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.
...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.
No.
I'm suggesting that if a man wants to take control of this situation, he not impregnate women who are not his spouse.
No court in the world is going to give men control of a pregnant woman's body.
Nope. Not going to happen.
If men gave birth instead of women, I would disagree with women being able to control men's bodies.
It's just common sense, really. Do women get to force men to impregnate them whenever they want?
Nope. Why? Because those men have rights.
Women have rights over their bodies. Babies are part of the mother's body until they are born. After that, you have to FIGURE OUT WHO THE FATHER IS.
You know who the mother is... she just gave birth to the kid.
You are making this sound like, if you show up at any hospital and tell them you know that girl giving birth and you are the daddy, they should hand you the child that just exited her body or you're being oppressed.
That is a load of crap.
I am not saying men won't take care of infants, either.
I'm saying that until ya'll figure out how to breastfeed, you might not want to try to rip a newborn from its momma.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
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?
What if she was sleeping with 2 guys, she thinks it is the first guy's kid, but it turns out to be the 2nd guy's kid?
Is guy 2 somehow being oppressed? If so, is it by guy 1 or by the mother?
This is the most ridiculous thread I've wasted time posting in on here in quite some time.
What is wrong with establishing paternity first?
It is the conservative option.
If you want to be a part from day one, you need to be with the child's mother, not on the sidelines. Easiest way to do this is to be married to her, but if you are dating an agreeable woman and you two are cohabitating, you can be reasonably assured of paternal privileges, too.
50/50 shared custody from the word go is silly unless both parties agree to it and are sure of the paternity of the child.
It's a human being, not a car.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
How is 50/50 custody enforced now? Actually enforcement would be much easier than the system we have now; although lawyers wouldn't like it much.
I believe Mom should be required to identify Dad by law.
If Mom bolts to another country she would be extradited and charged with kidnapping, same as if Dad did it.
How is a woman gonna kidnap a baby in her womb?
See? You are advocating for control of a woman's body, like she's an incubator.
Nope. That's not gonna fly.
I can see why you are worried over this, though. With viewpoints that archaic, it's going to be a challenge to get a woman to agree to a reasonable custody agreement with you.
Sidebar: Sometimes, a woman legitimately has no idea which guy is the father.
How do you account for that?
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
What if she was sleeping with 2 guys, she thinks it is the first guy's kid, but it turns out to be the 2nd guy's kid?
Is guy 2 somehow being oppressed? If so, is it by guy 1 or by the mother?
This is the most ridiculous thread I've wasted time posting in on here in quite some time.
What is wrong with establishing paternity first?
It is the conservative option.
Actually we've already established that even in cases where paternity is agreed upon, in fact even in cases where Dad has a DNA test in hand, unmarried Dads still have 0 parenting rights by default. So it logically follows that paternity has nothing to do with this.
Quote:
If you want to be a part from day one, you need to be with the child's mother, not on the sidelines. Easiest way to do this is to be married to her, but if you are dating an agreeable woman and you two are cohabitating, you can be reasonably assured of paternal privileges, too.
You see, you want the risks and consequences of pregnancy to be 100% on the shoulders of Dads and kids, and 0% on the shoulders of Moms. That's not reasonable.
Quote:
50/50 shared custody from the word go is silly unless both parties agree to it and are sure of the paternity of the child.
It's a human being, not a car.
You have repeatedly demonstrated your bias, sexism, and discrimination with opinions like this. Clearly you aren't concerned about the children in question having access to both parents. I therefore must conclude that you don't care about the children.
I'm suggesting that if a man wants to take control of this situation, he not impregnate women who are not his spouse.
Exactly, you are suggesting that Dads and children absorb 100% of the risk and liabilities of pregnancy while Moms absorb 0%. That's not reasonable.
Quote:
No court in the world is going to give men control of a pregnant woman's body.
Nope. Not going to happen.
If men gave birth instead of women, I would disagree with women being able to control men's bodies.
It's just common sense, really. Do women get to force men to impregnate them whenever they want?
Nope. Why? Because those men have rights.
Women have rights over their bodies. Babies are part of the mother's body until they are born. After that, you have to FIGURE OUT WHO THE FATHER IS.
You know who the mother is... she just gave birth to the kid.
I have never suggested that anyone have any control over a woman's body. You are trying to put words in my mouth that were never said.
Quote:
You are making this sound like, if you show up at any hospital and tell them you know that girl giving birth and you are the daddy, they should hand you the child that just exited her body or you're being oppressed.
That is a load of crap.
I am not saying men won't take care of infants, either.
No, I never said anything like this whatsoever. Another strawman argument.
Quote:
I'm saying that until ya'll figure out how to breastfeed, you might not want to try to rip a newborn from its momma.
So its more important for a child to breastfeed than for a child to have a Father?
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.
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?
Simply not true. It is very useful for papa to be on the birth certificate. For instance it will be very difficult for the mother to legally move out of state without the permission of a father who is on the BC. And it may take a court order to enroll a kid in school without the permission of a BC father. And it can come up in medical and other situations. The system favors the mother but the father is not "0". And the dad may choose to expand his parental rights in the courts where he is an equal participant.
You continue to try and escalate a tilt into an overwhelming one sided approach. Won't work.
And the brief you appear to carry is hopelessly one sided. The obvious conclusion is you lost to some talented woman and are trying to get even by poisoning the pond for others. Won't work.
See? You are advocating for control of a woman's body, like she's an incubator.
Nope. That's not gonna fly.
I can see why you are worried over this, though. With viewpoints that archaic, it's going to be a challenge to get a woman to agree to a reasonable custody agreement with you.
Sidebar: Sometimes, a woman legitimately has no idea which guy is the father.
How do you account for that?
No, I'm not. Once the child is born, she becomes a kidnapper if Dad has custody. Not before. This is S.O.P. when Dad takes a child out of the country.
As to when the woman doesn't know who the Father is, I believe that it's reasonable to legally require Mom to identify Dad. DNA testing is now affordable and easy, btw.
You're advocating chasing down a pregnant woman and extraditing her and charging her with kidnapping an unborn child.
We're done here.
No, I'm not. Once the child is born, I would extradite her. Not before. I am not advocating for any control over a woman's body.
Last edited by dysgenic; 05-15-2017 at 07:27 PM..
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.
