Drama in SRS prime when one user thinks the The white babydaddy should stay with the wife after she births a black baby. "and now after the child arrives he wants to walk out because the child doesn't have his DNA. That's a shitty thing to do. It's not the kid's fault that the OP's partner cheated" (np.reddit.com)
SubredditDrama
157 ups - 52 downs = 105 votes
170 comments submitted at 03:54:54 on Apr 13, 2014 by david-me
Both legally and morally though, the husband here is in the position to be the baby's father. What, he's going to abandon the baby and the mother over some genetics? The world's way more complicated than that and this kid's priorities need to be placed first.
I'm sorry but no. This is one of those instances that trying to look for nuance in this situation just doesn't work.
There is no moral obligation for the bloke to be the father of the child. Yes it is sad that the child is put in that situation. But the whole blame is on the mother for this. She has to find a way to make do with her situation as SHE chose to sleep around. The husband IS the victim along with the child.
You cannot build such a model on shaky foundations of trust and resentment, it just doesn't work. It would be an impressive feat if he were to stick around but seeing the child would be a constant reminder of his wife's deception. At this early stage, he does not yet have a bond with the child and neither does the child have a bond with him so its easier to sever ties.
If we were talking about a situation where the husband found out a couple of years later, then yes, we could postulate on the dangers of him leaving the child.
I reckon your sentiment about the man being "legally" predisposed to fathering the child is one of the points that I would support the MRA activists. It is not a fair call and all odds are stacked against the bloke of that scenario plays out like that.
Don't feed the trolls! Seriously, his username is CATOHOLIC_EXTREMIST, in all caps...
Just because someone has a different opinion doesn't automatically make them a troll.
>I reckon your sentiment about the man being "legally" predisposed to fathering the child is one of the points that I would support the MRA activists. It is not a fair call and all odds are stacked against the bloke of that scenario plays out like that.
I think the law is just recognizing the moral imperative here, that the wellness of the child is first priority here.
>There is no moral obligation for the bloke to be the father of the child. Yes it is sad that the child is put in that situation. But the whole blame is on the mother for this. She has to find a way to make do with her situation as SHE chose to sleep around. The husband IS the victim along with the child.
She did do a very bad action, but that does not make her irreconcilable and the husband and wife need to work on their issues, not let them fester. And while the husband didn't deserve the infidelity, I doubt it happened in a vacuum, which is a positive note because it means they both have things to work on that can improve the relationship. The child, OTOH, is not a reminder of someone else's faults but a human being with value and dignity of their own.
> I think the law is just recognizing the moral imperative here, that the wellness of the child is first priority here.
Yes and that is what MAR's are campaigning against. Just because the law recognizes it does not make it just.
> She did do a very bad action, but that does not make her irreconcilable and the husband and wife need to work on their issues, not let them fester. And while the husband didn't deserve the infidelity, I doubt it happened in a vacuum, which is a positive note because it means they both have things to work on that can improve the relationship. The child, OTOH, is not a reminder of someone else's faults but a human being with value and dignity of their own.
Are you kidding me? She cheated on her husband, hid it from him, tried to play off the pregnancy as his until the baby's shade gave her away. That is a death knell for any relationship and expecting some sort of compromise from the husband is very unfair. He is a human beign who just got fucked over after being disappointed by 1 or hypothetically 2 people he loved the most in his life up unitl the point.
A child he never had and his wife.
Leaving does not mean the issue festers. It means the situation is over. Don't try to create hypotheticals and say "the cheating did not happen in a vaccum". Christ. The moment when they should have worked on the issue was BEFORE she decided to hop on another cock carousel. Now is just the aftermath and expecting rational discourse after such revelations is a testament to your age and experience in relationships.
And no, the child is a reminder of someone else's faults but that is not a condemnation of the child. It is a condemnation of the person.
> A child he never had and his wife.
But he has been already doing a lot of work the mother and child rely on. Both taking care of the pregnant mother and preparing for the child (cribs, clothes, food, cleaning changing surface and diapers, childproofing, etc.). At this point it'd be abandonment.
> Now is just the aftermath and expecting rational discourse after such revelations is a testament to your age and experience in relationships.
I've been on the other side of divorce and abandonment and know the pain that causes means that reconciliation is worth trying with all your might before splitting. Divorce should be the last emergency measure for a bad relationship, not the first thought that comes to mind.
> But he has been already doing a lot of work the mother and child rely on. Both taking care of the pregnant mother and preparing for the child (cribs, clothes, food, cleaning changing surface and diapers, childproofing, etc.). At this point it'd be abandonment.
IT WAS BASED ON A LIE!
> I've been on the other side of divorce and abandonment and know the pain that causes means that reconciliation is worth trying with all your might before splitting. Divorce should be the last emergency measure for a bad relationship, not the first thought that comes to mind.
No you haven't. No you really haven't.
> IT WAS BASED ON A LIE!
But what he did was real and true care and love. The happyness is injured now but that doesn't make the things he did not real.
>No you haven't. No you really haven't.
I wish I hadn't, but it was not my choice to make.
> The happyness is injured now but that doesn't make the things he did not real.
It likely does to him.
>happyness
troll confirmed.
> I've been on the other side of divorce and abandonment and know the pain that causes means that reconciliation is worth trying with all your might before splitting. Divorce should be the last emergency measure for a bad relationship, not the first thought that comes to mind.
As have I, my parents divorced and one moved out of the country. That's not true abandonment perhaps but it sure feels like it to a kid.
In retrospect, I understand why it happened and reconciled with the parent who left. In that situation, it sucks, it sucks for the guy, it sucks for the kid. But its better for the kid to try and grow up not in a home where one parent views them as a reminder of a horrible event. It's better he doesn't grow up in a home where the parents hate each other if they can't work it out.
It's not ideal, but it may be the best situation given everything that's happened. That's a pretty damn fine train wreck of a marriage. Even if it's repairable, there's going to be tons of drama and trauma until then, and it could be years.
In the end though, you're banking a kid's childhood on the immensely tiny chance they work it out after that. You bring up all the work he did preparing for the child, that's additional grief on the guys end as well. I just can't see risking 99.5% chance of putting the child through tons more grief for the off chance it works out okay.
If it is not his child he is not obligated to support it.
> She did do a very bad action, but that does not make her irreconcilable and the husband and wife need to work on their issues, not let them fester.
If my wife cheated, got pregnant, told me about it right away and was willing to work on it from then, its something that can be dealt with.
She wasn't willing to work on it until she got caught, that's the sign of someone I'd never be able to trust again. It is irreconcilable to me and to a lot of other people at that point.
I agree the kid might get screwed, but hopefully his biological father can be involved and it works out ok. In any case, the onus for screwing the kid up is on the mother in this case and I'd leave it at that.
> doubt it happened in a vacuum, which is a positive note because it means they both have things to work on that can improve the relationship
Agreed, they probably both contributed to the lead up to the affair, rarely do relationships sour because of only one party.
However, she's still fairly well proven untrustworthy. If that trust can't come back the relationship is dead.
>The child, OTOH, is not a reminder of someone else's faults but a human being with value and dignity of their own.
To the guy who thought it was his? Yeah it will always be a reminder of someone elses faults. Is that fair to the kid, no, but it is human. Even great moral people might have issue with that, it's not something you can handwave away.
If anyone blames the kid they're 110% wrong. The child is (likely) the only 100% innocent person in the whole mess. But that doesn't mean people are capable of seeing that when its a reminder of something painful. It sucks, but its what happens so very often.
Yea, he should jump at the fact that she cheated on him and lied to him the whole time.
She's a keeper!
Life is life. Remember it is different to each.
Why does the husband have any responsibility for the child, it isn't his.
It is his child, genes are neither sufficient nor necessary to make someone a father to someone else. If the baby had come out white he was fully ready to love them and care for them, and the baby is still here it just happens to be black instead.
People who think genetics shouldn't be a factor in calling someone a father are talking about situations where the non-bio-dad already had an active role in raising the baby. In that case, a man who stayed up late with a screaming child, changed diapers, helped with homework, loved, worried etc is every bit as much a father as a bio-dad. The fact that the baby is black is just what tipped him off that it wasn't his. If the baby had been white, he only would have cared for the baby because he would have been fooled into thinking it was his own child.
I'm sure there's been some racist circlejerking, because AA is a cesspool. But saying this guy is morally the father is absurd. How on earth is he morally obligated to care for a child that is the product of his wife's cheating? Why is the bio-dad not morally obligated?
> People who think genetics shouldn't be a factor in calling someone a father are talking about situations where the non-bio-dad already had an active role in raising the baby. In that case, a man who stayed up late with a screaming child, changed diapers, helped with homework, loved, worried etc is every bit as much a father as a bio-dad.
Yes but the husband has already been doing all the dad roles. Preparing for the baby (think cribs, clothes, food, diapers, cleaning stuff, child proofing) and taking care for the mother are a lot of work that both the mother and child have been relying on. He's already been in the dad role for months.
Oh god, for months, you say?? Whole months? Before the child was even breathing?
(disclaimer: I don't actually believe any of his story. But the hypothetical arguments here are beyond baffling to me)
> Oh god, for months, you say?? Whole months? Before the child was even breathing?
All the baby's life so far.
> (disclaimer: I don't actually believe any of his story. But the hypothetical arguments here are beyond baffling to me)
I'm skeptical too, it seems mastercrafted for /r/adviceanimals "unpopular opinions". I still find the hypothetical worth discussing too, though.
Wait, I'm confused what makes it his child? Why is this particular child his, as opposed to any other random child in the world?
the husband has already been doing all the dad roles. Preparing for the baby (think cribs, clothes, food, diapers, cleaning stuff, child proofing) and taking care for the mother are a lot of work that both the mother and child have been relying on. He's already been the child's father for months.
The biological father has been the father for just as long. Why doesn't he have any responsibility in this?
You must be a troll. Your position is too ridiculous to take seriously.
In what world do you live in where raising a child in an unloving relationship is what is best for the child? Is that what you want for the kid? To grow up thinking mommy and daddy are supposed to hate eachother? Then when the child is grown enough to ask "why don't I look like mommy or daddy" and learns the truth, don't you think that may cause the child to, I don't know, blame themself for the anger and hate?
"What's best for the child" isn't to force this man to stay in a relationship he doesn't want to be in with someone he doesn't trust raising a kid that he may consider not his.
> In what world do you live in where raising a child in an unloving relationship is what is best for the child?
Why would the father not love the child? Is abandoning the child really the best way to show that he loves the kid?
>Is that what you want for the kid? To grow up thinking mommy and daddy are supposed to hate each other?
Why would they hate each other? And if they hate each other, why wouldn't they work to change that?
>Then when the child is grown enough to ask "why don't I look like mommy or daddy" and learns the truth, don't you think that may cause the child to, I don't know, blame themself for the anger and hate?
It's almost like you should tell the child it isn't their fault, and that daddy stayed because he loved the child so much.
> "What's best for the child" isn't to force this man to stay in a relationship he doesn't want to be in with someone he doesn't trust raising a kid that he may consider not his.
What's best for the child is definitely to have the man who's been in the father role to continue being in that father role.
Abandoning the child implies it's his to abandon. It's the black guys child. Not the husbands.
But the husband has already been doing all the dad roles. Preparing for the baby (think cribs, clothes, food, diapers, cleaning stuff, child proofing) and taking care for the mother are a lot of work that both the mother and child have been relying on. He's already been the child's father for months.
For starters there was no child for months. And preparing to do something doesn't equate to actually doing it. If I'm in med school for four years and graduate tomorrow I don't get to say I've been a doctor for four years starting tomorrow.
But you're a doctor tomorrow because you've been doing the training in preparation of that.
Yes. But if I find out that I've passed because I've received someone else's marks on my file, guess who's not a doctor.
Sounds like something a little paperwork and a visit or two to the registrar can fix.
Yeah I'm sticking with my original call that you're trolling.
So what happens if the other guy finds out and wants to step up to the role on this situation?
All your situations you are laying out factor out this possibility from the start.
OR, or, you could have his actual biological father take over the role of parent. Or do you think a WHITE MAN would be a better father than either of the BLACK MEN who could be the child's biological father?
nope
Oooh I got it, you don't think a WOMAN can raise a child on her own. Ok, got ya.
nope
Unloving, as in mom and dad don't love one another and are only together for the child. That's fantastically unhealthy for children to grow around.
Because cheating causes most relationships to end and people hold grudges. There's no amount of "work" that fix this for practically everyone. A huge breach of trust occurred. By his response, reconciliation isn't possible.
It's almost like you don't know that kids are smart enough to know they are being lied to, or no matter what many kids blame themselves.
What's best for the child is whatever fantasy you have in your head will happen. Dad forgives mom, they love eachother, no grudges, and raise the baby normally. After cheating and having the baby not be his, that's not going to happen. If they stay together the man will hate the mom and possibly the baby since it is what is keeping him stuck in a relationship he doesn't want to be in. This is one of the worst possible environments to raise a child, and the most realistic.
Your devil's advocate is becoming a little stretched here. Either that or you are being purposefully obtuse.
In the first quote, they were obviously talking about the relationship between the husband and the child's mother. But to answer your first question with another, why would the husband love the manifestation of the greatest betrayal of the woman he loves?
>Why would they hate each other?
Are you seriously asking why one partner would hate the other for cheating on them? I don't even...
>> Why would they hate each other? > Are you seriously asking why one partner would hate the other for cheating on them? I don't even...
I should have been more clear, why must they be hurt forever?
They don't. But why would you stay with someone you hated? That only breeds more resentment and hatred. Which (surprise!) is not a good environment for a child to be raised in. Especially if one of the parents does not actually like the child.
Then hunt down the child's biological father and force him to pay.
Are you Fucking high?
That's just silly.
The relationship between the mother and the husband is permanently irreparable. That kind of environment is extremely unhealthy compared to if the baby only had a mother.