Posted on 06/22/2005 3:23:45 PM PDT by My Favorite Headache
No, its not odd at all. Why post the obvious? I thought any logical person would presume and understand that Ted's wife and children would be upset and angry. I'm sorry you couldn't comprehend the obvious.
I'm not blaming the child. If I were Ted's teenage kid I would not and could not play big brother to his love child. The fault is all on Ted and his girlfriend. Once, more you failed to understand the obvious.
According to the article, Nugent has never even
met the boy.
Well, he is the original alpha male, after all...
That would be the article linked in post #99
I find in interesting that the kid is 10 years old. How long has Nugent known about this son? Maybe he just found out recently.
A friend of mine was forced by the state to have a blood sample drawn when an ex-girlfriend accused him of fathering her 15 year old son. He had assets, and she decided it was time to cash in. The test proved that my friend was not the father, so she crossed his name off her list of possibles and went after the next chump on her list.
What if my friend had been the father? The mother obviously knew that the paternity of the child was uncertain. She intentionally deprived the father and son of each other's company through most of the son's childhood. Apparently that's not a crime, though it sounds like one to me.
Yes, I knew that. My original post was a reply to Halls stating...
"I think his best route is to slowly get to know this child and involve him with his family. And than maybe over time he can visit more often and feel more confortable with his dad. I would hope that Ted would do this. If he doesn't what a putz!"
Easier said than done when you're dealing with an illegitimate child and all the emotions everyone must me dealing with.
I am sure your figures could be accurate. And I am sorry for your friend, but that is not the court's fault. I do think for the most part (unless there is abuse/neglect) child should be with his mother growing up-- yes, women who may lie, cheat and whatever. Just as fathers are not perfect.
There is an attachment between the mother and child that is not the same as the one between the father and child. It is women who get pregnant, bare 9 months of weight and discomfort, hours of painful labor, months of recovery, months or years of providing milk for the baby, comfort, etc. Babies cry for their mamas, not their papas. These things make bonds that do not happen with fathers. Not that fathers are not necessary and important; it is just that the mother is and should be acknowledged to be the PRIMARY caretaker of children, as is designed by God in nature.
This is an outgrowth of feminism taken to an extreme, to the point of saying there IS not difference between the body of a male or female, the chest of a male or female, the emotions of a male or female, the emotional connection betwen a child and his mother or a child and his father. That's why you can have two homosexual men pretending to be mommy and daddy to some unwanted minority child they adopted. This is how far values clarification has sunk us.
Feel free to disagree.
so i guess as long as ted holds to your political views that you'll forgive him for not holding to his marriage vows ... ted (love the sinner) needs to avoid the situations that lead to doing the hootchie-coo (hate the sin)
What was odd was YOUR choice to call him a 'bastard' not the made up thoughts you attribute to his family.
Why is it odd, because the insult you level at the boy by calling him a bastard is all the doing of Ted. So it is ironic that you would insult the child. He is only a 'bastard' to the extent Ted refuses to be a father, get it?
You're not disappointing me about life, dear. I've seen plenty of it, and plenty of temptation too.
And who said anything about being "perfect" ?
My quibble with you was only over the word, "mistake."
Mistakes are unintentional, like my earlier example of misreading a label. Or like locking your keys in the car.
Cheating on one's spouse is not a "mistake." It's intentional, and it's a wrong moral choice. Something we used to call, quaintly, "sin."
Ted failed to practice appropriate gun safety and now must pay.
If Ted's wife and the Almighty both choose to forgive him, that's good enough for me.
"Bastard" is a cruel word and I wouldn't have used it. But it is what it is. A bastard is a child born out of wedlock.
Trying to soften the word "bastard" by redefining it to mean a child who simply gets no attention from the father, doesn't work.
We conservatives need to resist efforts to change the definition of words. That's what the Left does --and they do it the name of "compassion." E.g., the word "marriage" (we must be compassionate and not make homosexuals feel left out).
Today, it is mainly used as an insult. We both know that.
But the person you were responding to used the word correctly, with its true meaning. Insult intended, or not.
It seemed to me you were trying to deny the reality the word conveyed (perhaps because you felt sorry for the child) by trying to change its meaning.
AMEN! A mistake is buying the wrong brand at the store. An affair is a sin, not a accident or mistake!
I need to get therapy? LOL, that is good. We all do my Texas friend, we all do.
I feel sorry for the child because in addition to being born to a married father and single mother, random people on FR and elsewhere call him a bastard. The original poster made it clear it was being used as an insult. My original comment merely pointed out that it was an ironic insult to level at the child. When I woke up today, the posters defense was all about everything but their choice of using the word. (Yes, I know the facts of the child birth will not be undone my anything that happens. I also know that people who call this child a 'bastard' even on anonymous Internet threads are still being mean spirited. That's all.)
I was hoping someone would bring up the "whomever files first" problem.
I have personal experience with this "dilemma"; my husband fathered a child with another woman outside of our marriage. I have insisted that he get DNA to legally protect himself, and then eventually pay child support, since it is the right thing to do. Up to this point, he has done neither. The "other child" is now 4 years old.
Through my own personal research on this topic (basically done out of curiosity and because of the fact that my spouse will not do any), I have found that the children of the marriage are not given any kind of equal treatment if the "other woman" files for support first. Many "other children" are taking ballet and tap lessons while "marriage children" are eating Kraft Macaroni and Cheese every night. Not very fair or equal, is it?
The only saving grace about all of this is that my income can't be touched when all the child support is figured and done. Don't even get me started on the immense pain that lingers every day (even after counseling).
JMHO
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.