|
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. |
I have to wonder if he truely believed no one would notice.
|
On April 02 2015 11:00 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 10:36 GreenHorizons wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
Sure seems like it IS legal for one parent (the mother) to do whatever they want considering they are the only one with any say about getting an abortion.
|
On April 02 2015 10:34 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 10:12 DemigodcelpH wrote: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.
Carrying the child takes 9 months, with 12 weeks of maternity leave that's a year. Pretty sure thats what he was getting at.
Point is you're forcing someone to do something with their body against their will for 9 months. The whole situation is a shit sandwich. But requiring someone to carry a fetus to term against their will with no say in the matter is MASSIVELY fucked up.
|
On April 02 2015 11:31 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 11:00 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 02 2015 10:36 GreenHorizons wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Sure seems like it IS legal for one parent (the mother) to do whatever they want considering they are the only one with any say about getting an abortion.
i should have been more clear for the daft. i meant after birth.
|
On April 02 2015 11:33 OuchyDathurts wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 10:34 Millitron wrote:On April 02 2015 10:12 DemigodcelpH wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Carrying the child takes 9 months, with 12 weeks of maternity leave that's a year. Pretty sure thats what he was getting at. Point is you're forcing someone to do something with their body against their will for 9 months. The whole situation is a shit sandwich. But requiring someone to carry a fetus to term against their will with no say in the matter is MASSIVELY fucked up.
For most of those 9 months, she is not impaired in any way.
|
On April 02 2015 11:36 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 11:33 OuchyDathurts wrote:On April 02 2015 10:34 Millitron wrote:On April 02 2015 10:12 DemigodcelpH wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Carrying the child takes 9 months, with 12 weeks of maternity leave that's a year. Pretty sure thats what he was getting at. Point is you're forcing someone to do something with their body against their will for 9 months. The whole situation is a shit sandwich. But requiring someone to carry a fetus to term against their will with no say in the matter is MASSIVELY fucked up. For most of those 9 months, she is not impaired in any way.
I mean, if you consider being pregnant some sort of walk in the park sure. While I've never been pregnant, I've been assured that's not actually the case.
Again, morally you can never force someone to use their body against their will as an incubation chamber. Regardless of how "impaired" you may or may not believe she is for it.
|
EDIT: Added some from daphreak that was addressed here too 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.
On April 02 2015 11:13 Plansix wrote:
I have to wonder if he truely believed no one would notice.
It's not uncommon in situations like this for one parent to leave the child with the other parent for extended periods for a wide variety of reasons. I already mentioned at least one (military deployment). As somewhat of a military brat I have semi-personal experience with situations like this. I know of situations where guys didn't know they were dads until the kid was 2-6 months old. Needless to say they were skeptical about being the fathers of kids they knew nothing about.
In those situations the woman could of dropped the kid off at a safe haven and made that choice without the guy ever having a clue he had a child of his born. She independently gets to choose whether or not she, he, or both of them will have any responsibility to raise the child financially or otherwise.
Here's another example of how it can happen:
An Arizona man recently discovered he owes more than $15,000 in child support — for a daughter he never knew he had.
The state two years ago served Nick Olivas, who had a passing fling with a 20-year-old woman when he was 14, demanding he pay to support a then-6-year-old daughter.
“It was a shock,” Olivas, now 24, told the Arizona Republic. “I was living my life and enjoying being young. To find out you have a 6-year-old? It’s unexplainable. It freaked me out.”
Source
I get the biological parts that make this inherently unable to have precisely equal legislation, my point was just that some sort of parity is not an absurd suggestion.
|
On April 02 2015 11:49 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 11:13 Plansix wrote:
I have to wonder if he truely believed no one would notice. It's not uncommon in situations like this for one parent to leave the child with the other parent for extended periods for a wide variety of reasons. I already mentioned at least one (military deployment). As somewhat of a military brat I have semi-personal experience with situations like this. I know of situations where guys didn't know they were dads until the kid was 2-6 months old. Needless to say they were skeptical about being the fathers of kids they knew nothing about. In those situations the woman could of dropped the kid off at a safe haven and made that choice without the guy ever having a clue he had a child of his born. She independently gets to choose whether or not she, he, or both of them will have any responsibility to raise the child financially or otherwise. Here's another example of how it can happen: Show nested quote +An Arizona man recently discovered he owes more than $15,000 in child support — for a daughter he never knew he had.
The state two years ago served Nick Olivas, who had a passing fling with a 20-year-old woman when he was 14, demanding he pay to support a then-6-year-old daughter.
“It was a shock,” Olivas, now 24, told the Arizona Republic. “I was living my life and enjoying being young. To find out you have a 6-year-old? It’s unexplainable. It freaked me out.”
SourceI get the biological parts that make this inherently unable to have precisely equal legislation, my point was just that some sort of parity is not an absurd suggestion.
That article is ridiculous. He gets raped, then has to pay child support? What the fuck?
|
On April 02 2015 12:03 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 11:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 02 2015 11:13 Plansix wrote:
I have to wonder if he truely believed no one would notice. It's not uncommon in situations like this for one parent to leave the child with the other parent for extended periods for a wide variety of reasons. I already mentioned at least one (military deployment). As somewhat of a military brat I have semi-personal experience with situations like this. I know of situations where guys didn't know they were dads until the kid was 2-6 months old. Needless to say they were skeptical about being the fathers of kids they knew nothing about. In those situations the woman could of dropped the kid off at a safe haven and made that choice without the guy ever having a clue he had a child of his born. She independently gets to choose whether or not she, he, or both of them will have any responsibility to raise the child financially or otherwise. Here's another example of how it can happen: An Arizona man recently discovered he owes more than $15,000 in child support — for a daughter he never knew he had.
The state two years ago served Nick Olivas, who had a passing fling with a 20-year-old woman when he was 14, demanding he pay to support a then-6-year-old daughter.
“It was a shock,” Olivas, now 24, told the Arizona Republic. “I was living my life and enjoying being young. To find out you have a 6-year-old? It’s unexplainable. It freaked me out.”
SourceI get the biological parts that make this inherently unable to have precisely equal legislation, my point was just that some sort of parity is not an absurd suggestion. That article is ridiculous. He gets raped, then has to pay child support? What the fuck?
"statutory rape." and yeah this is where it gets messy.
|
Wait that's not clear at all.
So he was 14, and a 20 year old had sex with him. That's statutory rape, cool. She then becomes pregnant, and later on demands child support. Okay, wtf seems warranted.
But the article ends with:
According to state law, parents like Olivas have to pay up unless the person seeking child support has been found guilty of sexual assault with a minor or sexual assault.
...which means that there can't possibly be an issue.
If she is a 26 y.o. woman seeking child support for a 6 y.o. girl from a 20 y.o. man, it's immediately clear that the child is the result of sexual assault on a minor. Surely it's not possible to sue for child support while somehow avoiding conviction for the crime at the core of her entire case.
Also even if she somehow managed to convince a court to seize his money or whatever, it's worth pointing out that the dude still had plenty of opportunity to defend himself. He's in this situation because he ignored all correspondence sent to him.
|
On April 02 2015 12:35 Belisarius wrote:Wait that's not clear at all. So he was 14, and a 20 year old had sex with him. That's statutory rape. She then becomes pregnant, and later on demands child support. Okay, wtf. But the article ends with: Show nested quote +According to state law, parents like Olivas have to pay up unless the person seeking child support has been found guilty of sexual assault with a minor or sexual assault. Which means there's no issue, surely. If she is a 26 y.o. woman seeking child support for a 6 y.o. girl from a 20 y.o. man, it's immediately clear that the child is the result of sexual assault on a minor.
Someone would have to file charges and get a conviction first, then challenge the ruling, and so on. Of course the timing would put it right on the edge of the statute of limitations for a class 6 in Arizona anyway (possibly what she was waiting for on advice from whoever helped her file for it). All of it meaning less resources available for the still young child.
But of course this all ignores the reason I used the story in the first place, which is that if he was 16 instead of 14 he would be in the same (if not worse) boat anyway.
It appears daPhreak was the one under the misimpression that this kind of stuff doesn't happen.
|
i know you have a hard-on and all for me, but what are you talking about? what impression did i have about what?
edit: also, i am pretty sure plansix was talking about the senator, not responding to you.
|
On April 02 2015 12:57 dAPhREAk wrote:
i know you have a hard-on and all for me, but what are you talking about? what impression did i have about what?
edit: also, i am pretty sure plansix was talking about the senator, not responding to you.
Other than the sexual innuendo (creepy) I'm talking about this.
On April 02 2015 11:00 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 10:36 GreenHorizons wrote: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:
[quote]
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. ... 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.
Not only was it legal for her to do whatever she wanted with the kid without his consent or knowledge, she didn't even have to tell him he had a kid.
|
On April 02 2015 13:09 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 12:57 dAPhREAk wrote:
i know you have a hard-on and all for me, but what are you talking about? what impression did i have about what?
edit: also, i am pretty sure plansix was talking about the senator, not responding to you. Other than the sexual innuendo (creepy) I'm talking about this. Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 11:00 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 02 2015 10:36 GreenHorizons wrote: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:
[quote]
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. ... 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. Not only was it legal for her to do whatever she wanted with the kid without his consent or knowledge, she didn't even have to tell him he had a kid.
in the first example where that statement was made, the father knew about the kid and the mother took the kid away without the consent or knowledge of the father.
in the second example, the father never knew about the kid.
these are not parallels in my mind. context matters...
|
It should be the women's choice whether to have an abortion or not. However, if the guy is opposed to having the child, he should not be forced to pay child support. The woman will still have most of the choice in this situation, and rightly so. After all, she is the one who is pregnant.
|
On April 02 2015 13:17 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 13:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 02 2015 12:57 dAPhREAk wrote:
i know you have a hard-on and all for me, but what are you talking about? what impression did i have about what?
edit: also, i am pretty sure plansix was talking about the senator, not responding to you. Other than the sexual innuendo (creepy) I'm talking about this. On April 02 2015 11:00 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 02 2015 10:36 GreenHorizons wrote: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:
[quote]
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. ... 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. Not only was it legal for her to do whatever she wanted with the kid without his consent or knowledge, she didn't even have to tell him he had a kid. in the first example where that statement was made, the father knew about the kid and the mother took the kid away without the consent or knowledge of the father. in the second example, the father never knew about the kid. these are not parallels in my mind. context matters...
It got to that particular specific but the point was the general one in the first place. That the man doesn't actually have rights until or unless the woman gives them to them. First by informing them they are pregnant, I'm ok with that, i don't woman to be forced to carry babies or anything. But second, once the child is born a woman must choose to put herself in a situation where the man knows about his child. There is no law that compels her to tell him afaik?
So even if the man has rights on paper, in reality he doesn't even know he needs to use them if the woman doesn't tell him in the first place, where again she is under no legal obligation to do so.
None of which would interfere with her (more the state really) seeking child support payments a decade after the kid is born, even if it's the first he's heard he even had a child.
The point again being a little parity isn't an absurd suggestion. It may be hard to find any practical way to change it, but that doesn't make the notion ridiculous on it's own.
|
the woman does not give him rights; the law gives him rights. the law doesnt care about men who sleep on their rights by not keeping track of the women who they sleep with. i dont feel sorry for these men at all. if you dont care about the person you sleep with to keep in touch with them, dont bitch to me about them not talking to you again.
|
On April 02 2015 14:22 dAPhREAk wrote:
the woman does not give him rights; the law gives him rights. the law doesnt care about men who sleep on their rights by not keeping track of the women who they sleep with. i dont feel sorry for these men at all. if you dont care about the person you sleep with to keep in touch with them, dont bitch to me about them not talking to you again.
Uh duh? I said they have rights on paper but in practice....
Have you never heard of a woman cutting communication off? Men are not the only ones who sleep with someone and then choose not to talk to them again...?
|
On April 02 2015 14:28 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 14:22 dAPhREAk wrote:
the woman does not give him rights; the law gives him rights. the law doesnt care about men who sleep on their rights by not keeping track of the women who they sleep with. i dont feel sorry for these men at all. if you dont care about the person you sleep with to keep in touch with them, dont bitch to me about them not talking to you again. Uh duh? I said they have rights on paper but in practice.... Have you never heard of a woman cutting communication off? Men are not the only ones who sleep with someone and then choose not to talk to them again...?
...
That the man doesn't actually have rights until or unless the woman gives them to them.
|
On April 02 2015 14:36 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 14:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 02 2015 14:22 dAPhREAk wrote:
the woman does not give him rights; the law gives him rights. the law doesnt care about men who sleep on their rights by not keeping track of the women who they sleep with. i dont feel sorry for these men at all. if you dont care about the person you sleep with to keep in touch with them, dont bitch to me about them not talking to you again. Uh duh? I said they have rights on paper but in practice.... Have you never heard of a woman cutting communication off? Men are not the only ones who sleep with someone and then choose not to talk to them again...? ... Show nested quote +That the man doesn't actually have rights until or unless the woman gives them to them.
So even if the man has rights on paper, in reality he doesn't even know he needs to use them if the woman doesn't tell him in the first place, where again she is under no legal obligation to do so.
I obviously didn't mean she legally gives him the rights... That's totally asinine to assume and project onto my point. I can't really see it as anything other than a diversion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
