquish the title voluntarily, but a better answer would be to have him uphold his responsibility as a father.

That is what I replied to.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Ben - two points. First, to clarify, when I called myself a second-class parent, I meant (and I think this is clear) that I was so in the eyes of the law. It had nothing to do with how I felt.

Second, your position seems to be that, no matter how fully involved the stepparent is and how utterly absent the biological parent is, the biological parent should always retain the legal rights of a parent, rights the stepparent doesn't have. Is that your position? If so, how do you justify it?

[Asher]

If so, how do you justify it?

Clearly, through strawmen and avoidance.

[Ben Kenobi]

no matter how fully involved the stepparent is and how utterly absent the biological parent is, the biological parent should always retain the legal rights of a parent, rights the stepparent doesn't have. Is that your position? If so, how do you justify it?

Actually I believe that if the natural father does not wish to be the father that he should relinquish his rights voluntarily.

What I did say is that preferably the father should play a role, and should contribute to the welfare of his child, even if there is a stepdad willing to do so. This to me would be the ideal situation.

Always is a heck of a qualifier, that's the same problem I'm having here with Asher.

[Ben Kenobi]

I agree with you that if the dad does not want to be the dad, then he should relinquish the title voluntarily

What's the problem here Asher?

It is as I have said, that if the dad wishes to be involved, he should get involved and pay child support, if the dad does not then he should give up his rights and not have to pay support.

[Asher]

Always is a heck of a qualifier, that's the same problem I'm having here with Asher.

Only because you have problems reading. I speak in general terms, and then because your argument is so weak you construct a strawman by pretending that it's a universal quantifier so you could simply tear it down with a counterexample (eg, deadbeat dad).

Honestly, the kind of arguments you are giving here would give you an F even in the artsy first-year university classes.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
What's the problem here Asher?

It is as I have said, that if the dad wishes to be involved, he should get involved and pay child support, if the dad does not then he should give up his rights and not have to pay support.

But you said it would be a

better answer would be to have him* uphold his responsibility as a father.

* where "him" = the man who does not want to be the dad

You've very clearly said it's better for a man who does not want to be the dad to stay and be a dad.

I even clarified this position because it was absurd, and you concured.

And now you are either backpedaling or suffering from an elementary school reading comprehension level.

[Ben Kenobi]

Always is a universal qualifier.

If I were to ask the same question that Rufus asked me, I would ask this one:

Second, your position seems to be that, no matter how fully involved the stepparent is and how utterly absent the biological parent is, the biological parent should always retain the legal rights of a parent, rights the stepparent doesn't have. Is that your position? If so, how do you justify it?

All the bolded parts can come out.

Now the question is:

Is your position that the parent ought, all other things being equal retain the legal rights over any stepparent?

Then I would have to answer yes.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Actually I believe that if the natural father does not wish to be the father that he should relinquish his rights voluntarily.

We can all agree on that, but it's not the question. The question is, in cases where the father has abandoned his parental responsibilities, and a stepparent has taken up those responsibilities, should the father be compelled to relinquish his rights so that they could be transferred to the stepparent. In my situation, should I have been allowed to sue to be granted the status of father, with all the rights and responsibilities inherent in that designation? If not, why not?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Always is a universal qualifier.

One I have never used...

(Note to Ben: never is also a universal quantifier!)

Is your position that the parent ought, all other things being equal retain the legal rights over any stepparent?

Then I would have to answer yes.

Which is an absurd position given the case where the father is a deadbeat, nowhere to be found, and a real man who is in a longterm relationship with the wife is raising the kid is given no legal right to the child (eg, ****ing Rufus over).

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Now the question is:

Is your position that the parent ought, all other things being equal retain the legal rights over any stepparent?

Then I would have to answer yes.

Strawman. All other things are never equal.

But even if they are: why should two men, acting equally as fathers (your condition), not have equal rights as parents, just because one managed to schtupp the mother first?