|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes. The law doesn't even hesitate to notify him if child support is being demanded. Fathers need to be empowered to take part in their children's lives, whether or not they are married to the children's mothers.
Such a law would invest in fatherhood.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is a case where a law makes perfect logical sense but is simply unenforeable. It's simply not practicle because a woman intent on not telling the truth could maintain she just doesn't know. In the meantime, the child is in limbo. He shouldn't be with a mother who is trying to give him up, and adoption to a loving family is being held up during a crucial time period of bonding.
I would argue also that this has got to be a relatively rare situation. But even if it isn't, the woman is holding all the cards and can use the baby as a hostage. Plus, making this a law would I believe convince more women to abort. Either way its a no-win for the child (and the father).
I don't see a solution that doesn't jeapardize children more (abortion, adoption limbo).
I fully support the father being notified (I even support father veto in abortion if we must have abortion) but I just don't see how it can be enforced on a practicle level.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's simply not practicle because a woman intent on not telling the truth could maintain she just doesn't know.
Granted. That is a sticky point. And the only way I can think of right now to deal with that is to have them make a list of possible fathers, based on probable date of conception. Which seems to be what many are concerned about. Of course, the mother could still not give all the possible fathers, leaving the biological father out, and we're back where we started. But then, if later it was determined that X was the father of the child, then at least she could be charged with fraud of a sort. Possibly. Just a thought.
In the meantime, the child is in limbo. He shouldn't be with a mother who is trying to give him up, and adoption to a loving family is being held up during a crucial time period of bonding.
That's assuming that the mother doesn't inform the father upon learning of the pregnancy. At that point, there is still a fair amount of time to make possible contacts. But, you're right, it would be problematic if the decision to put the child up for adoption was made upon delivery, or close by. Maybe a potential law would require that any parent, upon learning about a pregnancy, should contact the other parent. Gender neutral language, but it would really only apply to a mother contacting a father upon learning of a pregnancy, I realize.
I would argue also that this has got to be a relatively rare situation.
That's something I'd need more evidence for to be able to determine one way or another. My instinct (that's merely instinct, mind you, not based on any direct substantiated evidence) is that it's probably not that rare. I'd like to see a study done on that. Does anyone know of one?
Sean
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's simply not practicle because a woman intent on not telling the truth could maintain she just doesn't know.
Granted. That is a sticky point. And the only way I can think of right now to deal with that is to have them make a list of possible fathers, based on probable date of conception. Which seems to be what many are concerned about. Of course, the mother could still not give all the possible fathers, leaving the biological father out, and we're back where we started. But then, if later it was determined that X was the father of the child, then at least she could be charged with fraud of a sort. Possibly. Just a thought.
Very easy to do. Don't make charges possible, make them mandatory, with minimum sentences. I'd say about 25 years, about the fertility span for most women. And since nobody can profit from a crime, the child will at the father's option be placed back into his care, and the adoption nullified.
NOBODY under those terms would adopt a child without both mother and father's signature.
Is that cold? Well, how cold is it to have your flesh and blood stolen from you?
In the meantime, the child is in limbo. He shouldn't be with a mother who is trying to give him up, and adoption to a loving family is being held up during a crucial time period of bonding.
That's assuming that the mother doesn't inform the father upon learning of the pregnancy. At that point, there is still a fair amount of time to make possible contacts. But, you're right, it would be problematic if the decision to put the child up for adoption was made upon delivery, or close by. Maybe a potential law would require that any parent, upon learning about a pregnancy, should contact the other parent. Gender neutral language, but it would really only apply to a mother contacting a father upon learning of a pregnancy, I realize.
This is why we have foster parents. That will give time to track down the father - with the same zeal as if he was behind on child support.
I would argue also that this has got to be a relatively rare situation.
That's something I'd need more evidence for to be able to determine one way or another. My instinct (that's merely instinct, mind you, not based on any direct substantiated evidence) is that it's probably not that rare. I'd like to see a study done on that. Does anyone know of one?
Even if it is, statistical morality. And "Well, this is rare" (Accompanied by a lack of support for it, too, BTW) is a frequent excuse given by the pheminuts...
(Then again, what else do you expect?)
...to whittle away yet another right for men, that is held sacred and inviolate to women.
Reverse the genders, and postulate the outcome.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is why we have foster parents. That will give time to track down the father - with the same zeal as if he was behind on child support.
But, that is a crucial bonding time for a child, which is one of the reasons for having fathers who intend to be a primary caregiver be present at the birth of a child and be given the chance to interact with the child. The child often bonds with both mother and father more easily that way. This is why I'm exploring the possibility of a requirement of a mother to inform the father within a reasonable amount of time after learning of the pregnancy. That way, we can perhaps avoid this lag time.
After speaking with a woman who had given up her child for adoption, she said that she was glad that she had informed both possible fathers, so that the decision was shared, and she wasn't the only one with the burden of such a tough decision. So, it can really be of benefit to both parties.
Sean
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Now let me get this straight.
A couple of posts back, you talk about not penalizing women for having casual and anonymous sex, that it's not a bad thing, correct?
I'll accept that - with the proviso that sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Take the gender away. Casual, anonymous, hook-ups are morally neutral and NOT irresponsible.
Or they are. For everyone, and are prima facie evidence of unfitness as a parent. Can't have it both ways, and a double standard is unspeakable.
So - since we're not presuming that anyone is irresponsible, why should a parent be decieved and cheated out of being a parent?
Talk to some adopted people who've ever wondered who their "real" (and they do use "real" despite devout PC wishes otherwise) parents were, and why they were given up, and was I even wanted or loved?
Or talk to a father who got cheated out of being a father.
Like me.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So - since we're not presuming that anyone is irresponsible, why should a parent be decieved and cheated out of being a parent?
If I ever gave the impression that I thought that any parent should be cheated or deceived out of being a parent, I apologize. It was never my intention to do so.
If I knew what precisely prompted such a response, please let me know, so that I won't do that again. My goal is to ensure that fathers get a fair shake to be made aware of a child that they were a part of creating. I just simply want to investigate what kind of legislation, if any, could be proposed in order to protect both parents.
I have spoken to fathers who have been cheated out of being a parent and people who had a difficult time finding out who their real father was. That's part of what prompted me to ask the question in the first place. Please don't assume otherwise.
Sean
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A couple of posts back, you talk about not penalizing women for having casual and anonymous sex, that it's not a bad thing, correct?
I'll accept that - with the proviso that sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Take the gender away. Casual, anonymous, hook-ups are morally neutral and NOT irresponsible.
Or they are. For everyone, and are prima facie evidence of unfitness as a parent. Can't have it both ways, and a double standard is unspeakable.
Ok, I finally found the posting you were speaking about. This is what I said:
In my opinion, just because a woman or a man has a lot of sexual partners does not make them an unfit parent.
I...suppose I can see why you would assume that I was only speaking of mothers. And proposing a double standard. I guess. Maybe.
No, actually, I can't. Sorry, I tried.
Sean
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Require the woman to name all the possible father(s) and pay for the DNA tests until we get the match.
I think the father, once found, should have to pay half of the DNA costs. Shared rights and responsibilities.
If the father cannot be found (she's had so many partners she can't remember them all or her partners' names are unknown to her), she is automatically assumed to be an unfit mother and her parental rights are terminated.
In my opinion, just because a woman or a man has a lot of sexual partners does not make them an unfit parent. That's a moral judgment that I believe the government should not be able to regulate. But, that would be a problem, if she doesn't know the name of the father. But perhaps, if he didn't give a name, he has given up his rights. If it's contested later, that's a matter for the courts to decide (whether or not a name was exchanged).
She is required to pay child support on her behalf plus the child support imputed to the unknown father for that child until the age of 18, no matter the disposition of the child after her parental rights are terminated.
Are you saying she should pay child support to the adoptive parents? I'm confused.
I'm against abortion in most cases, but if this law leads to more abortions, so be it. If we want to outlaw abortions in most cases or require the father's permission before an abortion is performed, I think those are possibilities to consider also.
Agreed. I'd at least like to be informed if a child I was involved in creating was to be terminated. At least then I'd be involved in the decision.
Sean
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
> I think the father, once found, should have to pay half of the DNA costs. Shared rights and responsibilities. Who should pay for all the tests that come out negative? I hope you don't think the men should pay half of each test then. I say 100% should be paid by the woman for each negative test to encourage her to come up with the real father with as little runaround as possible. >In my opinion, just because a woman or a man has a lot of sexual partners does not make them an unfit parent. That's a moral judgment that I believe the government should not be able to regulate... I disagree, but I think you're misunderstanding what I said. I didn't say she was an unfit parent because she had multiple partners. I am saying she is unfit if she has so many partners in a small window of time without knowing even the men's names that she can't come up with the father after a reasonable number of tests. Furthermore, the government makes moral judgements against men and strips us of our parental rights all the time based on those judgements. I think women should likewise have their parental rights contingent on their morality and adherence to the law. >But perhaps, if he didn't give a name, he has given up his rights. You sound like a guy who's been brainwashed by the PC feminists. Are you kidding? Do you also believe that a woman gives up her right to her child if she doesn't get the father's name before having sex? >Are you saying she should pay child support to the adoptive parents? I'm confused. Yes. This is what I'm saying. This is no different from men who are either forbidden from seeing their children or can't because the mother is allowed to move across country but he still has to come up with all the child support. If she doesn't or can't come up with the father's name and in doing so, cheats the father out of the opportunity to choose whether or not he wants to take custody of the child, she should have to pay. The law must have teeth and it must be to her disadvantage not to name the father. >I'd at least like to be informed if a child I was involved in creating was to be terminated. At least then I'd be involved in the decision. Why? If you have no say in the matter, as you seem to be resigned to, why does it matter? I think the father should have veto power over abortions. If the mother doesn't want the child, the father should have the right to have his child, take custody of it, and collect child support from the mother. Ooooooooh! Radical! What!? A woman not have total control over her body? Preposterous!!! Dittohd
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
> I think the father, once found, should have to pay half of the DNA costs. Shared rights and responsibilities.
Who should pay for all the tests that come out negative? I hope you don't think the men should pay half of each test then. I say 100% should be paid by the woman for each negative test to encourage her to come up with the real father with as little runaround as possible.
I could see the mother being liable to pay for the negative tests. Personally, if I was one of the potential fathers, I'd be willing to pay half. I would have been involved in the decision to have sex which put me in the potential father category, but that's just me. But, I concede that it would be unfair for the biological father to have to pay for the tests for the other potentials, since he was not involved in their sexual decisions.
Furthermore, the government makes moral judgements against men and strips us of our parental rights all the time based on those judgements. I think women should likewise have their parental rights contingent on their morality and adherence to the law.
I'd personally prefer the government not make any moral judgments based on any person's sexual activities, woman or man. Particularly in the case of deciding if the person is a fit parent. I think you and I disagree as to whether or not a person's sexual history can determine their fitness. At least, that's what I'm getting. Because of the subjective nature of that judgment, I don't believe that the government can make that decision without other information.
>But perhaps, if he didn't give a name, he has given up his rights.
You sound like a guy who's been brainwashed by the PC feminists. Are you kidding? Do you also believe that a woman gives up her right to her child if she doesn't get the father's name before having sex?
I didn't say that was a perfect solution, nor that I'm advocating such a position absolutely. Note the "perhaps" in my statement, a phrase that denotes "possibility". All I'm saying is that if a man and a woman have sex, it would be a good idea if both parties knew names, so that in the event that whatever birth control was being used failed, or if one of the individuals was found later to be infected with an STD or AIDS, the other party could be contacted. If either the father or mother did not give a name, they are making it more difficult for the other to contact them in such a case. If a man doesn't make the effort simply to give a name, you don't think that he has given up a certain amount of rights to be involved in the decision of the dispensation of any possible child? If a man doesn't give a name, he will probably not be found before the decision would have to be made. If he and the woman happen to come across each other later, and she tells him what happened, I don't think he has much of a leg to stand on in terms of getting recompense. If he says he gave a name, and the mother says he didn't, that would be a matter for the courts to decide.
>Are you saying she should pay child support to the adoptive parents? I'm confused.
Yes. This is what I'm saying. This is no different from men who are either forbidden from seeing their children or can't because the mother is allowed to move across country but he still has to come up with all the child support.
But fathers don't have to pay child support to adoptive parents, so how is this equitable? I agree that a mother who violates a man's rights should pay, but I don't see how this is a viable option. It's creating a special condition for women, and just as we don't like it when there are special conditions for men, that isn't justified.
>I'd at least like to be informed if a child I was involved in creating was to be terminated. At least then I'd be involved in the decision.
Why? If you have no say in the matter, as you seem to be resigned to, why does it matter? I think the father should have veto power over abortions.
Difference of opinion here, I think. I would want to know, even though I'm uncomfortable with the idea of an abortion veto. In our current society, there are so many social, economic, and physical costs to be paid by the mother during a pregnancy, some of which will be long-lasting, I have trouble with a father being able to impose that on her. At the same time, I hate the idea that a woman would have an abortion, even if I wanted the child to be put up for adoption, or even worse, wanted to raise the child myself. To me, it's not an open-and-shut case. I can see both sides. But, regardless, I'd want to know. You don't, that's fine. I can understand that, too.
Sean
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
> But fathers don't have to pay child support to adoptive parents, so how is this equitable? What percentage of fathers pay child support to mothers and what percentage of mothers pay child support to fathers? The main reason women don't name the father before putting their unwanted children up for adoption or have an abortion without telling the father is to avoid giving the unwanted child to the father and having to pay child support. The only way we can fix this is to take that financial incentive away from women to not notify the father in these cases and make women pay child support when the father isn't named. All incentives for women to not name the father must be taken away! I think there's no excuse for allowing women to shirk their responsibility to their child by not naming the father. Forcing women to pay child support whenever the real father is not named is very equitable, in my opinion, based on the situation. > I'd be willing to pay half (of the DNA test cost). I would have been involved in the decision to have sex which put me in the potential father category, but that's just me. How would you feel if you had a "comfortable" amount of money and all the women who you've had sex with preferred you to be their child support donor and they all (not at the same time, of course) named you as the father over the less than comfortable dirtbag real father who was just a fling. Would you feel comfortable paying for every DNA test for every woman you had sex with who gets pregnant and prefers you as her child support donor? Remember, child support is based on the man's income, not actual child support costs. Also, you can easily have all your visitation rights taken away with no abatement to your child support obligation I think the woman should pay for all DNA tests. After all, it was the woman's decision to have many partners within a short period of time. When the woman has an exclusive relationship with only one guy, knows for sure who the father is, and the father denies it, then the father should pay half or even all the cost of the DNA test. But the woman has to get it right on the first test. >If either the father or mother did not give a name, they are making it more difficult for the other to contact them in such a case. If a man doesn't make the effort simply to give a name, you don't think that he has given up a certain amount of rights to be involved in the decision of the dispensation of any possible child? I think he hasn't given up any rights because if the woman wants child support, she can have the government track the guy (s) down and make him pay regardless of whether or not names were exchanged. Are we ready to say that if the mother doesn't know the father's name, she loses her right to child support from him? I get the impression that you are willing for a man to lose rights based on his behavior, but women never lose any of theirs, regardless. Dittohd
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All incentives for women to not name the father must be taken away! I think there's no excuse for allowing women to shirk their responsibility to their child by not naming the father.
No argument there, I simply think creating some special case for paying child support to the adoptive parents is an ad hoc rule. If it is known that she can be liable for fraud or, even worse, liable for the crime of taking away a father's right to either be involved in the child's life or not, that is something that can be equitable, because a father can also be charged with that crime, it's just not as likely.
Now, as far as the punishment, it should be severe, because, for all practical purposes, if a mother aborts or puts the child up for adoption without informing the father, that child is dead to the father. The father will either never get the chance to know the child (a) because the child is dead, or (b) because the child is adopted. That sounds like a pretty serious crime to me, and should be treated accordingly. Jail time, I think, not just money, even though child support is not "just money," but is long-lasting.
Would you feel comfortable paying for every DNA test for every woman you had sex with who gets pregnant and prefers you as her child support donor?
Nice phrasing of the question, but the answer is that yes, I would feel comfortable paying for every DNA test for every woman I had sex with. Somehow I don't think that I will be told if she prefers me as her child support donor, so that part of the question is not relevant.
Do I want to be stuck with child support for a child that I'd rather have put up for adoption? No. Do I think that we need to revise the rights of fathers to give them the chance to waive their rights to the child? Heck, yeah! I firmly believe in men's choice. But those are separate issues, and would need to be dealt with separately.
I get the impression that you are willing for a man to lose rights based on his behavior, but women never lose any of theirs, regardless.
Well, your impression is incorrect, and I honestly don't see where you get that, but perhaps there's just some confusion between the two of us about the wording of my responses.
Are we ready to say that if the mother doesn't know the father's name, she loses her right to child support from him?
That doesn't sound bad to me, at all. If we were to say that a father who doesn't make the effort to give his name would not be able to have rights to the child afterward, it is eminently reasonable for that father not to be liable for child support because the mother didn't make the effort to get the name.
I honestly don't know how easy it is to track someone down without a name. I know it happens, but I just get concerned that the time involved would be so much that decisions as to the dispensation of the child would get limited because of the time involved.
Sean
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In our current society, there are so many social, economic, and physical costs to be paid by the mother during a pregnancy, some of which will be long-lasting, I have trouble with a father being able to impose that on her.
Those "costs" are imposed by pregnancy, not by the father and pregnancy doesn't "just happen" to a woman. A father-veto of abortion would simply make it in a woman's best interest to discover a man's attitude to children and abortion, knowing she will have to honor it, before conceiving a child with him.
So, yes, it would force a woman to consider the consequences of her choice in sex partners. Is that terrible? Is that oppressive?
Larry
Proud member of the Sperm Cartel
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Those "costs" are imposed by pregnancy, not by the father and pregnancy doesn't "just happen" to a woman.
You're spot-on on that, as far as I'm concerned. They are still costs, though. And I'm not simply speaking of the physical costs. Those can be recovered from with a fair amount of ease, and I know many women who have been pregnant and have not been in "agony" or "horrible pain" all the time. It can be uncomfortable and does require some changes, but it is not the horrible thing that some women would try to state.
Besides, if it was so horrible, why do some women put motherhood on such a pedestal?
Anyway, I was also thinking of the lost wages from maternity leave, recovery, lost opportunities for promotion, etc. Also, unfortunately, in our society, unwed mothers are stigmatized, while (in my experience) unwed fathers are not as negatively stigmatized. This can be a consideration. It would be nice if people didn't make negative judgments about someone who is sexually active and unmarried, but some do. And mothers who are pregnant carry an obvious reminder for nine months, while in some ways it may be easier for a man to avoid the direct stigmatization, as he is not obviously pregnant.
A father-veto of abortion would simply make it in a woman's best interest to discover a man's attitude to children and abortion, knowing she will have to honor it, before conceiving a child with him.
A good point. Although it can spoil the spontaneity. Which is not necessarily a bad thing, if it makes people more careful. I'll have to give that some thought.
I wonder if that would lead to the argument that women are more at risk from sexual activity. Men and women are both at risk equally (more or less) from STDs or HIV, but women would have the added risk of having to carry a child to term. And then that could lead to women saying that in order to get equality, men would have to have a similar order of risk, such as child support. Disclaimer: I do not endorse or support this argument. Please do not consider this statement to be such. It is simply what I consider as a possible response from certain quarters.
How would one respond to such a response?
Sean
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Also, unfortunately, in our society, unwed mothers are stigmatized, while (in my experience) unwed fathers are not as negatively stigmatized.
Man! We must live in very different parts of society. In my experience, unwed motherhood has become so commonplace as to be unremarkable. The business where I work has about 60 people. 2 women are currently pregnant and unwed; there is much excitement and cooing and coddling of the expectant mothers. Another woman has just returned from maternity leave and is constantly leaving work because of the baby. Everyone is quite understanding about it and nods when she blames everything on her supposedly no-account boyfriend. I've seen him occasionally. He has that familiar pole-axed look that comes to the faces of men who are unlucky enough to be the guy a woman is screwing at the moment she decides she's ready to be a mommy.
She's supported. He's stigmatized (by her) as irresponsible. How does it work where you come from?
A good point. Although it can spoil the spontaneity. Which is not necessarily a bad thing, if it makes people more careful. I'll have to give that some thought.
I'm glad. That was the main point I was trying to make, given your reservations.
And then that could lead to women saying that in order to get equality, men would have to have a similar order of risk, such as child support.
That's not an argument. It's a negotiating position. The blunt response would be "If you find the risk too great, don't have sex. There is no way for society to legislate away the risks of pregnancy and no reason to make others miserable just because you are."
Larry
Proud member of the Sperm Cartel
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
She's supported. He's stigmatized (by her) as irresponsible. How does it work where you come from?
Among adults, I concede that that the stigmatization is sometimes, if not often, as you suggest. However, in observing younger folk, such as high school or college age, what I've seen is a fair amount of characterization of promiscuous males as being "studs" or "mack daddies", where the fact that they've had sex with multiple women is positively stigmatized. On the other hand, women who have had sex with multiple men are often termed "sluts" or "whores".
In many ways, it's contextual, and depends on the social arrangements. In which case, perhaps it's not something that should be taken into account in determining any kind of legal stance. I've always felt that certain social issues won't be solved by government intervention, anyway. Another point to you, sir.
>And then that could lead to women saying that in order to get equality, men would have to have a similar order of risk, such as child support.
That's not an argument. It's a negotiating position. The blunt response would be "If you find the risk too great, don't have sex. There is no way for society to legislate away the risks of pregnancy and no reason to make others miserable just because you are."
A little too blunt for my tastes. And I do think that although there's no way to legislate away the risks of pregnancy, I think there is every reason to ensure that both mothers and fathers take comparable risks so that each have something to gain by discussing such issues before having intercourse.
Ok, so here's a possibility that I'll just throw out there:
1) Both mother and father have veto over abortion.
2) If either or both veto, then the mother carries the child to term, accepting the physical risks, and the father provides most of the financial backing for the prenatal costs. There would be a recognized standard for prenatal costs, to ensure that neither party can cause the other to either overpay or provide substandard care. That's to protect both parties.
Under this idea, both the mother and the father make concessions, so that if there is a veto, neither party is at a skewed disadvantage. It might not be perfectly equal (depending on your point of view), but at least both parties are having to give something up.
In this way, both a man and a woman have a vested interest in talking to a potential sexual partner about their thoughts on abortion or adoption, if pregnancy results. Both have something to lose, if there is a disagreement, and they can choose either to accept the risks or shake hands and thank each other for a lovely evening.
Sean
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A little too blunt for my tastes.
Then I'll assume the question, "And what purpose would this "equality" serve other than petty vindictiveness?" wouldn't be much use to you either. :-)
Your other points have got me thinking... and thinking and thinking. I'll try to respond if I can separate the wheat from the chaff.
Larry
Proud member of the Sperm Cartel
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm of the following position on this:
I will concede, for pragmatism's sake, that since the female carries the child to term, etc. et al, in her body, she should have the right to get an abortion at any time, if she so chooses, ergo, total control over her body and her life.
That said, nonetheless, abortion is an elective procedure. I think no insurance company should be forced to subsidize it, likewise it should not be funded by public monies.
I would be willing to entertain an exception to this based on rape or incest, provided charges are filed. I think also, should such charges be found to be false, that the full penalty of law, plus triple indemnity, plus restitution should descend.
HOWEVER - with total control comes total responsibility. In short, madam, if you don't wish to be pregnant, control yourself. You want control over your own body? You have it. For good or ill. Two sides to that.
You now, however, have a negotiating position. Since you are solely responsible for the upbringing of that baby, I'd agree you need help. Hey! Here's a idea! I bet if you were to get the father of the baby involved in the child's life, give hium some perks - like, ummmmm - well, have the baby take his last name, give him half-guardianship of the child, the right to enroll him or her in little leagues, activities, etc - He'd probably be willing to foot part of the bill.
Hmm. There's a radical notion.
You know - you could even have him there full time to help you out. Now, I imagine, selfish bastards that we men are, that most of us would have a problem with supporting other men's children, so you'd probably just have to stop having sex with other men - but other than that, he'd throw what he made intop the kitty for rent, food, clothes - watch the kids when you needed time out for yourself, do the heavy work (those brute are sure good for that) and if you just picked up the light work, it would work out.
Maybe we could formalize this, as kind of a contract. Hmmm. What could we call it? Marriage? I heard in the old days there used to be this custom like that......
Of course, you'd always have the option of being a strong, independent, self-sufficient woman, supporting yourself and the kid. By yourself, of course. I mean, if you don't need a man, well, you don't need a man, do you?
Hmmmmm.
How interesting.
Other option is to give the baby up for adoption. Now if you don't know who dad is, that's fine, just sign a waiver, a legal document, asserting this all to be true and accurate.
Of course, if this is false, you've committed perjury and fraud. Since all men are pigs, though, and don't care to hunt down their children, nobody is to know, eh?
Of course, if he does turn up - well, what trouble. Because the kid is going to be taken back and given to the father. The courts will slam you for perjury. The adoptive family will sue you for fraud. You'll probably go to jail and lose custody of whatever other children you have. In a rare instance where the courts don't give custody back to dad - like it's too late, tyhey kids are 17, 18, or things like that - he'll be able to sue you for custodial interference and fraud. And the kids will too., You'll probably never get out of debt, lose your house and everything you've ever worked for.
But, you know, that "XX" xhromosome has this secret "Saint Gene" nobody has ever been able to isolate, but it's there. The rare mutated female who doesn't possess this is few and far between, don't ya know? So this would be a rare occurance, but hey, we need to prevant those bad apples wwho ruin the name of sainted motherhood out of the barrell, I'm sure you'd agree.
What Possibilities!
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'll try to respond if I can separate the wheat from the chaff.
Dang. And here I was trying to be as chaffless as possible. :-)
Sean
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
HOWEVER - with total control comes total responsibility. In short, madam, if you don't wish to be pregnant, control yourself. You want control over your own body? You have it. For good or ill. Two sides to that.
I can see the wisdom in that, assuredly. If we are going to say that a father does not have the right to veto an abortion, then he should not be held accountable, if she decides to carry the baby to term. I agree that either both have veto-right and responsibilities for carrying to term, or only the mother has veto-right and the responsibility for the costs incurred if she elects to carry the child to term. At least, that is what I'm assuming you're saying. It sounds like you support the latter position. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Other option is to give the baby up for adoption. Now if you don't know who dad is, that's fine, just sign a waiver, a legal document, asserting this all to be true and accurate.
Of course, if this is false, you've committed perjury and fraud.
Again, no argument there at all. And I must say that you've eloquently spelled out the possible penalties to a mother who commits this type of fraud.
Just for the record, I think you and I differ on the rights of the adoptive parents, but based on what I understand from your experience, I can definitely respect your position. As someone who is looking into being an adoptive parent, I can also imagine what it would be like to bond with a child and then have it taken back. A horrible situation for everyone, and one which a mother should be held accountable for, if she wilfully lies on a legal statement, keeping the father from having a relationship with his child.
Here's to the possibilities!
Sean
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just for the record, I think you and I differ on the rights of the adoptive parents
I don't have disregard for the position of adoptive parents, it's just that if the rights of several people butt heads, the presumptive right of a biological parent and child came first. As such, anything must move from that point of presumption.
I think where a lot of the pheminuts really have problems is that if the presumption of right is given to a father, then the burden of "the bad guy" will have to fall on a woman's shoulders.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
She's already trying to give up her parental rights by putting the child up for adoption. So threatening her with that doesn't make sense.
She could always just say she doesn't know who the father is, or was drugged or too drunk to remember.
I don't know how this law could be enforced. If it becomes illegal to give birth to a child without knowing the father's name, then women will just abort.
I'm not sure how many times you'd run into women that intrasigent on the issue of who the father is. The other thing is the woman may be being paid off by the father NOT to divulge his name. This was basically the case in the Jesse Jackson situation (although this baby wasn't up for adoption). Or the father may be the mother's brother or her father, and she may fear this will hurt the child's chances for adoption (many people may fear the child is genetically defective).
I know a couple who have an adopted child. The child's mother (16 at the time) would not give the father's name. Eighteen years later when the bio-mom was contacted to find out the father's name (for minority scholarship reasons), she still would not give his name. She is obviously hiding something very very unpleasant. Why would she continue to conceal the name 18 years later? The suspicion is the child's father was a close family member.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday March 14, @02:41PM EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
There are a lot of laws on the books that are regarded as unenforceable. They're there for liability's sake and the sake what what's to be done afterwards. Suppose the woman refuses to name the father and then after birth, he discovers his offspring and comes forward. There could at least be a legitimate civil penalty.
Frank H
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes I agree. If a man believes the child is his he could request a DNA test. If he is the father I think he should have the option of sueing for civil penalites.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If a man believes the child is his he could request a DNA test. If he is the father I think he should have the option of sueing for civil penalites.
Right. Which is all I think such legislation would be able to do. If a mother decides to say that she doesn't know who the father is, she may do so. However, then the father would at least have the legal standing to get compensation. Whether or not the mother wilfully kept the name secret or simply didn't know, would be up to the courts to decide.
But, she would have to sign an affidavit stating that she didn't know, which could be prosecuted as fraud, if it is found out to be inaccurate. I'm no lawyer, so I don't know if that's accurate, I'm just thinking out loud.
Sean
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When I hear an appeal "for the sake of the children" I begin to get red flags and warning klaxons going off.
You'd be really amazed just how resiliant children are. Give them love, give them attention, provide structure and discipline - the amount of "Bad Kids" I've ever seen that came from this kind of environment I could count on one hand - and still have fingers left over to smoke a cigarette with.
It's not a real reason. It's an excuse. And in this case, it's an excuse to try to shame men with, to wit; "Oh, you wouldn't want to be a father to your children, and bring a disruption into their lives, would you? How Cruel!" This shaming is in order to further dehumanize men, to further try to establish what is almost judicial fact, that men, my sheer virtue of their gender, are second-best as parents.
Our resident pheminut is very big on talking the talk about how fathers shouldn't be allowed to opt out of parenthood. That children did not censent to have only one parent. But in case after instance after example she always seems to find a reason why men should just stand back and not be parents. Except of course, when it comes to forking out money. All responsibility. No Rights.
Fathers have a right to be parents to their children. And children have a right to their father. And those rights are, and ought to be, presumptive. There should have to be proven, with an overwhelming preponderance of evidence, that both the father is unfit and the children would be better off elsewhere before that is violated.
I would have sympathy for a set of adoptive parents who lost a child. I'd feel sorry for a child of adoption who had to redo their life. But all that pain should be placed squarely and solely where it belongs, on the shoulders of the woman who knowingly gave a child up for adoption and blew off those two rights - violated those two rights above.
She caused the pain. She is liable, responsible, and answerable. And excusing it because it would drive an obvious dreg of humanity to be even lower if we didn't allow it is shocking and outrageous in the extreme.
Before anything is moved past this, those two rights, stated above, need to be burned into the forefront of people's brains so they are aware that if they don't stop it from happening, or put some safeguards in, they are allowing two henious and inexcusable wrongs to be committed.
I don't buy the "It's for the sake of the children" bunk. It's not. And every time I hear that statement uttered, I am reminded of the the Dead Zone, of the final scene where the antagonist uses a child for a shield. That's just what that excuse is used for, to shield someone of moral responsibility for commiting a great - no make that two great, evils.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think anyone here is wishing to use a child as a shield. I think the discussion is primarily to look at all sides of the situation so that we can come up ideas that can be of benefit to *all* parties: father, child, and mother. Just because a person brings up the possibility that there may be dangers to the child does not automatically mean that that person is proposing that we put the father's interest beneath all others.
I understand the strong emotions that this subject brings up, but I think it would be helpful if we didn't make assumptions as to a person's reason for bringing up potential pitfalls. If we can see all the different sides of the issue, even those we don't agree with, we might learn from the experience and be better able to be advocates for the rights of parents and children.
She caused the pain. She is liable, responsible, and answerable.
Absolutely! If a mother willingly stands in the way of a father's rights and a child's rights, then she should be liable. Which is precisely what I believe we've all been saying, even though we approach it from different angles.
Sean
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"If a mother willingly stands in the way of a father's rights and a child's rights, then she should be liable. Which is precisely what I believe we've all been saying, even though we approach it from different angles."
Here, here. We're just exploring different ways that the law might bring this about.
But I DO like the response to "for the good of the child"
"There they go again, trying to use the child as a sheild" (trying to sound just a liiiiittle bit like Ronald Reagan)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But I DO like the response to "for the good of the child"
I agree that this sentiment is often used to leave fathers out or leave them out and make them pay child support. However, I do think that we should remember that all the decisions in a case affect three people, the father, the mother, and the child. While we should do everything to ensure that the child not be used as a "shield" or a "sword", I think we should be sure that we remember that they are people, too, and just as deserving of consideration.
Sean
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
> She's already trying to give up her parental rights by putting the child up for adoption. So threatening her with that doesn't make sense. She would lose her right to change her mind about the adoption within a certain time frame. She would also lose her right to choose who the adoptive parents will or won't be. >If it becomes illegal to give birth to a child without knowing the father's name, then women will just abort. I think abortion should be illegal without both parents' OK. >She could always just say she doesn't know who the father is, or was drugged or too drunk to remember. If she doesn't name the father, she can't be relinquished of her financial responsibility for the child. No excuses. She has to pay child support, even to adoptive parents, when the real father is not named and he hasn't been given the right to say whether or not he wants custody of the child. We must take away the financial incentive for women not to name the father before abortion or adoption. Do you think women should be held to any level of responsibility that they don't first agree to? Only men should be forced to live up to the responsibilities of their actions? Dittohd
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's simply not practicle because a woman intent on not telling the truth could maintain she just doesn't know.
Is someone trying to hold a woman accountable for something? Hell, we can't do that!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If a woman refuses to name the father of the child she should be prosecuted. By not naming the father of the child she is depriving that father, and the child of their biological, as well as familial rights. The father should have the option of raising the child, agreeing to the adoption, or agreeing to an abortion. Women should not have the right to deprive men of what is rightfully theirs, specifically with the system making men into nothing more than wage slaves for a decaying situation. If women were to be held as accountable as men in the system we would not have as many "unwanted" pregnancies. Forget the cries of "but", and the "poor girl", if more women were expected to get jobs and fend for themselves when they tried to trap a man with the aid of the system the practice would stop, because there would be no profit in it. Fifty percent custody with both parents living in the same school district, no child support, both parents expected to be active members of society, and responsible parents. Special circumstances would require special needs, otherwise I am sure that the deception would surely stop!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If a woman refuses to name the father of the child she should be prosecuted. By not naming the father of the child she is depriving that father, and the child of their biological, as well as familial rights.
True, but the woman can deprive them of even more if she aborts the child. I don't see a way to enforce or "prosecute" women that would not lead more women to abort. If she aborts the father may not know anyway. If she doesn't abort the father has a greater chance of learning about the child's existence, simply by observing that the woman is pregnant. Also, many other people would know she is pregnant as well. It would be hard to keep a pregnancy secret the last 4 months or so, unless one left town or went into hiding. How many women do that?
Many women who are putting their children up for adoption are in that position in the first place because they have moral objection or concern about abortion.
I just wonder about how many women this proposed law is going to cover? How many women won't name the father, AND the father is concerned enough to want to know if he's a father, but he's unaware of the pregnancy and birth? He'd have to be pretty unconnected to the woman, her friends and family, the locale in general. If so, is he going to be reading the notices in a local paper? The whole thing seems pretty unusual to me. I'd really like to know how many people are in this situation where she won't say and he didn't know she was pregnant.
A LOT more prospective fathers are in the dark about a child of theirs being aborted, but you don't hear a lot of complalint about that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If a woman refuses to name the father of the child she should be prosecuted. By not naming the father of the child she is depriving that father, and the child of their biological, as well as familial rights.
True, but the woman can deprive them of even more if she aborts the child. I don't see a way to enforce or "prosecute" women that would not lead more women to abort.
Translation: Oh my God. That would be, like, effective. Oh my God. Women would be, like, accountable. Oh my God. We can't have that. Let's trot out our professed boogeyman to head this off at the pass.
If she aborts the father may not know anyway.
Let's claim the law wouldn't do anything anyway. Let's ignore the fact too that if it didn't do anything, having it on the books wouldn't be a problem, like ordinaces against eating pickles on stagecoaches.
If she doesn't abort the father has a greater chance of learning about the child's existence, simply by observing that the woman is pregnant. Also, many other people would know she is pregnant as well. It would be hard to keep a pregnancy secret the last 4 months or so, unless one left town or went into hiding. How many women do that?
Let's use statistical morality, and say the father is going to know anyway.
Many women who are putting their children up for adoption are in that position in the first place because they have moral objection or concern about abortion.
And of course, these women of high moral character aren't moral enough to offer Dad a chance to be a Dad?
I just wonder about how many women this proposed law is going to cover?
Translation: Jeez, there is going to be a lot of women who won't be able to skip by without some accountability. Gasp! It might even be me!
How many women won't name the father, AND the father is concerned enough to want to know if he's a father, but he's unaware of the pregnancy and birth?
Well, I'd say if it worked out for ONE it would be a good thing. A child with a biological p[arent who loves and wants them. How horrid - because that parent would be male, eh?
He'd have to be pretty unconnected to the woman, her friends and family, the locale in general.
And? The casual sex, one-night stand hook-up culture that permeates modern life is, after all, what your phemista friends have been pushing for. Or is it good for women to participate in, and bad for men?
If so, is he going to be reading the notices in a local paper? The whole thing seems pretty unusual to me. I'd really like to know how many people are in this situation where she won't say and he didn't know she was pregnant.
Well, I can point you to one. Girl called him one day, said it was over, and she could never see him again. Her mother refused to give out a new address, forward messages, anything. Five years later he found he had a daughter ... somewhere. She'd be in her late twenties now.
Wonder what she looks like, Wonder if there's grandchildren, wonder if she thinks I didn't want her, and hates me for it.
So you'll just pardon the fuck out of me, I'm sure, when I say that your "right" to put up for adoption - is just plain non-existant.
A LOT more prospective fathers are in the dark about a child of theirs being aborted, but you don't hear a lot of complalint about that.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
like ordinaces against eating pickles on stagecoaches.
Sometimes you scare me, Gonzo. Where do you come up with this stuff?
:)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
like ordinaces against eating pickles on stagecoaches.
Sometimes you scare me, Gonzo. Where do you come up with this stuff?
Honestly, I have no damn clue. Gonzo's Vast Warehouse of Amazing and Utterly Useless Trivia. I think that particular one is from Nebraska.
The point I'm trying to make here is the begged question; If, as has been postulated, a law would be ineffective, unenforcable, and inapplicable in the vast majority of cases - if it would by and large sit in a book on a shelf somewhere, gathering dust, like ordinances against eating pickles on stagecoaches, Why, then, in the name of all reason, is such polemic, such invective, such effort expended in opposing it?
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.................
You know, if the city council where I live suddenly made an ordinance that you could no longer have your pet dragon in a public park, couldn't empty your colostomy bag into a mailbox, or mandated that all internal organs be concealed by a layer of clothing if you were sporting them outside your skin ... I really can't say I'd set my alarm clock early or take off from work to go oppose them.
Yet these laws - which Lorrianne claims will be about as relevant or meaningful - are opposed with great vehemence. Now, to me, not only does that make me ask why, it inspires me further that their enaction is necessary and critical.
YMMV.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
True, but the woman can deprive them of even more if she aborts the child. I don't see a way to enforce or "prosecute" women that would not lead more women to abort.
Which is one of the reasons I tend to lean in the direction of mothers being required to inform the possible fathers of the pregnancy within a short time after learning of the pregnancy, before deciding to abort. At that point, the father and mother can both come to a decision. It might occur that there is no solution that will work for both, but at least legally, he'll be informed.
I know that some would say that's a violation of her rights to her own body, but I think since she will probably still be given priority if abortion is her choice (and I go back and forth on how I feel about that), I don't see it as a great hardship for fathers to be given the chance to be in on the decision, and at least know that they are a father.
The whole thing seems pretty unusual to me. I'd really like to know how many people are in this situation where she won't say and he didn't know she was pregnant.
I don't know, myself, but even if it's unusual, it still shouldn't be allowed to happen, legally. It's probably unusual for someone to be killed with a carpet tack and a strip of duct tape, but it should still be illegal. (:
Sean
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Notification to the father before abortion makes sense as well. In fact its the only way that the notification before adoption could work. Otherwise, many more women will abort and avoid the whole issue. Which means that many more fathers who would have liked the chance to raise their own child wouldn't have the chance.
My point was that fathers have a greater chance by not passing a law which will prompt more abortion. If the kids is eliminated they have no chance whatsoever. At least if the kid is born, they have a chance. If the notification to fathers law is predicated on concern over the father's right to parent his own child, tipping the balance towards more abortion seems counterproductive to the stated goal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't believe that abortion is the main question here. I believe that the main question is responsibility of both the female, and the male. If women were prosecuted for not disclosing the suggested father, or proposed fathers of the child, and no public assistance was given, don't you think that more women would think before they invited a man to have sex with them? You can't have it both ways, if men are to be persecuted for their biological drives, then women should be too. You ask questions from the arena of one who has never been told that your night of fun has rendered you a wage slave for the next 18 years, and oh, by the way, I don't want you in my life. Only because the system allows me to be in control, and you my friend are not only not needed, but are not wanted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If the notification to fathers law is predicated on concern over the father's right to parent his own child, tipping the balance towards more abortion seems counterproductive to the stated goal.
You'll get no argument from me on that. Do you think if law required notification of the father before abortion, this would counteract the possibility of more abortions?
One of the issues that Dittohd and I have been discussing on another thread is in relation to the time issue. There is only a certain window of time within which a mother can abort the child. BTW, I would like to just state for the record that I do not like abortions, and I would rather not have them, at all. At the same time, I'm still pro-choice. Just so we know where I stand. That being said, after a certain time, abortions are either more risky or illegal. It seems to me that we'd need to have some limit on how long a search for the father could go. Otherwise, time would make the decision for her.
Sean
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When you say pro-choice, are we talking about the feminist definition or the "equality for all" definition? I'm pro-choice too, if we are giving the man just as much choice as the woman, at each and every stage of the game.
Equality for all is my personal preference.
Sean
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
