|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On April 02 2015 07:09 Sbrubbles wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 06:48 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 06:46 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 02 2015 06:44 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 06:41 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 02 2015 06:37 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 06:34 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 02 2015 06:32 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 06:28 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 02 2015 06:19 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
The burden of child support has to do with the fathers responsibility to the child. Its not the child's fault that it was born and the father did not intent that to happen. There are many things we are responsible for as people that we cannot help and this is one of them. A woman can make the decision of aborting the pregnancy before birth, but that has its only set of responsibilities. Some women pay for that longer than 18 years. You're also ignoring the scenarios where the father wants the child but the mother doesn't, or the aforementioned cases where both want the child, but custody and control is overwhelming placed in the mother's hands. And probably several others that I can't even think of. I don't think it's controversial to say that in the case of unplanned parenthood, the father has almost no say in the matter. And to some degree, the mother should have more rights. But definitely not to the point where the father's only option is to preemptively avoid sex in the first place. There is no other solution if you don't want the responsibility of a child, beyond birth control. If that is still to unsafe for that person, then they have to refrain from having sex. If the man wants to avoid the issue, there are surgeries that can prevent them from ever having a child. But beyond that, there is no solution because the child has rights in relation to the parents. The child cant be stripped of those rights just because the father doesn't want to be responsible. And again, you're speaking purely about avoiding responsibility, and ignoring entirely the scenarios where the man wants the responsibility, but still has zero say. The father can't force the women to carry a child to term. And we have already addressed that bias in family courts is an issue, but not one that can be solved by removing the responsibility of child support. On April 02 2015 06:37 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:On April 02 2015 06:34 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 02 2015 06:32 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 06:28 WolfintheSheep wrote:
[quote]
You're also ignoring the scenarios where the father wants the child but the mother doesn't, or the aforementioned cases where both want the child, but custody and control is overwhelming placed in the mother's hands. And probably several others that I can't even think of.
I don't think it's controversial to say that in the case of unplanned parenthood, the father has almost no say in the matter. And to some degree, the mother should have more rights. But definitely not to the point where the father's only option is to preemptively avoid sex in the first place. There is no other solution if you don't want the responsibility of a child, beyond birth control. If that is still to unsafe for that person, then they have to refrain from having sex. If the man wants to avoid the issue, there are surgeries that can prevent them from ever having a child. But beyond that, there is no solution because the child has rights in relation to the parents. The child cant be stripped of those rights just because the father doesn't want to be responsible. And again, you're speaking purely about avoiding responsibility, and ignoring entirely the scenarios where the man wants the responsibility, but still has zero say. he has zero say until the child is born since the mother is the one who's bodies supporting the child. once it's born he should have roughly equal say (excluding other circumstances like being an absentee father etc, etc etc,) Or cases where the court is bias, but everyone agrees those should be addressed. Well, certainly not forcing the mother to take the child to term. But the option of the father raising the child and the mother paying child support is never even mentioned (though, that's far more a societal issue than a legal one). Once again, no one is arguing for bias in the court systems in favor of women. And I know of cases where the mother has been required to pay and she does not have majority custody. Its an issue that can be addressed without throwing the whole system out. Never said anything about throwing the system out. Just arguing against any statements that begin and end with "don't have sex". I think you should go back and read the context of those argument. They were in response to people saying "I want to be able to just sign a contract and give up all responsibility for the child." after they stated that birth control didn't work 100% of the time, so it wasn't a solution either. You could have just said: "no that's a stupid idea". I think I wasn't the only one confused by your turn to abstinence as the solution.
IT was the second time I had stated the same argument. The first time I informed the poster that he was the master of his penis and controlled where it went. That phrasing seemed to cause less confusion.
|
On April 02 2015 07:10 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 06:48 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 06:46 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 02 2015 06:44 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 06:41 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 02 2015 06:37 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 06:34 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 02 2015 06:32 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 06:28 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 02 2015 06:19 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
The burden of child support has to do with the fathers responsibility to the child. Its not the child's fault that it was born and the father did not intent that to happen. There are many things we are responsible for as people that we cannot help and this is one of them. A woman can make the decision of aborting the pregnancy before birth, but that has its only set of responsibilities. Some women pay for that longer than 18 years. You're also ignoring the scenarios where the father wants the child but the mother doesn't, or the aforementioned cases where both want the child, but custody and control is overwhelming placed in the mother's hands. And probably several others that I can't even think of. I don't think it's controversial to say that in the case of unplanned parenthood, the father has almost no say in the matter. And to some degree, the mother should have more rights. But definitely not to the point where the father's only option is to preemptively avoid sex in the first place. There is no other solution if you don't want the responsibility of a child, beyond birth control. If that is still to unsafe for that person, then they have to refrain from having sex. If the man wants to avoid the issue, there are surgeries that can prevent them from ever having a child. But beyond that, there is no solution because the child has rights in relation to the parents. The child cant be stripped of those rights just because the father doesn't want to be responsible. And again, you're speaking purely about avoiding responsibility, and ignoring entirely the scenarios where the man wants the responsibility, but still has zero say. The father can't force the women to carry a child to term. And we have already addressed that bias in family courts is an issue, but not one that can be solved by removing the responsibility of child support. On April 02 2015 06:37 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:On April 02 2015 06:34 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 02 2015 06:32 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 06:28 WolfintheSheep wrote:
[quote]
You're also ignoring the scenarios where the father wants the child but the mother doesn't, or the aforementioned cases where both want the child, but custody and control is overwhelming placed in the mother's hands. And probably several others that I can't even think of.
I don't think it's controversial to say that in the case of unplanned parenthood, the father has almost no say in the matter. And to some degree, the mother should have more rights. But definitely not to the point where the father's only option is to preemptively avoid sex in the first place. There is no other solution if you don't want the responsibility of a child, beyond birth control. If that is still to unsafe for that person, then they have to refrain from having sex. If the man wants to avoid the issue, there are surgeries that can prevent them from ever having a child. But beyond that, there is no solution because the child has rights in relation to the parents. The child cant be stripped of those rights just because the father doesn't want to be responsible. And again, you're speaking purely about avoiding responsibility, and ignoring entirely the scenarios where the man wants the responsibility, but still has zero say. he has zero say until the child is born since the mother is the one who's bodies supporting the child. once it's born he should have roughly equal say (excluding other circumstances like being an absentee father etc, etc etc,) Or cases where the court is bias, but everyone agrees those should be addressed. Well, certainly not forcing the mother to take the child to term. But the option of the father raising the child and the mother paying child support is never even mentioned (though, that's far more a societal issue than a legal one). Once again, no one is arguing for bias in the court systems in favor of women. And I know of cases where the mother has been required to pay and she does not have majority custody. Its an issue that can be addressed without throwing the whole system out. Never said anything about throwing the system out. Just arguing against any statements that begin and end with "don't have sex". I think you should go back and read the context of those argument. They were in response to people saying "I want to be able to just sign a contract and give up all responsibility for the child." after they stated that birth control didn't work 100% of the time, so it wasn't a solution either. Just mentioning again that women can take a 1 year old baby (in ND) to the hospital and just drop it off and never look back. So it's pretty one sided to say that it's absurd to have men be able to avoid responsibility for a born child.
But she cannot do that if the father has custody rights. If she abandons the child, the father has the right to claim custody and he could seek child support from her.
|
On April 02 2015 07:13 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 07:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 02 2015 06:48 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 06:46 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 02 2015 06:44 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 06:41 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 02 2015 06:37 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 06:34 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 02 2015 06:32 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 06:28 WolfintheSheep wrote:
[quote]
You're also ignoring the scenarios where the father wants the child but the mother doesn't, or the aforementioned cases where both want the child, but custody and control is overwhelming placed in the mother's hands. And probably several others that I can't even think of.
I don't think it's controversial to say that in the case of unplanned parenthood, the father has almost no say in the matter. And to some degree, the mother should have more rights. But definitely not to the point where the father's only option is to preemptively avoid sex in the first place. There is no other solution if you don't want the responsibility of a child, beyond birth control. If that is still to unsafe for that person, then they have to refrain from having sex. If the man wants to avoid the issue, there are surgeries that can prevent them from ever having a child. But beyond that, there is no solution because the child has rights in relation to the parents. The child cant be stripped of those rights just because the father doesn't want to be responsible. And again, you're speaking purely about avoiding responsibility, and ignoring entirely the scenarios where the man wants the responsibility, but still has zero say. The father can't force the women to carry a child to term. And we have already addressed that bias in family courts is an issue, but not one that can be solved by removing the responsibility of child support. On April 02 2015 06:37 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:On April 02 2015 06:34 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 02 2015 06:32 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
There is no other solution if you don't want the responsibility of a child, beyond birth control. If that is still to unsafe for that person, then they have to refrain from having sex. If the man wants to avoid the issue, there are surgeries that can prevent them from ever having a child.
But beyond that, there is no solution because the child has rights in relation to the parents. The child cant be stripped of those rights just because the father doesn't want to be responsible. And again, you're speaking purely about avoiding responsibility, and ignoring entirely the scenarios where the man wants the responsibility, but still has zero say. he has zero say until the child is born since the mother is the one who's bodies supporting the child. once it's born he should have roughly equal say (excluding other circumstances like being an absentee father etc, etc etc,) Or cases where the court is bias, but everyone agrees those should be addressed. Well, certainly not forcing the mother to take the child to term. But the option of the father raising the child and the mother paying child support is never even mentioned (though, that's far more a societal issue than a legal one). Once again, no one is arguing for bias in the court systems in favor of women. And I know of cases where the mother has been required to pay and she does not have majority custody. Its an issue that can be addressed without throwing the whole system out. Never said anything about throwing the system out. Just arguing against any statements that begin and end with "don't have sex". I think you should go back and read the context of those argument. They were in response to people saying "I want to be able to just sign a contract and give up all responsibility for the child." after they stated that birth control didn't work 100% of the time, so it wasn't a solution either. Just mentioning again that women can take a 1 year old baby (in ND) to the hospital and just drop it off and never look back. So it's pretty one sided to say that it's absurd to have men be able to avoid responsibility for a born child. But she cannot do that if the father has custody rights. If she abandons the child, the father has the right to claim custody and he could seek child support from her.
Most of the laws (last time I checked) don't say anything about the man even needing to be informed. She could do it anonymously before he even has a chance at custody too. She could also do it when he was deployed or something too and he might not know for months, after the kid is long gone. The point is that women can avoid any responsibility if they want/choose to after birth even. She has a 1 day-1 year window for babies remorse where she can just say "You know what, I decided I'm not raising this kid for xyz reasons or no reason at all". Men only get that choice pre-sex where women get that choice at every stage. A little more parity wouldn't be an inherently bad thing.
I'd be more than understanding if it was tied to addressing a lack of parity for women in a reasonably related area though.
|
The thing I've never really understood about the abortion/childcare/whatever debate is why adoption isn't used more. I mean you have queues out the door on most adoption lists and a pretty significant financial burden in assisted reproduction etc, and yet we're deleting all these possible babies.
It's always seemed kind of straightforward to me.
One group is having babies it doesn't want, and desperately wants to get rid of them
Another group desperately wants babies and can't have them
Why do we not connect these two? Maybe it's better in the US, but over here adoption is a nightmare and I've never understood why.
|
|
|
On April 02 2015 07:32 Belisarius wrote:
The thing I've never really understood about the abortion/childcare/whatever debate is why adoption isn't used more. I mean you have queues out the door on most adoption lists and a pretty significant financial burden in assisted reproduction etc, and yet we're deleting all these possible babies.
It's always seemed kind of straightforward to me.
One group is having babies it doesn't want, and desperately wants to get rid of them
Another group desperately wants babies and can't have them
Why do we not connect these two? Maybe it's better in the US, but over here adoption is a nightmare and I've never understood why.
certainly there's not enough effort put into adoption.
There is a racial component; some babies are easier to find parents for than others. It's much harder to place black children for instance. There are also a number of other factors that heavily affect ease of finding parents.
|
On April 02 2015 05:02 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 04:51 Jormundr wrote:On April 02 2015 04:48 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 02 2015 04:28 Jormundr wrote:On April 02 2015 04:24 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 02 2015 04:22 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 04:19 ZasZ. wrote:On April 02 2015 04:17 Jormundr wrote:On April 02 2015 04:12 ZasZ. wrote:On April 02 2015 04:02 Jormundr wrote:[quote] How does that smell like bullshit? Are you saying that women are literally financially retarded? Because if they aren't then that statement is only logical. Am I saying that most women have children to receive child support? No. Am I saying that knowing they will get it if they need it factors heavily into their decision making? Yes. Towards the last bitIf 90% of the people with equal custody pay their child support on time and 68% of people who pay child support don't pay it on time..... Jormundr, your posts are dripping with a personal bias that (at least to me) indicates you have some sort of traumatic experience surrounding custody and/or child support. Saying things like women are far more likely to go through with a pregnancy because child support without any factual evidence for that is crazy. Newsflash: child support payments are not enough to actually raise a child. A parent using child support as the sole means of raising a child or somehow making a profit and using child support payments for their personal needs and wants is likely committing child abuse and should be investigated as such. Acting like child support is somehow a free pass for raising a child on someone else's dime is demonstrating a disconnect from reality. If you want to reform the system in terms of who gets custody and how much child support payments should be, I am all for that. Similarly, if you want to put a system in place that allows the man to disavow the child while the woman can still get an abortion so that he does not have to pay child support, I am all for that as well. Newsflash: No. You're the crazy one if you believe what you're saying. Are people more or less likely to go to college if they get a scholarship? More? Then why would it be different for child support? Child support is an incentive to have children. It may not be the sole reason, but it is A REASON, and A BIG ONE, as money usually is. So what is your alternative, since you refuse to comment on mine? Should child support just not be a thing? Fathers everywhere get a free pass to abandon their families at the drop of a hat and go do their own thing, yippee! He has no solution, only a chip on his shoulder and some stats that he claims are real, but lack citation. he has a solution, which he clearly stated before. the father has to agree to pay child support via contract. its stupid as hell, but thats his solution. edit: On April 02 2015 03:01 Jormundr wrote:
The only reason a man should have to pay child support is if there was a prior contract stating that he would do so. Putting your dick in someone shouldn't necessitate that you own her vagina or she owns your wallet. It's stupid as hell to discuss who should pay for children in a committed relationship? Or is it dumber to be like you and assume that you're expected to pay for sex in a country where prostitution is illegal? its stupid as hell to let a child's welfare depend on the whims of the father. fathers who are responsible dont need a contract; fathers who are not wont sign a contract. also, there is such a thing as a social contract (i.e., the law). not sure why that is not sufficient in lieu of a private contract. So why have a baby with an irresponsible father? Answer: a woman should always be free to NOT do that. And she should also be free to do that. She just shouldn't be free to expect that some random guy who she fucks is going to pay for HER child. Their child... I don't like the fact that fathers have such a horrible chance to get custody either but throwing a tantrum doesn't make it any better and it should be considered separately
I know this is a late reply, but I've been AFK for awhile.
It only seems to be their child when it's convenient for the woman. Whenever the man wants anything, it doesn't matter, it's all up to the woman.
If a man wants to keep the child, but the woman doesn't, it gets aborted. If a man doesn't want to keep the child, but the woman does, it lives and the man pays child support for 18 years. This is in no way fair.
|
On April 02 2015 07:32 Belisarius wrote:
The thing I've never really understood about the abortion/childcare/whatever debate is why adoption isn't used more. I mean you have queues out the door on most adoption lists and a pretty significant financial burden in assisted reproduction etc, and yet we're deleting all these possible babies.
It's always seemed kind of straightforward to me.
One group is having babies it doesn't want, and desperately wants to get rid of them
Another group desperately wants babies and can't have them
Why do we not connect these two? Maybe it's better in the US, but over here adoption is a nightmare and I've never understood why.
friend just went through this. its expensive (not sure why) and a nightmare to adopt in the U.S. she wanted a chinese girl, which likely impacted it.
edit: interesting article that covers costs among others. i think my friend's adoption was going to cost around $15,000.
https://www.adoptivefamilies.com/talking-about-adoption/domestic-adoption-myths-and-truths/
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
Probably because you don't want to give kids to just whoever.
They're not commodities.
|
I dont know, we apparently give kids to politicians who give them away because they're possessed by demons to sexual predators.
|
On April 02 2015 07:28 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 07:13 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 07:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 02 2015 06:48 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 06:46 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 02 2015 06:44 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 06:41 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 02 2015 06:37 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 06:34 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 02 2015 06:32 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
There is no other solution if you don't want the responsibility of a child, beyond birth control. If that is still to unsafe for that person, then they have to refrain from having sex. If the man wants to avoid the issue, there are surgeries that can prevent them from ever having a child.
But beyond that, there is no solution because the child has rights in relation to the parents. The child cant be stripped of those rights just because the father doesn't want to be responsible. And again, you're speaking purely about avoiding responsibility, and ignoring entirely the scenarios where the man wants the responsibility, but still has zero say. The father can't force the women to carry a child to term. And we have already addressed that bias in family courts is an issue, but not one that can be solved by removing the responsibility of child support. On April 02 2015 06:37 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:On April 02 2015 06:34 WolfintheSheep wrote:
[quote]
And again, you're speaking purely about avoiding responsibility, and ignoring entirely the scenarios where the man wants the responsibility, but still has zero say. he has zero say until the child is born since the mother is the one who's bodies supporting the child. once it's born he should have roughly equal say (excluding other circumstances like being an absentee father etc, etc etc,) Or cases where the court is bias, but everyone agrees those should be addressed. Well, certainly not forcing the mother to take the child to term. But the option of the father raising the child and the mother paying child support is never even mentioned (though, that's far more a societal issue than a legal one). Once again, no one is arguing for bias in the court systems in favor of women. And I know of cases where the mother has been required to pay and she does not have majority custody. Its an issue that can be addressed without throwing the whole system out. Never said anything about throwing the system out. Just arguing against any statements that begin and end with "don't have sex". I think you should go back and read the context of those argument. They were in response to people saying "I want to be able to just sign a contract and give up all responsibility for the child." after they stated that birth control didn't work 100% of the time, so it wasn't a solution either. Just mentioning again that women can take a 1 year old baby (in ND) to the hospital and just drop it off and never look back. So it's pretty one sided to say that it's absurd to have men be able to avoid responsibility for a born child. But she cannot do that if the father has custody rights. If she abandons the child, the father has the right to claim custody and he could seek child support from her. Most of the laws (last time I checked) don't say anything about the man even needing to be informed. She could do it anonymously before he even has a chance at custody too. She could also do it when he was deployed or something too and he might not know for months, after the kid is long gone. The point is that women can avoid any responsibility if they want/choose to after birth even. She has a 1 day-1 year window for babies remorse where she can just say "You know what, I decided I'm not raising this kid for xyz reasons or no reason at all". Men only get that choice pre-sex where women get that choice at every stage. A little more parity wouldn't be an inherently bad thing. I'd be more than understanding if it was tied to addressing a lack of parity for women in a reasonably related area though.
Most of the states have a law where the "Safe Haven" must make reasonable efforts too find the father. All of them have rules for reclaiming custody and the laws in question only protect the abandoning party from child negligence charges. None of them would bar a father from seeking child support from the mother if he regained custody. The law also wouldn't protect her from any legal action the father took if she abandoned the child against his express wishes. The law's sole purpose it to assure the abandoned child is left in a place where people will care for it. It provides almost no legal protection for the abandoning party beyond the act of abandoning the baby.
|
On April 02 2015 08:50 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 07:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 02 2015 07:13 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 07:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 02 2015 06:48 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 06:46 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 02 2015 06:44 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 06:41 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 02 2015 06:37 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 06:34 WolfintheSheep wrote:
[quote]
And again, you're speaking purely about avoiding responsibility, and ignoring entirely the scenarios where the man wants the responsibility, but still has zero say. The father can't force the women to carry a child to term. And we have already addressed that bias in family courts is an issue, but not one that can be solved by removing the responsibility of child support. On April 02 2015 06:37 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:
[quote]
he has zero say until the child is born since the mother is the one who's bodies supporting the child. once it's born he should have roughly equal say (excluding other circumstances like being an absentee father etc, etc etc,) Or cases where the court is bias, but everyone agrees those should be addressed. Well, certainly not forcing the mother to take the child to term. But the option of the father raising the child and the mother paying child support is never even mentioned (though, that's far more a societal issue than a legal one). Once again, no one is arguing for bias in the court systems in favor of women. And I know of cases where the mother has been required to pay and she does not have majority custody. Its an issue that can be addressed without throwing the whole system out. Never said anything about throwing the system out. Just arguing against any statements that begin and end with "don't have sex". I think you should go back and read the context of those argument. They were in response to people saying "I want to be able to just sign a contract and give up all responsibility for the child." after they stated that birth control didn't work 100% of the time, so it wasn't a solution either. Just mentioning again that women can take a 1 year old baby (in ND) to the hospital and just drop it off and never look back. So it's pretty one sided to say that it's absurd to have men be able to avoid responsibility for a born child. But she cannot do that if the father has custody rights. If she abandons the child, the father has the right to claim custody and he could seek child support from her. Most of the laws (last time I checked) don't say anything about the man even needing to be informed. She could do it anonymously before he even has a chance at custody too. She could also do it when he was deployed or something too and he might not know for months, after the kid is long gone. The point is that women can avoid any responsibility if they want/choose to after birth even. She has a 1 day-1 year window for babies remorse where she can just say "You know what, I decided I'm not raising this kid for xyz reasons or no reason at all". Men only get that choice pre-sex where women get that choice at every stage. A little more parity wouldn't be an inherently bad thing. I'd be more than understanding if it was tied to addressing a lack of parity for women in a reasonably related area though. Most of the states have a law where the "Safe Haven" must make reasonable efforts too find the father. All of them have rules for reclaiming custody and the laws in question only protect the abandoning party from child negligence charges. None of them would bar a father from seeking child support from the mother if he regained custody. The law also wouldn't protect her from any legal action the father took if she abandoned the child against his express wishes. The law's sole purpose it to assure the abandoned child is left in a place where people will care for it. It provides almost no legal protection for the abandoning party beyond the act of abandoning the baby.
With the anonymity of the person dropping off the baby it's probably pretty difficult to do any of the things you just said.
|
On April 02 2015 08:57 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 08:50 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 07:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 02 2015 07:13 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 07:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 02 2015 06:48 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 06:46 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 02 2015 06:44 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 06:41 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 02 2015 06:37 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
The father can't force the women to carry a child to term. And we have already addressed that bias in family courts is an issue, but not one that can be solved by removing the responsibility of child support.
[quote]
Or cases where the court is bias, but everyone agrees those should be addressed. Well, certainly not forcing the mother to take the child to term. But the option of the father raising the child and the mother paying child support is never even mentioned (though, that's far more a societal issue than a legal one). Once again, no one is arguing for bias in the court systems in favor of women. And I know of cases where the mother has been required to pay and she does not have majority custody. Its an issue that can be addressed without throwing the whole system out. Never said anything about throwing the system out. Just arguing against any statements that begin and end with "don't have sex". I think you should go back and read the context of those argument. They were in response to people saying "I want to be able to just sign a contract and give up all responsibility for the child." after they stated that birth control didn't work 100% of the time, so it wasn't a solution either. Just mentioning again that women can take a 1 year old baby (in ND) to the hospital and just drop it off and never look back. So it's pretty one sided to say that it's absurd to have men be able to avoid responsibility for a born child. But she cannot do that if the father has custody rights. If she abandons the child, the father has the right to claim custody and he could seek child support from her. Most of the laws (last time I checked) don't say anything about the man even needing to be informed. She could do it anonymously before he even has a chance at custody too. She could also do it when he was deployed or something too and he might not know for months, after the kid is long gone. The point is that women can avoid any responsibility if they want/choose to after birth even. She has a 1 day-1 year window for babies remorse where she can just say "You know what, I decided I'm not raising this kid for xyz reasons or no reason at all". Men only get that choice pre-sex where women get that choice at every stage. A little more parity wouldn't be an inherently bad thing. I'd be more than understanding if it was tied to addressing a lack of parity for women in a reasonably related area though. Most of the states have a law where the "Safe Haven" must make reasonable efforts too find the father. All of them have rules for reclaiming custody and the laws in question only protect the abandoning party from child negligence charges. None of them would bar a father from seeking child support from the mother if he regained custody. The law also wouldn't protect her from any legal action the father took if she abandoned the child against his express wishes. The law's sole purpose it to assure the abandoned child is left in a place where people will care for it. It provides almost no legal protection for the abandoning party beyond the act of abandoning the baby. With the anonymity of the person dropping off the baby it's probably pretty difficult to do any of the things you just said.
And a father could do the exact same thing. The law is not gender specific. The logistical issue that the mother has to give birth to the child means they are more likely to take advantage of the law, but it is impossible to address that issue. But that would not prevent the father from taking legal action to force the mother to disclose where she abandoned the child.
|
On April 02 2015 09:01 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 08:57 Jormundr wrote:On April 02 2015 08:50 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 07:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 02 2015 07:13 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 07:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 02 2015 06:48 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 06:46 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 02 2015 06:44 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 06:41 WolfintheSheep wrote:
[quote]
Well, certainly not forcing the mother to take the child to term. But the option of the father raising the child and the mother paying child support is never even mentioned (though, that's far more a societal issue than a legal one). Once again, no one is arguing for bias in the court systems in favor of women. And I know of cases where the mother has been required to pay and she does not have majority custody. Its an issue that can be addressed without throwing the whole system out. Never said anything about throwing the system out. Just arguing against any statements that begin and end with "don't have sex". I think you should go back and read the context of those argument. They were in response to people saying "I want to be able to just sign a contract and give up all responsibility for the child." after they stated that birth control didn't work 100% of the time, so it wasn't a solution either. Just mentioning again that women can take a 1 year old baby (in ND) to the hospital and just drop it off and never look back. So it's pretty one sided to say that it's absurd to have men be able to avoid responsibility for a born child. But she cannot do that if the father has custody rights. If she abandons the child, the father has the right to claim custody and he could seek child support from her. Most of the laws (last time I checked) don't say anything about the man even needing to be informed. She could do it anonymously before he even has a chance at custody too. She could also do it when he was deployed or something too and he might not know for months, after the kid is long gone. The point is that women can avoid any responsibility if they want/choose to after birth even. She has a 1 day-1 year window for babies remorse where she can just say "You know what, I decided I'm not raising this kid for xyz reasons or no reason at all". Men only get that choice pre-sex where women get that choice at every stage. A little more parity wouldn't be an inherently bad thing. I'd be more than understanding if it was tied to addressing a lack of parity for women in a reasonably related area though. Most of the states have a law where the "Safe Haven" must make reasonable efforts too find the father. All of them have rules for reclaiming custody and the laws in question only protect the abandoning party from child negligence charges. None of them would bar a father from seeking child support from the mother if he regained custody. The law also wouldn't protect her from any legal action the father took if she abandoned the child against his express wishes. The law's sole purpose it to assure the abandoned child is left in a place where people will care for it. It provides almost no legal protection for the abandoning party beyond the act of abandoning the baby. With the anonymity of the person dropping off the baby it's probably pretty difficult to do any of the things you just said. And a father could do the exact same thing. The law is not gender specific. The logistical issue that the mother has to give birth to the child means they are more likely to take advantage of the law, but it is impossible to address that issue. But that would not prevent the father from taking legal action to force the mother to disclose where she abandoned the child.
Wouldn't the ol' "I don't recall" excuse work? Not sure what you would threaten them with legally to induce them to divulge the location?
|
On April 02 2015 09:32 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 09:01 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 08:57 Jormundr wrote:On April 02 2015 08:50 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 07:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 02 2015 07:13 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 07:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 02 2015 06:48 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 06:46 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 02 2015 06:44 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
Once again, no one is arguing for bias in the court systems in favor of women. And I know of cases where the mother has been required to pay and she does not have majority custody. Its an issue that can be addressed without throwing the whole system out. Never said anything about throwing the system out. Just arguing against any statements that begin and end with "don't have sex". I think you should go back and read the context of those argument. They were in response to people saying "I want to be able to just sign a contract and give up all responsibility for the child." after they stated that birth control didn't work 100% of the time, so it wasn't a solution either. Just mentioning again that women can take a 1 year old baby (in ND) to the hospital and just drop it off and never look back. So it's pretty one sided to say that it's absurd to have men be able to avoid responsibility for a born child. But she cannot do that if the father has custody rights. If she abandons the child, the father has the right to claim custody and he could seek child support from her. Most of the laws (last time I checked) don't say anything about the man even needing to be informed. She could do it anonymously before he even has a chance at custody too. She could also do it when he was deployed or something too and he might not know for months, after the kid is long gone. The point is that women can avoid any responsibility if they want/choose to after birth even. She has a 1 day-1 year window for babies remorse where she can just say "You know what, I decided I'm not raising this kid for xyz reasons or no reason at all". Men only get that choice pre-sex where women get that choice at every stage. A little more parity wouldn't be an inherently bad thing. I'd be more than understanding if it was tied to addressing a lack of parity for women in a reasonably related area though. Most of the states have a law where the "Safe Haven" must make reasonable efforts too find the father. All of them have rules for reclaiming custody and the laws in question only protect the abandoning party from child negligence charges. None of them would bar a father from seeking child support from the mother if he regained custody. The law also wouldn't protect her from any legal action the father took if she abandoned the child against his express wishes. The law's sole purpose it to assure the abandoned child is left in a place where people will care for it. It provides almost no legal protection for the abandoning party beyond the act of abandoning the baby. With the anonymity of the person dropping off the baby it's probably pretty difficult to do any of the things you just said. And a father could do the exact same thing. The law is not gender specific. The logistical issue that the mother has to give birth to the child means they are more likely to take advantage of the law, but it is impossible to address that issue. But that would not prevent the father from taking legal action to force the mother to disclose where she abandoned the child. Wouldn't the ol' "I don't recall" excuse work? Not sure what you would threaten them with legally to induce them to divulge the location?
likely contempt of court. less likely kidnapping or its ilk.
|
On April 02 2015 06:21 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 06:09 wei2coolman wrote:On April 02 2015 06:05 farvacola wrote:On April 02 2015 05:47 ZasZ. wrote:On April 02 2015 05:42 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 05:38 ZasZ. wrote:On April 02 2015 05:34 Toadesstern wrote:On April 02 2015 05:31 Jormundr wrote:
All I see is the reason why modern feminism has started to lose traction. Because people think being a feminist (the kind that used to be for equal rights) is about being staunchly pro-women, regardless of whether or not what is proposed will result in more equality of opportunity. It's become more dogmatic than reasonable, which is why several of the people in here pop in with a buzzfeed line and feel validated. It's already 'decided', there's no need to actually think about it, and if it isn't all that great then so what? It's good for women and people approve of it so lets just keep doing it. you keep talking about it being good for women when, for the 10th time, it's about the kid... which can end up a woman as well but that's kind of a 50/50 chance The money is child support, i.e. paid to the custodian for support of the child. But many people do raise children without child support, and if a woman goes forward with a pregnancy knowing she can't support the child alone then that would be on her at that point. EDIT: Plansix, you used "they" several times in your post. Obviously this whole thing is a moot point if both parties agree on whether or not to have the child. The area which we are discussing is when one party does want the child and the other does not. Obviously a breakdown in communication prior to having unprotected sex, but people do end up in this situation. Don't have sex if you are totally unwilling to raise children. Problem solved. So you are secretly a social conservative? That is the exact same argument they give for why abortions should not be legal in the first place. Abstinence has never been a good argument for these issues, and that doesn't change now. I think he merely phrased it oddly. The idea is not that you should be at least minimally willing to raise kids in some regard prior to having sex, rather that, by sticking your dick into a vagina, you recognize the varyingly remote possibility that, in 9 months from the date of the act, a child will pop out of that very same vagina. Phrased in those terms, it lines up pretty nicely with sufficient public access to abortions in the sense that you should be aware of the consequences that follow from fucking, one of which might be an abortion. So some how this falls all on the guy? Shouldn't the exact same expectation fall on the woman (with exclusion of obvious rape scenarios)? Cuz, if that's the case then guys shouldn't be getting fucked over in child custody and child support cases. This is a complicated problem because the natural contours of sexual health put a woman in a naturally disadvantaged position via her having to take on the growth of the baby in a physical capacity. Add in stuff like women losing quite a bit of earning power once having a child and I think an unequal legal burden on men starts to look a bit more reasonable, at least until there's more equilibrium.
Also very true, though I wouldn't call it an unequal legal burden. If the child is born both parties have to take responsibility. If the child is aborted neither parties take responsibility. It's just generally the mother who decides whether to terminate it or not because she has to spend a year of her life growing it/leaving work/being physically drained.
|
On April 02 2015 10:12 DemigodcelpH wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 06:21 farvacola wrote:On April 02 2015 06:09 wei2coolman wrote:On April 02 2015 06:05 farvacola wrote:On April 02 2015 05:47 ZasZ. wrote:On April 02 2015 05:42 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 05:38 ZasZ. wrote:On April 02 2015 05:34 Toadesstern wrote:On April 02 2015 05:31 Jormundr wrote:
All I see is the reason why modern feminism has started to lose traction. Because people think being a feminist (the kind that used to be for equal rights) is about being staunchly pro-women, regardless of whether or not what is proposed will result in more equality of opportunity. It's become more dogmatic than reasonable, which is why several of the people in here pop in with a buzzfeed line and feel validated. It's already 'decided', there's no need to actually think about it, and if it isn't all that great then so what? It's good for women and people approve of it so lets just keep doing it. you keep talking about it being good for women when, for the 10th time, it's about the kid... which can end up a woman as well but that's kind of a 50/50 chance The money is child support, i.e. paid to the custodian for support of the child. But many people do raise children without child support, and if a woman goes forward with a pregnancy knowing she can't support the child alone then that would be on her at that point. EDIT: Plansix, you used "they" several times in your post. Obviously this whole thing is a moot point if both parties agree on whether or not to have the child. The area which we are discussing is when one party does want the child and the other does not. Obviously a breakdown in communication prior to having unprotected sex, but people do end up in this situation. Don't have sex if you are totally unwilling to raise children. Problem solved. So you are secretly a social conservative? That is the exact same argument they give for why abortions should not be legal in the first place. Abstinence has never been a good argument for these issues, and that doesn't change now. I think he merely phrased it oddly. The idea is not that you should be at least minimally willing to raise kids in some regard prior to having sex, rather that, by sticking your dick into a vagina, you recognize the varyingly remote possibility that, in 9 months from the date of the act, a child will pop out of that very same vagina. Phrased in those terms, it lines up pretty nicely with sufficient public access to abortions in the sense that you should be aware of the consequences that follow from fucking, one of which might be an abortion. So some how this falls all on the guy? Shouldn't the exact same expectation fall on the woman (with exclusion of obvious rape scenarios)? Cuz, if that's the case then guys shouldn't be getting fucked over in child custody and child support cases. This is a complicated problem because the natural contours of sexual health put a woman in a naturally disadvantaged position via her having to take on the growth of the baby in a physical capacity. Add in stuff like women losing quite a bit of earning power once having a child and I think an unequal legal burden on men starts to look a bit more reasonable, at least until there's more equilibrium. Also very true, though I wouldn't call it an unequal legal burden. If the child is born both parties have to take responsibility. If the child is aborted neither parties take responsibility. It's just generally the mother who decides whether to terminate it or not because she has to spend a year of her life growing it/leaving work/being physically drained.
Maternity leave doesn't last a year.
A man given custody would take just as big of a hit to his career as a woman would.
|
On April 02 2015 10:00 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 09:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 02 2015 09:01 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 08:57 Jormundr wrote:On April 02 2015 08:50 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 07:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 02 2015 07:13 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 07:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 02 2015 06:48 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 06:46 WolfintheSheep wrote:
[quote]
Never said anything about throwing the system out.
Just arguing against any statements that begin and end with "don't have sex". I think you should go back and read the context of those argument. They were in response to people saying "I want to be able to just sign a contract and give up all responsibility for the child." after they stated that birth control didn't work 100% of the time, so it wasn't a solution either. Just mentioning again that women can take a 1 year old baby (in ND) to the hospital and just drop it off and never look back. So it's pretty one sided to say that it's absurd to have men be able to avoid responsibility for a born child. But she cannot do that if the father has custody rights. If she abandons the child, the father has the right to claim custody and he could seek child support from her. Most of the laws (last time I checked) don't say anything about the man even needing to be informed. She could do it anonymously before he even has a chance at custody too. She could also do it when he was deployed or something too and he might not know for months, after the kid is long gone. The point is that women can avoid any responsibility if they want/choose to after birth even. She has a 1 day-1 year window for babies remorse where she can just say "You know what, I decided I'm not raising this kid for xyz reasons or no reason at all". Men only get that choice pre-sex where women get that choice at every stage. A little more parity wouldn't be an inherently bad thing. I'd be more than understanding if it was tied to addressing a lack of parity for women in a reasonably related area though. Most of the states have a law where the "Safe Haven" must make reasonable efforts too find the father. All of them have rules for reclaiming custody and the laws in question only protect the abandoning party from child negligence charges. None of them would bar a father from seeking child support from the mother if he regained custody. The law also wouldn't protect her from any legal action the father took if she abandoned the child against his express wishes. The law's sole purpose it to assure the abandoned child is left in a place where people will care for it. It provides almost no legal protection for the abandoning party beyond the act of abandoning the baby. With the anonymity of the person dropping off the baby it's probably pretty difficult to do any of the things you just said. And a father could do the exact same thing. The law is not gender specific. The logistical issue that the mother has to give birth to the child means they are more likely to take advantage of the law, but it is impossible to address that issue. But that would not prevent the father from taking legal action to force the mother to disclose where she abandoned the child. Wouldn't the ol' "I don't recall" excuse work? Not sure what you would threaten them with legally to induce them to divulge the location? likely contempt of court. less likely kidnapping or its ilk.
How long do we think it would be before they could even get it to a courtroom for them to be in contempt of?
Plus if it's their kid and they have whatever level of custody is presumed at birth and they are given the child to do whatever legal activities they wish, dropping the baby off at a safe haven and then forgetting where you did it would fall under those legal activities.
Bottom line, even if you were able to twist the law in a way to legitimately threaten them, by the time that happened the kid could be anywhere.
|
On April 02 2015 10:36 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 10:00 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 02 2015 09:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 02 2015 09:01 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 08:57 Jormundr wrote:On April 02 2015 08:50 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 07:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 02 2015 07:13 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 07:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 02 2015 06:48 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
I think you should go back and read the context of those argument. They were in response to people saying "I want to be able to just sign a contract and give up all responsibility for the child." after they stated that birth control didn't work 100% of the time, so it wasn't a solution either. Just mentioning again that women can take a 1 year old baby (in ND) to the hospital and just drop it off and never look back. So it's pretty one sided to say that it's absurd to have men be able to avoid responsibility for a born child. But she cannot do that if the father has custody rights. If she abandons the child, the father has the right to claim custody and he could seek child support from her. Most of the laws (last time I checked) don't say anything about the man even needing to be informed. She could do it anonymously before he even has a chance at custody too. She could also do it when he was deployed or something too and he might not know for months, after the kid is long gone. The point is that women can avoid any responsibility if they want/choose to after birth even. She has a 1 day-1 year window for babies remorse where she can just say "You know what, I decided I'm not raising this kid for xyz reasons or no reason at all". Men only get that choice pre-sex where women get that choice at every stage. A little more parity wouldn't be an inherently bad thing. I'd be more than understanding if it was tied to addressing a lack of parity for women in a reasonably related area though. Most of the states have a law where the "Safe Haven" must make reasonable efforts too find the father. All of them have rules for reclaiming custody and the laws in question only protect the abandoning party from child negligence charges. None of them would bar a father from seeking child support from the mother if he regained custody. The law also wouldn't protect her from any legal action the father took if she abandoned the child against his express wishes. The law's sole purpose it to assure the abandoned child is left in a place where people will care for it. It provides almost no legal protection for the abandoning party beyond the act of abandoning the baby. With the anonymity of the person dropping off the baby it's probably pretty difficult to do any of the things you just said. And a father could do the exact same thing. The law is not gender specific. The logistical issue that the mother has to give birth to the child means they are more likely to take advantage of the law, but it is impossible to address that issue. But that would not prevent the father from taking legal action to force the mother to disclose where she abandoned the child. Wouldn't the ol' "I don't recall" excuse work? Not sure what you would threaten them with legally to induce them to divulge the location? likely contempt of court. less likely kidnapping or its ilk. How long do we think it would be before they could even get it to a courtroom for them to be in contempt of? Plus if it's their kid and they have whatever level of custody is presumed at birth and they are given the child to do whatever legal activities they wish, dropping the baby off at a safe haven and then forgetting where you did it would fall under those legal activities. Bottom line, even if you were able to twist the law in a way to legitimately threaten them, by the time that happened the kid could be anywhere.
well, without facts this is just an educational exercise, but you can get things done pretty fast in court when you can show a legitimate emergency such as danger to a child (i.e., within a few days). and i am not sure why you think its legal for one parent to do whatever they want with their child without the knowledge or consent of the other parent. you seem to be under the misimpression that both parents dont have rights.
|
Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) was indicted on federal corruption charges Wednesday, accused of using the influence of his office to advance the business interests of a longtime friend and political supporter in exchange for luxury gifts, lavish vacations and more than $750,000 in campaign donations.
Federal prosecutors laid out the charges in a 14-count indictment charging Menendez with using his office to help Salomon Melgen, a Florida-based eye doctor with whom Menendez had maintained a long personal and political friendship. Menendez intervened on Melgen’s behalf in at least two disputes, one with federal regulators over Medicare charges and the other involving a bid by Melgen to secure a port-security contract in the Dominican Republic, according to the indictment.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/menendez-expected-to-be-indicted-as-soon-as-wednesday-sources-say/2015/04/01/623024c6-d86e-11e4-8103-fa84725dbf9d_story.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
