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.
Your entire "irrefutable proof" is utter nonsense. Unmarried fathers get parental rights, visitations, 50/50 custody and sole custody everyday.
Factually, all unmarried Dads in the USA get 0 parenting rights by default, all unmarried Moms get full custody and parental rights by default. These facts prove female privilege and male oppression in the USA.
No where did I say only one gender should be responsible. Of course it is reasonable there is 100% guarantee the child belongs to the mother. A DNA test is needed to be sure the child belongs to the father. If a man wants to be involved in his child's life he has to step up. If it involves the courts thats just what has to be done. Women have to maneuver the courts to get monetary support for a child but there is nothing the court can do if the dad chooses not to be a father
I've repeatedly asked this question, to many posters, and received no answer. If the identity of Dad is so important, why is it that even unmarried Dads with positive DNA tests get 0 parenting rights by default?
This is untrue.
They don't get zero by default. You establish paternity, you then make a request to see the child. It's not like you establish paternity and you get to roll up to mom's house and snatch Junior out of his bassinet and throw him in the back of your car, no.
Because the mom will have already set up a home for the child and will already be planning over the 9 months she is pregnant, around stuff like where the child will sleep, where the child will go to daycare if she's returning to work, how to deal with other siblings if there are any, etc.
You cannot disrupt a newborn's life like that.
So, if you do find out you're the biological father, you are told that you can talk to the woman and attempt an amicable parenting arrangement. If she wants to collect child support, she has to be amenable to this. If she doesn't want your money and she doesn't want anything to do with you, you can still take her to court, but the odds aren't in your favor, because the courts will wonder why she refused child support and wants zero to do with you and wants you to stay away from the child she recently shoved out of her loins.
So, yeah... it's complicated, but a piece of paper establishing that your DNA appears to be a match isn't going to get you permission to snatch up a baby a woman spent 9 months growing in her body and has bonded with after birth.
Perhaps, if you could carry a child, this might make more sense to you.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
No. It's true, statistically speaking. Men rarely want full custody, unless there's a woman that makes more money than them and they see an opportunity to get some child support.
Women rarely WANT full custody, unless there's a guy who is abusive around.
Most parents want to have reasonable arrangements that give each parent time with the kids. Moms get more time more often because they are typically seen as nurturers and best for the kids on a regular basis.
It's true... women usually do most of the childrearing/caring even when couples ARE married and BOTH of them work.
So, really... is this about men wanting to see their kids or about some sort of idea of what BELONGS to them, like kids are property?
First of all, the bolded is sexist, blatantly false, baiting, discriminatory, and biased. Maybe I shouldn't go here, but I'm going to. Should someone that would say something like this, who obviously lacks all objectivity and has her own anti-male agenda, be a moderator on this forum? I'll let the people reading this be the judge of that.
As to the italicized, you are using a very common tactic of misandry which is to question the motive of Dads. I personally find it very offensive and inappropriate.
So your position is that the consequences of pregnancy should fall 100% on the shoulders of Dads and children, and 0% on the shoulders of Moms.
That's not reasonable.
Huh?
Nope. What language is your native tongue?
I am suggesting that if a man is worried he won't get any custodial rights he should either marry the woman or not impregnate her, even if she offers to have sex with him.
Why is this somehow illogical to you? It's completely intelligent.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
First of all, the bolded is sexist, blatantly false, baiting, discriminatory, and biased. Maybe I shouldn't go here, but I'm going to. Should someone that would say something like this, who obviously lacks all objectivity and has her own anti-male agenda, be a moderator on this forum? I'll let the people reading this be the judge of that.
As to the italicized, you are using a very common tactic of misandry which is to question the motive of Dads. I personally find it very offensive and inappropriate.
Get off your high horse. I don't moderate P&OC and I like men just fine.
I'm speaking in generalities. Of course there are men who love their kids (or, in the hypothetical you mention here, think they'd love to parent a kid) and go for custody solely because they want to be fathers.
I'm just saying I've known too many shifty types who wanted to see what they could get out of an arrangement. And, believe me, women do this same thing. It's sad for the kids involved.
You just keep beating that dead, tired high horse of yours about this as if it'll somehow be magically right that men should be conferred paternal rights even before the kid is born, even before anyone knows whose kid it is, and if not, as soon as junior pops out and blood tests can prove paternity.
Having given birth to a few kids myself, I can tell you that snatching a newborn away from mom so daddy can have 50/50 rights is ridiculous unless mom is completely unfit to parent. Giving dad some visitation is totally reasonable, but what if she's nursing? It takes time to establish a new baby with nursing, and unless a dude can nurse his kid...
You see my point?
Most custody battles are between parents who already have an established relationship with the kids (divorces, couples who lived together and coparented for a good length of time until the kids were older, etc).
This scenario you have laid out of "if I get this chick pregnant, why can't I have the baby at least half the time?" is just more complex than DNA.
That's all.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
Don't women have like 13-15 different birth control methods? While men just have 1.... the condom?
The fact that women consciously choose to ignore or not use any of these birth control methods, *and* their typical choice of father (usually an irresponsible, unreliable criminal/thug type) leads me to believe the vast vast majority of women become pregnant quite deliberately (for whatever reason that may be, whether it's welfare or simply "trapping" a man).
It's *quite* telling that in the year 2017 so many young women still choose to get pregnant despite aaaaaall the birth control methods available to them
As far as I know, the only "involuntary" pregnancy is one that results from rape or some other involuntary coercion. Unless there is criminal coercion or force used, the woman is 100% in the "driver's seat" as far as any pregnancies go. She ultimately chooses the men who get inside her (usually not the most "upstanding" citizens ).
The birth control issue is the elephant in the room....
Absolutely. The birth control issue is the elephant in the room.
For some reason, people seem to think that the 13-15 methods of hormonal birth control for women are actually able to be used by all women and are all effective for all women. And for some reason, people seem to think that there is a proven test or way to tell if a pill or other option is actually effective for a given person.
Fun fact: The only way to know that a birth control option is actually working... is when a woman doesn't get pregnant. The only way to know that a birth control option is not actually effective? Getting pregnant.
So maybe we should have better standards for birth control? Maybe ways to test if the hormonal changes are enough to prevent pregnancy?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dysgenic
This is true in every State in the USA:
When parents are unmarried, Mother has custody of any child born out of wedlock. Furthermore, Father has ZERO parenting rights by default. What that means is that Dad is not allowed to see the child at all- not even 15 minutes- if Mom does not allow it. In fact, Dad will be arrested if he tries. The only way Dad can get any parenting rights at all is to file in court, which usually results in some small token amount. Almost never does Dad get custody in this situation.
In the case of unmarried parents, both parents will have joint custody and joint parenting rights if the father's name is immediately put on the birth certificate. If not, paternity has to be established. Then it's joint custody and joint parenting rights.
Yes, females typically get primary physical custody by default if the two are not living together, even if paternity is established at birth. Has nothing to do with oppressing males intentionally. It actually has more to do with the idea of promoting breastfeeding. Because it's healthier for the child.
As for dads never getting custody? Well, my dad got custody of myself and my younger sister. Back in '93
I actually think it's rather sad how many men are not as active in their child's life. AND how many women force the other parent out of the equation. And while I don't have statistics off hand, I personally see more men choosing not to do things like take time off work because the kiddos aren't in school than women telling them that they can't. I see more men choosing not to be active in the PTA at their kid's school than women telling them they can't.
Overall, if two people are choosing to engage in activities that could create a baby, this kind of stuff should be worked out in advance. Because expecting that she will abort from a one-night fling is silly. Expecting that he wouldn't want to be a real father is silly. Adults should be adults. And the kid(s) should not be the ones used as pawns in the middle.
They don't get zero by default. You establish paternity, you then make a request to see the child.
In other words, they get 0 by default. Why are you denying in one sentence that which you admit to be true in the very next sentence?
Quote:
It's not like you establish paternity and you get to roll up to mom's house and snatch Junior out of his bassinet and throw him in the back of your car, no.
Exactly. Unmarried Dads get 0 parenting rights by default.
Quote:
Because the mom will have already set up a home for the child and will already be planning over the 9 months she is pregnant, around stuff like where the child will sleep, where the child will go to daycare if she's returning to work, how to deal with other siblings if there are any, etc.
Look at what you inferring, here. You are inferring that Dad will not be doing any of these things. That's sexist, biased, and discriminatory.
Quote:
You cannot disrupt a newborn's life like that.
So now it's disruptive for a child to see their parent?
Quote:
So, if you do find out you're the biological father, you are told that you can talk to the woman and attempt an amicable parenting arrangement. If she wants to collect child support, she has to be amenable to this.
Wrong. She collects child support either way. In fact the long arm of the State will collect it for her.
Quote:
If she doesn't want your money and she doesn't want anything to do with you, you can still take her to court, but the odds aren't in your favor, because the courts will wonder why she refused child support and wants zero to do with you and wants you to stay away from the child she recently shoved out of her loins.
Um, what? What in the world are you talking about?
Quote:
So, yeah... it's complicated, but a piece of paper establishing that your DNA appears to be a match isn't going to get you permission to snatch up a baby a woman spent 9 months growing in her body and has bonded with after birth.
In other words, the identity of Dad has nothing whatsoever to do with this as many others have falsely claimed.
Quote:
Perhaps, if you could carry a child, this might make more sense to yo
I doubt it. This is actually crystal clear, cut and dried discrimination. Again, one gender gets full parenting right and full custody (effectively lifetime custody), and one gender gets 0 parenting rights by default.
I am suggesting that if a man is worried he won't get any custodial rights he should either marry the woman or not impregnate her, even if she offers to have sex with him.
Why is this somehow illogical to you? It's completely intelligent.
...in other words, you are suggesting that the consequences and the risks of unmarried pregnancy should fall 100% on the shoulders of Dad and children, and 0% on the shoulders of Mom.
Get off your high horse. I don't moderate P&OC and I like men just fine.
I'm speaking in generalities. Of course there are men who love their kids (or, in the hypothetical you mention here, think they'd love to parent a kid) and go for custody solely because they want to be fathers.
I'm just saying I've known too many shifty types who wanted to see what they could get out of an arrangement. And, believe me, women do this same thing. It's sad for the kids involved.
.
You are back peddling now, but what you said was a overt attack on the entire male gender. Here is what you said:
Quote:
No. It's true, statistically speaking. Men rarely want full custody, unless there's a woman that makes more money than them and they see an opportunity to get some child support.
In other words, you painted all men that want full custody as doing it for the money. Real classy.
Quote:
You just keep beating that dead, tired high horse of yours about this as if it'll somehow be magically right that men should be conferred paternal rights even before the kid is born, even before anyone knows whose kid it is, and if not, as soon as junior pops out and blood tests can prove paternity.
Actually, you admitted in a previous post that even men with DNA tests in hand have 0 parental rights by default. Do you support this policy?
And of course men should have parental rights, just like women should! That's hardly a radical position.
Quote:
Having given birth to a few kids myself, I can tell you that snatching a newborn away from mom so daddy can have 50/50 rights is ridiculous unless mom is completely unfit to parent. Giving dad some visitation is totally reasonable, but what if she's nursing? It takes time to establish a new baby with nursing, and unless a dude can nurse his kid...
You are essentially saying that Mothers are more important than Fathers. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but yours is discriminatory, biased, and sexist.
Quote:
You see my point?
I see that you are trying to minimize and marginalize Dads as parents. That's wrong.
Quote:
Most custody battles are between parents who already have an established relationship with the kids (divorces, couples who lived together and coparented for a good length of time until the kids were older, etc).
This scenario you have laid out of "if I get this chick pregnant, why can't I have the baby at least half the time?" is just more complex than DNA.
Actually, it doesn't get more simple. Both parents have the child half the time when they can't figure it out on their own. It doesn't get simpler than that.
In the case of unmarried parents, both parents will have joint custody and joint parenting rights if the father's name is immediately put on the birth certificate. If not, paternity has to be established. Then it's joint custody and joint parenting rights.
.
No. That's not true. It doesn't matter if Dads name is on the birth certificate or not. It doesn't matter whether paternity is established or not. Unmarried Dad's gets zero parenting rights by default.
Quote:
Yes, females typically get primary physical custody by default if the two are not living together, even if paternity is established at birth. Has nothing to do with oppressing males intentionally. It actually has more to do with the idea of promoting breastfeeding. Because it's healthier for the child.
Not true. Unmarried Moms get full parenting rights and full custody by default, Dad gets zero parenting rights by default. That's how it works in every State. Do you think that's right?
How could a 50/50 default shared custody from the moment of birth be enforced?
What if she doesn't tell him about the pregnancy?
What if she tells him about the pregnancy and then decides to leave the country before the child is born?
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.
).
