Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And after my niece turned 18, it was found that my niece lived a more damaging and disfuntional, abusive life then any of the fears her mother and the courts were trying to protect her from with my brother etc. And today my niece is totally brainwashed into how none of us cared about her. Its tragic
I'm hoping it helps people realize men don't have equal rights at almost every phase. Many people posted in this thread that men do have equal rights and that's not true.
A mother would almost have to smoke crack at the custody hearing for a father to get primary custody here. It was codified into state law until 2008 that the mother gets custody. My best friend's ex took his children and moved 3000 miles across the country, just for spite. Her entire family lives here, and she had no job lined up before moving as she lives off her deceased ex husband's pension. When she didn't show up at their court designated meeting site to hand off the children for his weekend visitation, he called and she claimed to be sick. When she didn't show up two weeks later, she admitted that she had already been out of state for a few weeks. He had been paying child support from birth, and even took parenting classes. He filed a suit to have her declared in contempt of the custody order. Not only did the court in no way punish her, they forced him to pay her legal fees for the hearing. He's still paying full support, and hasn't seen his children in a couple of years. He actually flew out last Christmas after she said she'd allow him to see them, which she then reneged on. Had he taken the children out of state during his custody time, he would have been arrested. She also had the hospital bar him from seeing the children when they were born, as she was mad at him about something at that time as well. Equal rights are a joke.
First, it actually was an honest question. Second, there are dots to connect. Third, what you've described is NOT the same situation I've described regarding father's rights. BTW, why assume the mother wants your son in the delivery room? You do realize he doesn't have that right?
You didn't connect them.
We have hammered home the point to our boys that if their girlfriends get pregnant, they have a responsibility to step up. So far, so good. The eldest is married (with one child), the 2nd is in a 3 year relationship and a wedding is a foregone conclusion at this point. The third is just too damn smart to get caught up in an unintended pregnancy.
I do think fathers are treated poorly in many cases. My own brother is a prime example. Because of his experience with the courts, should any of our boys find themselves shut out of a relationship with their children, we would not only encourage them to fight, but would cheerfully fund that court battle.
We're talking about a decision to NOT have children. How to do that is taught to 6th graders. If they were sleeping during sex ed, they can become educated about all the variables before signing. If you're talking about the variables involved in abortion, there's always adoption. The core of the contract is two people agreeing to not be parents one way or another. It's not a medical decision to agree to not seek child support if she changes her mind.
We're talking about the law changing to be more fair.
You're simply restating over and over the very issue that people are challenging. You're not providing any compelling reason for men to be forced into paying for children they did not chose to have. You're just saying, "This is the way it is and tough beanies." Continually repeating the problem without providing possible solutions isn't really productive, is it?
Choosing to continue or end a pregnancy is a medical decision that not only will vary from person to person but pregnancy to pregnancy of the same individual. It is absolutely a medical decision to choose either way to continue or not. That is the medical decision I was referring to. Suppose a woman, finds out AFTER she signs this "contract" that she is pregnant but also unlikely to ever get pregnant again? Should she be forced to abort or give a child up for adoption. Literally FORCED?
The reason children's right are paramount is the father CHOOSES to engage in an activity that, as you point out every 6th grader knows could result in a child. The child makes NO choice in the matter and thus is innocent of taking any risk and should not be penalized their rights. Seriously, what you are suggesting, is that a child be made to potentially live in poverty rather than a father being made to support a child he always knew was a possibility.
And lets be clear, the law is NOT unfair. Parents, both of them, are expected to support their children, that is the law. That is equality, for both mothers and father. What you are claiming is unfair, boils down to a man supposedly having a right to say what a woman can or cannot do with her body. Another law btw. So which law is unfair exactly?
ETA: I will say there is a law that I believe to be fundamentally unfair to fathers, and that is the adoption laws in many states. They allow mothers to give children up for adoption regardless of what the father wants. That law is unfair to unmarried fathers.
We're talking about the law changing to be more fair.
As has been pointed out what is important is what is fair to the child. Just because a man and a woman make the decision to conceive and then decide they don't want the financial obligation after the fact doesn't mean the child should suffer the consequences.
Choosing to continue or end a pregnancy is a medical decision that not only will vary from person to person but pregnancy to pregnancy of the same individual. It is absolutely a medical decision to choose either way to continue or not. That is the medical decision I was referring to.
That's an illogical issue since we're talking about a woman who will break the contract to have the child, which means adoption would not be a medical issue since she would be giving birth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkb0714
Suppose a woman, finds out AFTER she signs this "contract" that she is pregnant but also unlikely to ever get pregnant again? Should she be forced to abort or give a child up for adoption. Literally FORCED?
Prenups are not valid if women are pregnant when they sign them. If a pregnancy occurs after the prenup was signed, she isn't any more forced via honoring an agreement than a father is forced to be a father for having sex. Why does her sudden desire to have a child override his wishes, that they agreed upon, to not have a child? That's why the prenup is a vital tool in sorting this stuff out ahead of time. If they can't agree on the conditions, they simply don't have to have sex. If she changes her mind in the future, she can notify him and they can come to another agreement or end the relationship. Using your way of thinking, nobody is forcing her to have sex with the man if she changes her mind after signing the prenup.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkb0714
Seriously, what you are suggesting, is that a child be made to potentially live in poverty rather than a father being made to support a child he always knew was a possibility.
How could he know it's a possibility if the mother signed an agreement to ensure neither of them would be parents? If she follows the agreement, there's no possibility of becoming parents. If medical issues determine the mother needs to deliver instead of abort, an adoption resolves that issue and protects both parties from becoming parents as they agreed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkb0714
What you are claiming is unfair, boils down to a man supposedly having a right to say what a woman can or cannot do with her body.
Not at all. The scenario clearly involves two consenting adults entering into an agreement.
As has been pointed out what is important is what is fair to the child. Just because a man and a woman make the decision to conceive and then decide they don't want the financial obligation after the fact doesn't mean the child should suffer the consequences.
If the child was put up for adoption, it wouldn't suffer financial consequences. In the scenario, the parents aren't deciding they don't want the financial obligation after the fact. They are deciding before the pregnancy ever occurs. If both parties honor the contract, the child won't suffer financial consequences.
That's an illogical issue since we're talking about a woman who will break the contract to have the child, which means adoption would not be a medical issue since she would be giving birth.
Again, you are now denying a child access to BOTH its parents for an economic reason. Really think that is a good idea? Seriously, you are going to rip children out of the arms of mothers who want them, in order to for men to avoid paying money? Lets think about cases were children were taken by the government from their birth mothers, and given to adoptive couples, and how badly that has ended. Stolen generation???
Quote:
Prenups are not valid if women are pregnant when they sign them. If a pregnancy occurs after the prenup was signed, she isn't any more forced via honoring an agreement than a father is forced to be a father for having sex. Why does her sudden desire to have a child override his wishes, that they agreed upon, to not have a child? That's why the prenup is a vital tool in sorting this stuff out ahead of time. If they can't agree on the conditions, they simply don't have to have sex. If she changes her mind in the future, she can notify him and they can come to another agreement or end the relationship. Using your way of thinking, nobody is forcing her to have sex with the man if she changes her mind after signing the prenup.
You are expecting a greater level of commitment to a contract than women who have actually already chosen adoption for their children. You know that right? Even adoptive mothers have some window of time in which to change their mind. This exists because as a society we have agreed that it would be horrible to have to say to a child, yes your mother wanted you, but your father didn't, so you got taken away.
Quote:
How could he know it's a possibility if the mother signed an agreement to ensure neither of them would be parents? If she follows the agreement, there's no possibility of becoming parents. If medical issues determine the mother needs to deliver instead of abort, an adoption resolves that issue and protects both parties from becoming parents as they agreed.
Circular logic. You have yet to prove that such an agreement could even be legal let alone moral.
Seriously, do you consider the rights of the only person who had no choice in the matter at all? You have yet to explain, even slightly, why a fathers rights supersede the fundamental rights of a child.
Quote:
Not at all. The scenario clearly involves two consenting adults entering into an agreement.
You do know that there are many kind of agreements that are illegal right? Suppose a couple agreed to donate say a kidney to other if one of them needed it, in sickness and health right? Then down the road, hubby needs a kidney, but the wife has a condition in which she could potentially lose function of one of her kidneys. Can she still be "made" to give him one, if they signed a contract? NO. Because there are many things which are illegal contracts. This being an example.
It will remain an illegal contract because it violates the rights of the child, which you continually chose to ignore. So please, before we can engage in evaluation of an illegal contract, you need to resolve the issue about what makes it illegal. Why does a fathers economic rights supersede the rights of a child?
If the child was put up for adoption, it wouldn't suffer financial consequences. In the scenario, the parents aren't deciding they don't want the financial obligation after the fact. They are deciding before the pregnancy ever occurs. If both parties honor the contract, the child won't suffer financial consequences.
The serious harm, that comes from the practice of forced adoptions is well known. So now you are advocating for actually HARMING the children, in order to protect men from a financial burden they knowingly risked?
Your Quote: And lets be clear, the law is NOT unfair. Parents, both of them, are expected to support their children, that is the law. That is equality, for both mothers and father. End quote:
Uhmm you have proof of this? How so? I know states that have laws setup that require non custodial parents to support there adult children until they are 21. But for the life of me i have never seen any laws that require married or custodial parents to support there adult children after 18 unless still in highschool? That doesn't even sound equal?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
