pirana 0 #76 August 29, 2007 Strictly personal opinion, but all other things being equal; mother and child relationship trumps all. It's the Royal Flush of relationships." . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflybella 0 #77 August 29, 2007 I don't really understand what you mean when you say "provide a better home". The maternal bond is necessary. Unless the mother is neglectful or abusive or otherwise is harmful to the child - he should be with her. It's not that I think the paternal bond is just bonus points - I think the paternal bond is different. As I said, all other things being equal the maternal bond should prevail. The infant grew inside the mother. Has heard her heartbeat, heard her voice, smelled her for 9 months. She and the baby are biologically and emotionally bonded at birth. She is needed for optimal sustenance. She is wired to respond on every level to that baby. Yes, the father bonds. But not in same way. Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflybella 0 #78 August 29, 2007 QuoteIt's the Royal Flush of relationships. I love that. Here is a fantastic article on the biology of maternal and paternal bonding. Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jimmytavino 16 #79 August 29, 2007 Quote Strictly personal opinion, but all other things being equal; mother and child relationship trumps all. It's the Royal Flush of relationships. ....only when it can occur under the loving shelter of a hard working, moral, loving Father... i will agree with your statement ,,, but only when there is a Dual parent Household,,,,, AND one which in which love, respect and CO-Operative efforts are shown...to all family members.. A mother -child relationship where there is ONLY the Mom and the child,,,,,, may not be as solid as you say, and as we would like... ,,, since often that sort of situation can be borderline 'unhealthy'.... The mother can cling too much to the child.... the child can miss lots of things offered by the second parent... Many single Moms are 'men haters'.... ( i have no statistics to back this up... but only observations...) The woman may have been hurt by men, or abandonded by men, or otherwise mistreated, and so they are at least "anti man",, if not a man hater per se.......Then the Mom pours all of her efforts and love, and yes even her anxieties,,, into the child or children... not necessarily a good thing... A household where one person only makes allll the decisions for the child,,, leaves no room for consideration of whether those decisions are good, or right, or even healthy... for those involved... Moms and Dads may and do disagree about child rearing,, and it is that back and forth, give and take, consider and reconsider, and general brainstorming,, which hopefully can result in the correct way to raise the child.. so a PAIR of parents, just might trump the royal flush of a Mom Child only pairing.. IMHO jimmy dad of a 24 yr. old and a 22 yd old.. pround husband of a super Mom... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,150 #80 August 29, 2007 Quote so a PAIR of parents, just might trump the royal flush of a Mom Child only pairing... I agree. Note, by the way, that if we're going with the poker analogies, that all of these hands (including the straight flush of the father-child) are all very powerful hands. As would be any family situation that provides a child with consistency, behavior modeling, and support. A child needs different parents at different times of its life. Sometimes the mother is more important (fathers generally don't excel at breastfeeding ), and sometimes the father (when modeling positive male behavior). It depends, too, on the different skills that the two parents bring to the family. Even if hte family is split, it's a family, and the parents can work together. My son went to live with his dad when he turned 13 (we'd separated when he was 11). It was the best thing that could have happened for him at that time. Not for me necessarily, but, well, his needs trumped mine in that sense. Randomdood -- your child's needs should trump your pride, they should trump your convenience. They should not trump your ability to earn a living (most of the time), or your ability to have a relationship with a significant other that takes the child into account. But the child is the trump card. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflybella 0 #81 August 29, 2007 In the first 2-3 years, where it's not possible to have a 2 parent household (divorce) and all other things being equal (no one is mentally disturbed) the infant's mother should be the custodial parent. I think it goes without saying that a loving 2 parent household is far better than a single mama and child. But when comparing the lifelong implications of losing one or the other of a maternal vs paternal bond - the maternal takes the pot. Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jimmytavino 16 #82 August 29, 2007 yes i agree with this....... a father child arrangement would be real tough... and i think less beneficial to the youngster,, than a mother child... and I KNOW that there are exceptions to the rule, whereby a single woman DOES have the strength fortitude resilience and ability to be a great MOM in spite of the odds against her... There are examples of that here and there... but in general.... it's a tough situation and without an extended family who pitches in,,, the best for all is Mom Dad, and child child child etc.... Certain pairs of parents can properly raise many many children,,,, successfully,, but it's not easy, and it's not for everyone,,,, especially in this day and age... jmy Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflybella 0 #83 August 29, 2007 Quote there are exceptions to the rule, whereby a single woman DOES have the strength fortitude resilience and ability to be a great MOM in spite of the odds against her... And damned proud of it. But you're right, if I was younger, if I was less confident, if I was less marketable, if I was any number of different things - it could have been insurmountable. I am one of the most vocal proponents of the value of men/fathers in families. I think it's a shame that boys are being raised without fathers partly because they then can start to believe that fathers aren't as necessary. They grow up devaluing themselves. I've said before that that's something I plan to teach my son early. He, as a boy/man, will have a strong role in our household that I hope he will carry with pride into all his future relationships. One of the other things he's going to learn is that he should be prepared to have a baby with any woman he decides to sleep with. Because if "accidents" happen - he pretty much has no control over whether she decides to have the baby. And skipping out - not supporting that child - whatever - is not and acceptable option. Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #84 August 29, 2007 QuoteIn the first 2-3 years, where it's not possible to have a 2 parent household (divorce) and all other things being equal (no one is mentally disturbed) the infant's mother should be the custodial parent. I think it goes without saying that a loving 2 parent household is far better than a single mama and child. But when comparing the lifelong implications of losing one or the other of a maternal vs paternal bond - the maternal takes the pot. Do you think children who are adopted at birth are at a significant disadvantage compared to children who are raised by their biological parents? Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflybella 0 #85 August 29, 2007 I was speaking strictly to the question of one parent in one state, one parent in another and the outlandish idea that you could take a newborn and shuttle him back and forth for extended periods of time. You asked about the paternal bond having equal weight for a newborn in which both parents are active caregivers, not a situation where a newborn is immediately placed in a brand new family. There are too many variables in your question comparing adoptive vs bio parents. If you're asking if I think a significant bond is broken when a mother gives up a baby at birth, yes I do. Do I think all babies adopted at birth will have resulting issues? I would guess not but haven't read any research in that area. Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #86 August 29, 2007 Quote Do I think all babies adopted at birth will have resulting issues? I would guess not but haven't read any research in that area. I was adopted at birth. I can honestly say that I have absolutely no issues about it aside from one pet peeve. It irritates me when people imply that my relationship with my mom and dad is somehow less than "real" because it isn't biological. So, I guess my issue isn't so much with adoption, but more with other people's ignorance about it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #87 August 29, 2007 QuoteIt irritates me when people imply that my relationship with my mom and dad is somehow less than "real" because it isn't biological. Agreed, and strongly so. A 'child of the heart' is no less a family member...Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflybella 0 #88 August 29, 2007 Well - most people who have no direct experience with adoption or have any reason to research the issue are ignorant about it. I just said that I haven't read much about it. What I didn't say was that your relationship was any less "real". Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #89 August 29, 2007 I'd say it sounds like you've done a lot more research than I have on the subject. It also sounds to me like we're both bringing a bias to the table, but you've got something to back your opinion and all I have is anecdotal observations. In my opinion, neither good nor poor parenting seems gender dependent, and either/both genders can raise children equally well, regardless of gestational bonding. If two people are equally good at parenting, and joint custody is impossible, I think that the child should primarily reside with the parent who can provide better food, shelter, and clothing. As long as the child isn't nursing, I'd like to see the judges in family courts make their decisions based on "Parent A" and "Parent B" arguments without any indication of either parent's gender. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #90 August 29, 2007 QuoteWell - most people who have no direct experience with adoption or have any reason to research the issue are ignorant about it. I just said that I haven't read much about it. What I didn't say was that your relationship was any less "real". I wasn't addressing the "pet peeve" thing to you... just saying it was really the only issue I've ever run into related to being adopted. =) I was just trying to say that there are people who are adopted who really do have no problem with it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflybella 0 #91 August 29, 2007 We all approach life with bias. But the food/clothes/shelter thing is a sticky subject, too. It's probably safe to say that in divorce situations - both parents will have to work - thereby requiring even further secondary care for the infant. If the man makes more money - and the court then gives custody of the baby to him based on that - will he stay home and parent the baby? Or will he use his money to pay someone else to care for the baby? Why not, if it comes right down to food/clothes/shelter, have the man pay a bit more so the mother can stay home with the child. At least that way the infant isn't in daycare? I mean, if we're strictly talking best interest of the child? Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflybella 0 #92 August 29, 2007 Oh! Sorry! Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #93 August 29, 2007 Quote Oh! Sorry! One of the downsides to online communication is that it isn't always easy to read someone's intent. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #94 August 30, 2007 QuoteQuoteStrictly personal opinion, but all other things being equal; mother and child relationship trumps all. It's the Royal Flush of relationships.so a PAIR of parents, just might trump the royal flush of a Mom Child only pairing.. IMHO jimmy dad of a 24 yr. old and a 22 yd old.. pround husband of a super Mom... Agreed. As a family unit, it seems to work more often than any other. I was only thinking of the 1 on 1 variations; for which I'd say the mother/child bond is the most important." . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #95 August 30, 2007 QuoteQuoteIn the first 2-3 years, where it's not possible to have a 2 parent household (divorce) and all other things being equal (no one is mentally disturbed) the infant's mother should be the custodial parent. I think it goes without saying that a loving 2 parent household is far better than a single mama and child. But when comparing the lifelong implications of losing one or the other of a maternal vs paternal bond - the maternal takes the pot. Do you think children who are adopted at birth are at a significant disadvantage compared to children who are raised by their biological parents? Blues, Dave I think it is 100% dependent on the adopting parents behavior." . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #96 August 30, 2007 QuoteI think it is 100% dependent on the adopting parents behavior. I agree. It seems like when parents hide the adoption, the kid gets issues, because they get the message that adoption is something shameful to be hidden, or they develop their self-identity around being a biological child, and then this gets shaken up when they find out later that they're adopted. The only adoptees I know with no adoption issues have always known, grew up with age appropriate definitions, and were able to form their identity based on reality. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #97 August 31, 2007 Quote She wants me to leave and send her child support and money for child care and money for prenatal visits and maternity clothes and food (because she eats extra now). And she wants me to fly back state-to-state when I want to see our child. Money is not a major issue for me, but it is a major issue for her. She is considered to be in the 'low income' range. We are both in our mid 20s. Maybe I'm too pessimistic, but absolutely everything you mention raises HUGE red flags. Are you completely sure the child is yours, and you are not part of some scam? Did you mention DNA testing?* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Derekbox 0 #98 August 31, 2007 +1. If you are stuck having a kiddo - demand independent DNA verification. I know of someone who had a chick tell him a child was his, and go psycho on him because he refused to concede. Turns out he had been clipped, he was sterile. ;) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tbrown 26 #99 September 1, 2007 I've got two adult children. A baby should not make you and this lady have to feel you need to marry. BUT, as you now realize, or you wouldn't be asking the question, sex is often more than just recreational boot knockin'. As the father of this child you do in fact have moral - and legal - obligations, even if you and the mother don't wish to marry. And the reason you have these obligations is that there will, or at least might be, a baby born in this world. And if there is a baby born in this world, he or she will need all sorts of things that he or she is utterly unable to provide. That's where marriage and all these legal obligations come from. The decision as to whether to have, or abort this pregnancy, lies entirely with the mother. That's where case law is, as I understand it. If the lady decides to carry her baby and have the child, then congratulations, you're the father, with all the obligations attending, whether you marry or not. The fact that the two of you "agreed" to a casual sexual relationship without a deeper commitment is meaningless. The deeper commitment now exists. I would only hope that you would be a man enough not to persuade, or coerce, this woman into aborting her baby for your convenience. Before all the pro-choicers jump all over my ass, I want to point out that I AM pro-choice myself, at least as a matter of law and public policy, though not personally. I am also a believer in personal responsibility. And as the father of two daughters who have/are reached/reaching adulthood, I would urge you to take a hard look at your own personal responsibility and consider the changes and benefits that having a real relationship with a child of your own can bring, whether or not you marry the mother. You can't just fuck all you want and kill the inconvenient children that result from your own carelessness. And if that bothers some people, I could give a flying shit. You're a skydiver - now be a man. Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity ! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #100 September 1, 2007 Quoteabort abort abort Shouldn't that be "abort retry fail"? Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
