I don’t think JackieMom has any anti-male tone at all. She is focused on the welfare of the child, the innocent person here. When the married wife has sex with a man other than her husband, there are two sinners here. Both are wrong. This is not anti-male or anti-female. It is anti-sin.
Exactly. In that case, both adulterers must put their own feelings and desires aside and do ONLY what is in the best interest of the innocent child. I am appalled and offended by the idea that men would place their desire for access to a child before that child’s welfare. That is not a “real man” to me. And honestly, if the situation worked out that the baby should be placed with the father and his wife (let’s say she was more willing to adopt the baby as her own than the woman’s husband) that would be fine too. Kid deserves an intact family, bottom line.
Ummm…if you read her earlier posts they are definitely anti-male. She went on a feminist diatribe about past perceived crimes and when I challenged her she evaded.
Jackie, me, too! I would do the SAME! (Also I would NEVER cheat. I think I can say so confidently since I had good motive for a lot of years.) This is funny to me because I know you will get pounced on for saying so but I hope you stick to you guns in this hypothetical scenario like a rottweiler because you are RIGHT.Yep, that’s me! The Santorum-voting, vehemently pro-life, super happily married, stay at home mother of amazing superhero-obsessed boys! Such a radical feminist
I can’t speak for Nimzkov but let me be clear. I am NOT putting the child’s welfare below the the biological fathers. All I was getting at was a woman’s husband has a right to know if he is or isn’t the father so he can CHOOSE whether or not he wants to father the child. It would be noble of him to do so. It is also responsible of the wife to say she had an affair for 2 reasons. The first is that she has now exposed her husband to STDs. He has a right to protect his body from being harmed which could impair his ability to provide for his family. The second is if the other man comes after his family he needs to know what to be on the look out for. My point was it is simply unjust to keep ones husband in the dark about ones affair.
But if I had a decent husband like you and most importantly other kids, yes I would do the same because this is the right thing to do.
I think what bothers me about over-zealous focus on “father’s rights” is it reminds me of “homosexual parenting rights”. The focus is all wrong there. Its about what is best for the kids. Not about the parents and their right to have one, or to parent one.
What you would do in that hypothetical situation is best for the child. Its what every child wants. ONE Mom and ONE Dad, living in the same home. That two-home thing is a sad necessity in so many cases (and became my case).
Don’t forget in your hypothetical situation there were TWO adulterers involved, and when a man engages in that, he should accept he may very well be giving up his choice to parent his child. Because he did this one wrong. And anyway, if he is a REAL man, he would WANT whats best for that child. Someday when the child is grown and settled he could be told, and meet his genetic father.
Exactly. The fact that both bio parents made a hideous choice does not diminish the child’s right to a proper, intact home. And, since the woman is the one who carries the child, who is visibly pregnant to the world, assumes the risk and cost of the pregnancy, births the child and nurses the child it only makes sense that the intact family to whom the child should belong would be hers. If her husband refuses, the baby should be quickly adopted by the father and his wife. Intact home life is the priority - NOT adult’s feelings.
But if I had a decent husband like you and most importantly other kids, yes I would do the same because this is the right thing to do.
I think what bothers me about over-zealous focus on “father’s rights” is it reminds me of “homosexual parenting rights”. The focus is all wrong there. Its about what is best for the kids. Not about the parents and their right to have one, or to parent one.
What you would do in that hypothetical situation is best for the child. Its what every child wants. ONE Mom and ONE Dad, living in the same home. That two-home thing is a sad necessity in so many cases (and became my case).
Don’t forget in your hypothetical situation there were TWO adulterers involved, and when a man engages in that, he should accept he may very well be giving up his choice to parent his child. Because he did this one wrong. And anyway, if he is a REAL man, he would WANT whats best for that child. Someday when the child is grown and settled he could be told, and meet his genetic father.
I am the same with you on this and I think you and I are not extra-special, but just normal women. Of course there are women below-normal who would not do this.
You don’t own the child because you gave birth to him/her. Giving life to a human being is an act of selfless love and as such you should not be seeking benefit from it.
You are totally right. It’s about what’s good for the child, not the adults involved. Every parent knows that from the moment those two pink lines appear, your life is no longer about you, your needs and desires, your goals or your comfort. It’s kids first. And kids deserve an intact home.
All that tells me is you are a female supremacist that thinks a man’s only purpose on this Earth is to put you a pedestle and worship you because you uterus makes you more valuable than him. Feminism and traditional conservatives differ only in their approach. One wants their cake and to eat it too (liberal feminists) and the other just wants the cake (traditional conservatives)…of coarse all provided for by men! Thanks for nothing ladies!Yep, that’s me! The Santorum-voting, vehemently pro-life, super happily married, stay at home mother of amazing superhero-obsessed boys! Such a radical feminist
And that means a man should have an equal shot at fathering the child you helped him create. It doesn’t matter what risk you assumed because you knew the risk BEFORE you cheated and conceived. Therefore you have no more of a right to raise the child than the man who biologically fathered him/her. When you give a man access to you body you cannot take it back from him. Likewise a man does the same.
An awful situation. Raising the child is one thing, covering up and lending one’s surname and seeing, for example, the agnatic seniority in one’s family (let alone stuff like nobility titles, crowns, majorate estates inherited undivided by the eldest son etc.) inherited by a person not biologically descended over actual biological heirs is a different thing.
That’s harsh and wrong. Jackie said nothing to indicate she felt that way. That’s a sick twist of her words. You must have some serious issues. Serious ones! Coming on here and accusing her of being a “female supremacist”?? That has nothing to do with Jackie from what she has written here. And I am pretty sure name-calling is against the forum rules.
Don’t you read anything she wrote? Its not about who gets a “shot” at the child. Its about what the child most needs.
Hmm. Very telling. silentfactor80, it sounds like you don’t think much of women.
Did you not read her earlier posts? When she claimed men in general used to treat women like property ages ago I countered with “SOME men did that but not all.” She replied with “it wasn’t just some men.” St. Joseph surely didn’t do that to Mary! Neither did many other men! She made a generalization about men that was offensive!
How does moral theology justify not telling ones husband about the biological father? A woman puts a man at risk for disease and financial ruin. He can have his entire lively hood taken away by such a transgression and you think moral theology is ok with this??? Who wrote this moral theology? “Catholic” feminists?
Well you are no longer in a position to complain. You did the same thing.
I didn’t make any generalization about women as a whole. My words were an assessment of hers and aimed only at her.
Would you like to have been lied to all your life? Would you like to have never met your other parent, and instead have been told your one parent + step-parent were your biological parents?
As a feminist, I agree. I’d like to see fewer assumptions based on gender (women are gentler, men are more abusive, women make better parents, men are natural providers) and more equality.
Precisely. Children conceived under less-than-ideal circumstances (adultery, rape, one-night stands, ART via donor gametes) should not have fewer rights than other children. All children have a right to know the two people who created them and be supported by them (of course, not necessarily be raised by them). This does not mean that an obviously unfit person will automatically gain access to his or her biological child (e.g., a rapist), but even an unfit parent should have responsibility (e.g. rapists have been forced to pay child support) and the child has a right to information about them as part of knowledge of their identity.