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.
Solution for men: do not impregnate any women who are not married to you.
So all pregnant single women are victims? That's your logical conclusion do single pregnant mom's know this?. Excepting rape both parties entered the situation facing the same risks, but both have unequal outcomes solely because of gender. It also is prejudicial against both genders who do not see the societal construct of marriage as having any validity in modern society, even historically sex had little do do with marriage, and in modern societies even less. If a man may impregnate a woman he is not married to, then it follows that a woman may be impregnated by a man she is not married to assuming consent why should outcome be different? If marriage is the yardstick shouldn't both receive equal punitive actions, or shouldn't the child be protected from those punitive actions regardless? Both again same choices unequal outcomes.
Finally childrearing responsibilities falls almost directly on women in law, that's specifically the way the laws are structured. Many of the concerns of glass ceilings and lower incomes are in part caused because of ubiquitous child rearing by women; it could vanish if the courts remove this burden to provide equal opportunity in child rearing, even if it did not, then it removes any argument in regards to children limiting compensation or promotion. Now it can be argued there are lots of deadbeat dad's which may be true, but the law is structured such that all men are responsible for financial support regardless of their opinion, if the law was reversed I'd expect there would be as many deadbeat mom's too, indeed the Census Bureau confirms this 32% of custodial father's receive nothing from court ordered support arrangements compared to 25% of custodial mothers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Middletwin
Biology 101 reminder:
Men have a choice, only one time, to prevent a pregnancy and child support and being a parent and paying for an abortion. Just one time.
That has nothing to do with biology, that's 100% sociology. Any additional choices women may have are not related to biology, but medical science, or law, not biology. Don't mistake that for removing any of those choices from women, just an observeration they're not biological in nature.
That said this is all a pointless exercise, having seen these threads before.
Forcefully asserting untruth does not change its nature. There is a pragmatic advantage to the mother...basically inherent in the roles played.
But the father is not powerless. Just needs to demonstrate standing...
************************
Father's Custody Rights: Unmarried fathers can take action to be awarded custody of a child. In most states, if the father’s name is on the child’s birth certificate, he will automatically be recognized as the child’s legal father and have an equal amount of standing in court as the mother. Otherwise, a father's rights depend on his suitability to have custody. An unwed father cannot win primary physical custody over a mother who is a good parent, but may be able to establish some custody or visitation rights. - See more at: Child Custody Laws between Unmarried Parents | LegalMatch Law Library
*************************************
So much here....
First of all, the part of my post that you bolded is absolutely true. Yet you call it 'untruth. Why would you do this?
Second, you use the word 'pragmatic', which to me is essentially trying to put an intellectual spin on something that is really very simple. Again, would you support a change of law that reverses the gender and gives unwed Moms 0 parenting rights by default? If this is really no big deal, you should have no problem with this.
Third, unwed Dads have no practical recourse. Just look at what you posted! "....but may be able to establish some custody or visitation rights."
Again, why should Dad have to file with the court to be granted the luxury of 'some visitation rights'?
If the dad wants paternity rights simply prove paternity. Or, depending on the state, sign a voluntary statement and send it to the appropriate agency.
I don't see how a law granting fathers rights but not mothers would work in practice because, again, we know who the mother is by default.
In Arizona, for example, your claim that the "vast majority" of cases involving an agreed father can be put into writing and enforceable via a voluntary statement. In Arizona, if a father holds himself out as such, he can be established as the father before paternity is established. That issue would only come in if the mother got the courts involved.
By my example above, your statement that 0 states grant fathers rights by default is incorrect. Most states may make it difficult, but if you can't be bothered to do any of the above, maybe you're not fit to be a father.
I think you're being a drama queen honestly.
Actually, being 'established as the father' is not the same thing as being given custody and/or parenting rights. Unwed Dads don't get these things in Arizona or anywhere else. He may be able to negotiate these things with Mom, but that's not the same thing as being given them.
Furthermore, do you have kids? I don't believe wanting parenting rights of children is dramatic at all...quite the contrary, for many of us parents our kids are the most important things in our lives.
Actually I believe the rule in most states is the mother and father must agree on the named father. The mother is automatic. The father requires agreement.
Again the pragmatic rule.. We know who the mother is.
No, the women chooses the fathers name and father has to decide to sign or not to sign. The woman can put no name or the name of anyone. Then when asking for child support the state goes after whoever is on the birh certificate signed or not and then the person has to prove they are not the father and even then they may end up still paying child support. If the father wants to be added to the certificate and some an doesn't want him to be has to go to court at the cost of thousands of dollars to himself all to get his name added and still end up with no parental rights.
First of all, the part of my post that you bolded is absolutely true. Yet you call it 'untruth. Why would you do this?
Second, you use the word 'pragmatic', which to me is essentially trying to put an intellectual spin on something that is really very simple. Again, would you support a change of law that reverses the gender and gives unwed Moms 0 parenting rights by default? If this is really no big deal, you should have no problem with this.
Third, unwed Dads have no practical recourse. Just look at what you posted! "....but may be able to establish some custody or visitation rights."
Again, why should Dad have to file with the court to be granted the luxury of 'some visitation rights'?
I bolded nothing in your post. You did. Another untruth.
Pragmatic says we something do things in a certain way because all the other ways have difficulties and the way works most of the time. Nothing intellectual about it. More a deliberate and admitted cop out.
Reversing the law will be fine. All you got to do is figure out how to have the father have the baby. Maybe an implanted uterus? Again the pragmatic is that we know who the mother is. Establishing the father requires further effort that may not be easy. So you suggest we default to whoever/wherever? How does that work?
Again the law requires doing whatever is in the best interest of the child. What do you propose as your alternative? Best interest of the child will likely favor any good mother over any change in status. And that is a reasonable position. If you have a good outcome why would you run the risk of change?
In Arizona if a father welcomes a child into his home and holds himself out as a father he is presumptively the father until it is challenged. Those are default rights.
Presumptively the Father for the purposes of paying child support, NOT for parenting time and/or custody. Clearly you are not understanding this, but it bears repeating: this hypothetical Dad doesn't get one second of parenting time until it's ordered by the court. But Mom gets full custody and full parenting rights. Do you think this is right?
Presumptively the Father for the purposes of paying child support, NOT for parenting time and/or custody. Clearly you are not understanding this, but it bears repeating: this hypothetical Dad doesn't get one second of parenting time until it's ordered by the court. But Mom gets full custody and full parenting rights. Do you think this is right?
If a father can't be bothered to do simple tasks to prove he's a father, then maybe he's better off without rights.
How difficult is a paternity test? How difficult is a voluntary statement?
No, the women chooses the fathers name and father has to decide to sign or not to sign. The woman can put no name or the name of anyone. Then when asking for child support the state goes after whoever is on the birh certificate signed or not and then the person has to prove they are not the father and even then they may end up still paying child support. If the father wants to be added to the certificate and some an doesn't want him to be has to go to court at the cost of thousands of dollars to himself all to get his name added and still end up with no parental rights.
Sorry untrue. Most places in the US the hospital will require the father to sign an Acknowledgement of Paternity which is also signed by the mother.
As I said in general the father and mother must consent to the father named on the BC.
If a father can't be bothered to do simple tasks to prove he's a father, then maybe he's better off without rights.
How difficult is a paternity test? How difficult is a voluntary statement?
By contrast, how difficult is raising a child?
So Dad has to file a lawsuit to prove himself, before he gets one minute of parenting time, and correct me if I'm wrong, but you believe this is a good thing?
And you do realize that even after Dad ponies up 5k for a lawyer's retainer and goes to court, he will not be raising the child...he will be given a few hours/week of parenting time to start and graduate up to every other weekend. All the while Mom has to file nothing, pay nothing, and is given full custody and parenting rights...
Correct me if I'm wrong... you don't see this as discriminatory, correct?
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.
