Is It OK for a Child to Have More Than Two Parents?
Fef
2012/07/03 21:00:00
|
|
|||||
|
538 votes
|
|
49% | |||
|
568 votes
|
|
51% | |||
California Democrats want to increase the number of parents a child can have. SB 1476 would allow a child to have more than two parents at the same time in order to accommodate same-sex parents, surrogates, assisted reproduction, and other non-traditional parental relationships.
SacBee.com reports:
"The bill brings California into the 21st century, recognizing that there are more than Ozzie and Harriet families today," Leno said. But some disagree. "It comes as no surprise that he would try to say that a child has more than two parents – that's absurd," said Benjamin Lopez, a legislative analyst for Traditional Values Coalition, a Bible-based civil rights group.
SacBee points out potential problems and complexities caused by SB 1476:
Examples of three-parent relationships that could be affected by SB 1476 include: 1) A family in which a man began dating a woman while she was pregnant, then raised that child with her for seven years. The youth also had a parental relationship with the biological father. 2) A same-sex couple who asked a close male friend to help them conceive, then decided that all three would raise the child. 3) A divorce in which a woman and her second husband were the legal parents of a child, but the biological father maintained close ties as well. How do you feel about the proposed bill?
SacBee.com reports:
Mom and Dad, same-sex couples or blended families, California law is clear: No more than two legal parents per child. State Sen. Mark Leno is pushing legislation to allow a child to have multiple parents.
"The bill brings California into the 21st century, recognizing that there are more than Ozzie and Harriet families today," Leno said. But some disagree. "It comes as no surprise that he would try to say that a child has more than two parents – that's absurd," said Benjamin Lopez, a legislative analyst for Traditional Values Coalition, a Bible-based civil rights group.
SacBee points out potential problems and complexities caused by SB 1476:
Tax deductions, citizenship, probate, public assistance, school notifications and Social Security rights all can be affected by determinations of parenthood, notes the Association of Certified Family Law Specialists.
Examples of three-parent relationships that could be affected by SB 1476 include: 1) A family in which a man began dating a woman while she was pregnant, then raised that child with her for seven years. The youth also had a parental relationship with the biological father. 2) A same-sex couple who asked a close male friend to help them conceive, then decided that all three would raise the child. 3) A divorce in which a woman and her second husband were the legal parents of a child, but the biological father maintained close ties as well. How do you feel about the proposed bill?
Read More: http://www.sacbee.com/2012/07/02/4604048/californi...
Top Opinion
-
Stryder 2012/07/03 15:41:45
.........
There are some cultures where children have multiple fathers-- the father who sired them, the fathers who provided for them, the fathers that taught them. And the father that sired them is often glad, grateful, thankful to those other fathers for helping provide and raise his son into the man he is. This isn't deviancy, it's human nature taking on nurturing roles without interference by social restrictions you see in western civilizations.
You misunderstand , perhaps defensively,( difficult to tell without personal knowledge ) perhaps not, ... and still , any child is better having his or her own two parents stand together bravely facing life together loyally, honourably, , back to back, side to side, front to front within the hearts of each other... if that becomes impossible through death of one spouse or both , then of course other relatives shall enter and shall hopefuly be welcome. ( please, note I used the word "honourably" )
However.. the core values of children are shaped by the mother and the father and their relationship to one another. The stronger the healthy attachment of the parents to one another .. the better for the child. The lesser strength, the more detachment by the child affected ( Source: Freud etc ) .. and so on... A child whose own father impregnated his mother ( sperm donor ) and then abandons the mother and the child to other males to dominate their lives and "help" them .. has taught his own flesh and blood not only is he or she not worthy , but also the mother is not worthy, thus perpetuating and supporting a male idea of "change your partner as often as you want no matter who you hurt ".... The same for a mothe...
You misunderstand , perhaps defensively,( difficult to tell without personal knowledge ) perhaps not, ... and still , any child is better having his or her own two parents stand together bravely facing life together loyally, honourably, , back to back, side to side, front to front within the hearts of each other... if that becomes impossible through death of one spouse or both , then of course other relatives shall enter and shall hopefuly be welcome. ( please, note I used the word "honourably" )
However.. the core values of children are shaped by the mother and the father and their relationship to one another. The stronger the healthy attachment of the parents to one another .. the better for the child. The lesser strength, the more detachment by the child affected ( Source: Freud etc ) .. and so on... A child whose own father impregnated his mother ( sperm donor ) and then abandons the mother and the child to other males to dominate their lives and "help" them .. has taught his own flesh and blood not only is he or she not worthy , but also the mother is not worthy, thus perpetuating and supporting a male idea of "change your partner as often as you want no matter who you hurt ".... The same for a mother who becomes impregnated and then disposes of her own flesh and blood by abortion.
What is so wrong with self control and either not having sex or using birth control methods other than murder?
There is zero strength in have sex whenever with whomever and then thro away children and be hopeful or grateful if someone might come along to feed them... . Zero. That lowers such men and women to the level of hyenas on the wild veldt .. not a man or woman at all, but just animasl with a penis and a vagina.,.. grateful or not to other males being responsible for the child or not... There is nothing good in that. Humans are supposed to be beyond the stupidity of animals ,.. and yet?
I think situational ethics are from the weak minded... the ones with loose core values shaped by too much input from outsiders. And it is proven ( history of mankind ) that children who are taught situational ethics.. have serious problems keeping a healthy relationship, as well as self governance .. and as well national core values/governance ... for a lifetime.
Yuki , I am not saying everyone is perfect by any means. I am saying ( paraphrasing ) historical facts in evidence OVER AEONS as well as studies made by actual current history showing the abdication of parents is ruinous for entire nations .... Not current situational ethics being taught worldwide by various cultures/religious which are providing the downfall of America specifically ... . There will always be extremes .. but mankind is no longer supposed to be animals in the field hoping for a chance to mate and run away to let children fend for themselves or hope the mother murders the baby or hope others do the hunting gathering. That is despicable and sly and cheapens life.
Situational ethics are weaknesses, not strengths... and just create more and more children who are incapable/unable to cope with honour, truth, and justice that does not involve revenge but every day life.
....
....
So what are humans, then? Gods? Demi-gods? We're not divine or above other animals-- we're as driven by our biology as any other animal. We're animals that reproduce, live in groups, are highly social, and with young that are dependent for years and years. It makes sense that with such resource/time/energy-expensive young, that it would be most profitable by both child and community to divide the burden among them (albeit in unequal portions) because children are the future of the community.
History and observation of modern parenting has shown us that the two-parenting system is failing. It is extremely difficult for two people to raise one child, let alone more (where it has become a norm to have more than one child.) Children ge...
So what are humans, then? Gods? Demi-gods? We're not divine or above other animals-- we're as driven by our biology as any other animal. We're animals that reproduce, live in groups, are highly social, and with young that are dependent for years and years. It makes sense that with such resource/time/energy-expensive young, that it would be most profitable by both child and community to divide the burden among them (albeit in unequal portions) because children are the future of the community.
History and observation of modern parenting has shown us that the two-parenting system is failing. It is extremely difficult for two people to raise one child, let alone more (where it has become a norm to have more than one child.) Children get shuffled aside, favorites are played, not enough attention is given, resources dwindle. We see a lot of success where families have a grandparent or an aunt or uncle to fall back on, or godparents/close family friends.
Coco, we as homo sapiens or even earlier hominids never mated and ran away, nor did we leave our young to fend for themselves. A woman was still likely to get resources provided to her by the man she had sex with, and since there's no possible way for her young to survive without her, the only ones who survived were the ones who were looked after and thus looked after their young in turn. We never did this "in the field". We lived in small groups where running away from responsibility was an impossibility because of how close-knit it was, and how necessary it was that everyone pull their weight.
What I'm saying is that multiple-parenting situations are superior to two-person parenting. I'm not saying to throw one or both of the original parents out of the equation, I'm saying that it is healthier for both parents and child when others contribute to the child's upbringing.