Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 05-16-2017, 02:54 PM
 
3,092 posts, read 1,933,270 times
Reputation: 3030

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by ContraPagan View Post
Here's an idea to get around that... don't make babies outside of marriage. It's a lot simpler to accomplish that than people realize.
Your 'idea' simply takes 100% of the risks, liabilities, and consequences of unmarried pregnancy and puts them on the backs of Dads and children, while giving 0% of the risks, liabilities, and consequences of unwanted pregnancy to Moms. Do you support this?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-16-2017, 02:59 PM
 
Location: Watervliet, NY
6,916 posts, read 3,893,914 times
Reputation: 12875
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevdawgg View Post
You also forgot divorce courts are extremely biased towards women.

If a married couple gets divorced, the ex-wife gets all the benefits (alimony, child support, rights of the property, etc) even though if she dumped her husband for some other guy or got bored and departed for greener pastures. The ex-husband would get hung out to dry and has to pay monthly or go to jail, even though he did nothing wrong and there was no evidence of abuse, rape, etc.... These laws were designed for women and the court system to exploit men. Yet I don't hear anyone fighting this.

Stuff like this is why men shouldn't marry unless they want to end up in financial and/or emotional ruin. Not to mention the divorce rate is like 50-60%.
When my brother got divorced, he got to keep the house and their pets. Probably because my SIL left him for another man, whom she later married, I don't believe he is/was paying alimony, either.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-16-2017, 03:14 PM
 
35,932 posts, read 30,478,865 times
Reputation: 32197
Quote:
Originally Posted by ContraPagan View Post
When my brother got divorced, he got to keep the house and their pets. Probably because my SIL left him for another man, whom she later married, I don't believe he is/was paying alimony, either.
Exactly. Alimony or spousal support is rare these days as most women work throughout the marriage. Marital property is split 50/50 and of course there is child support. Geesh these guys are arguing a man claiming to be the father should have the default right to snatch the baby from the hospital and set his own parenting schedule but they dont think men should pay any monetary support for that kid.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-16-2017, 03:17 PM
 
Location: Watervliet, NY
6,916 posts, read 3,893,914 times
Reputation: 12875
Quote:
Originally Posted by dysgenic View Post
Your 'idea' simply takes 100% of the risks, liabilities, and consequences of unmarried pregnancy and puts them on the backs of Dads and children, while giving 0% of the risks, liabilities, and consequences of unwanted pregnancy to Moms. Do you support this?
It REMOVES 100% of the risks, liabilities, and consequences of unmarried pregnancy from all parties involved.

I support the right that all children have to be raised by two parents, under the same roof, who present a united front on all matters pertaining to that child's upbringing. I had that, my father and his 5 siblings had that, my mother would have had that had her father not died when she was 4, but she was raised by a strong-minded mother who brooked no nonsense.

Last edited by ContraPagan; 05-16-2017 at 03:35 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-16-2017, 03:25 PM
 
Location: Watervliet, NY
6,916 posts, read 3,893,914 times
Reputation: 12875
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2mares View Post
Exactly. Alimony or spousal support is rare these days as most women work throughout the marriage. Marital property is split 50/50 and of course there is child support. Geesh these guys are arguing a man claiming to be the father should have the default right to snatch the baby from the hospital and set his own parenting schedule but they dont think men should pay any monetary support for that kid.
She was working as an EMT, that's how she met the guy she left my brother for. Ironically, this guy was married too, and they used to hang out with him and his wife on occasion before things got crazy.

Outside of him getting the house, I'm not sure how the split went. NY is not, to my knowledge, a community property state like CA. He did make a lot more money than she did, because he was working for the state by that time, and had been for 9 years.

My brother is still very, very much involved in the lives of their 2 boys, and he and my SIL have managed to maintain an amicable relationship that revolves around the boys and what they need.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-16-2017, 03:57 PM
 
Location: Land of Thought and Flow
8,323 posts, read 15,123,148 times
Reputation: 4957
Quote:
Originally Posted by dysgenic View Post
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt; maybe you are just misinformed.
Translation: "You don't agree with me, so you must be misinformed"

Cute.

Fun fact: I never married my daughter's father. He has numerous legal parental rights that were conferred the moment his name went on the birth certificate. That list I provided you earlier includes some of them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dysgenic View Post
Because what you are trying to portray here is so wildly inaccurate that the way things work in real life is pretty much the opposite of what you are selling.
Not really. Lived it. Still do.

Amicable agreements on raising a child can (and do) happen between adults whom are willing to be actual adults. Sorry that you weren't so lucky.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dysgenic View Post
Do you have any idea what the standard amount of parenting time that most courts in the USA actually order for infants of unmarried Dads?
So how do you propose a default 50/50 be split for an infant? A toddler? A kid in grade school?

Should they trade every other day? Trade every Sunday? One month here, one month there?

Don't just blather "50/50 SPLIT HURRDURR". Put some actual (adult) thought into it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dysgenic View Post
It usually starts at a couple of hours/week only to graduate to every other weekend.


Quote:
Originally Posted by dysgenic View Post
In other words, what you are selling as 'rights' is really just effectively being barred from a child's life- forever.
Only to someone, like yourself, who literally cannot fathom other parental rights and responsibilities aside from visitation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dysgenic View Post
And you say this 'allows' each family to work out what is best for the child? That statement is completely out of touch with reality.
Yes. Because actual adults are capable of making decisions in the best interest for their children. Actual adults are capable of communicating and working together, even after a failed relationship.

Parents who aren't selfish twits are capable of understanding why it is unhealthy for a child to be consistently bounced back and forth "equally". They understand complicated things like "stability" and "how to not be a selfish twit".

Quote:
Originally Posted by dysgenic View Post
Unless, of course, you also support the biased, discriminatory, and sexist position that Moms are better than Dads and women are better than men.
Must suck to be so daft that the only parental right you can focus on is visitation. Sounds like the rantings of a bitter, salty pleb who was laughed out of the court room for demanding that his children not actually have a primary household. Or maybe one that was laughed out of the courtroom for thinking that demanding a 50/50 split of physical custody would release him from any sort of financial obligation?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-16-2017, 04:01 PM
 
3,092 posts, read 1,933,270 times
Reputation: 3030
[quote=2mares;48176449]
Quote:
Originally Posted by dysgenic View Post
Are you now trying to say the mother does not gestate and birth the child and it is not 100% the child coming out of her is hers (with the exception of surrogates). I believe that is pretty much established. Having one 100% positive parent that can provide nourishment for the baby from her body, that has already bonded with the fetus growing inside her is the default choice. There is no argument against it.
No where was it inferred what my beliefs are. And no where did I say anything about either or custody. Just because you keep saying it doesnt make it true.

So because mom carried the baby for 9 months, that means that Dad should have 0 parental rights for the child when the child is born and effectively be barred from the child's life forever? That's what you are arguing right here even if you refuse to come out and say it. No matter how you spin it, that's a discriminatory, sexist, and biased position.


No we haven't. The man cant have DNA test in hand at birth. DNA testing must be done post birth therefore paternity can not be established before the child is born. As soon as DNA testing shows he is the father he has parenting rights. So yes according to law paternity and maternity have everything to do with child custody.

No, Dad does not get parental rights when he has DNA test in hand. He may have the ability to file in court, but that's not the same thing, is it?


Honey, look it up. Please. Once paternity is established the father has parenting rights. Of course the terms of those rights are established by the court in best interest of the child. The same as it is in divorce cases. If there is a challenge neither the mother nor the father have any guaranteed rights to do as they please with their biological child

Once paternity is established, Dad still has to file with the court to attempt to get parental rights. Until that time, his DNA test will get him nowhere with the authorities. In other words, unmarried Dad has 0 parental rights by default. As to 'guaranteed' rights, Mom may not have them, but she does have default or defacto rights.


I really dont see where this is an issue. In most situations the unmarried parents have worked out some form of parenting/custody/support before the birth of the child. Very seldom does it go that the mother doesn't name the father on the BC and DNA testing and court hearings are required.

This is a gigantic issue as good men are being barred from their children's lives en masse. This is the very definition of oppressive.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-16-2017, 04:03 PM
 
Location: Land of Thought and Flow
8,323 posts, read 15,123,148 times
Reputation: 4957
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2mares View Post
Exactly. Alimony or spousal support is rare these days as most women work throughout the marriage. Marital property is split 50/50 and of course there is child support. Geesh these guys are arguing a man claiming to be the father should have the default right to snatch the baby from the hospital and set his own parenting schedule but they dont think men should pay any monetary support for that kid.
I think the OP, or someone related to the OP, thought it would be "SUPER SMART" to demand 50/50 physical custody to get out of paying any sort of financial support... only to be called out by the child's advocate and a judge of the court. Which, based on the fact that they have no idea what "parental rights" or custody actually mean? Proooobably a good thing. Feel bad for the kids, tho.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-16-2017, 04:04 PM
 
3,092 posts, read 1,933,270 times
Reputation: 3030
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2mares View Post
Exactly. Alimony or spousal support is rare these days as most women work throughout the marriage. Marital property is split 50/50 and of course there is child support. Geesh these guys are arguing a man claiming to be the father should have the default right to snatch the baby from the hospital and set his own parenting schedule but they dont think men should pay any monetary support for that kid.
What kind of agenda does this person have that they have to continually post things on this forum that are not true? Alimony is alive and well, and just as prevalent as ever.


And no one is arguing for baby snatching except you- you think Moms should be able to keep innocent babies from Dads as a default.

Last edited by dysgenic; 05-16-2017 at 04:17 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-16-2017, 04:14 PM
 
Location: Chicago
6,160 posts, read 5,643,350 times
Reputation: 6193
Some things suck for men, while other things suck for women. All I know is that I'm tired of feminists playing the victim card. They won't ever admit that they have privilege that men do not have.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top