Doesn't daddy get a say?

[allhart]

In that case, I'd say your legal system needs some major adjustments... I understand men not having any say on abortion, that makes sense, but not being able to adopt?

The point is you can't protect the child from who their parents are or in saying you can't say two wrongs make it right! And the natural law or way of things has the balance in parenting! Takes to tango and it takes two to raise them, ideally!

 

[SithDoughnut]

The point is you can't protect the child from who their parents are or in saying you can't say two wrongs make it right! And the natural law or way of things has the balance in parenting! Takes to tango and it takes two to raise them, ideally!

I imagine that there are many single mothers out there who have escaped from relationships filled with abuse and violence that would disagree with you there. Two parents are nice, but it depends on who the parents are.

 

[allhart]

I imagine that there are many single mothers out there who have escaped from relationships filled with abuse and violence that would disagree with you there. Two parents are nice, but it depends on who the parents are.

The ideal and I mean Ideal condition to which society has and should raise up children is in the traditional sense is between one man and one women! The rest is in effect after sin or in sin!

 

[lawtonfogle]

True, he can't give up the child if he doesn't have custody. But the reality is, many fathers do find ways to avoid their financial obligations.

Very unfairly applied obligations.

Not really, since sex was a voluntary act. Temporary indentured servitude perhaps, but not slavery.

Slavery, even temporary, is slavery. This is why forcing the woman to remain pregnant is slavery.

The volutariness of sex does not imply consent to care for a child, especially in the situation where protection was used (or assumed to be used, if the woman lied).

Except that the woman has legal options during pregnancy that the man does not have.

You may disagree with those options, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

I do not disagree with the options, what I disagree with is that the reasoning for those options are not fairly applied. The woman has options because there is no agreement to be a caretaker while pregnant, yet the man has obligations because there is an agreement to be a caretaker? Inconsistent.

 

[jpcedotal]

I have full custody of my two kids AND I let the mother keep them every other week because she is their mother and I will not let a broken marriage cause my children to only see half of what makes them who they are. The courts do not make me and I can pick up and move anywhere at any time.

Of course, her home is safe, we live in the same school zone, and we do not hate each others guts "all" the time, just most of the time.

They get to see from both parents that we love them the most.

 

[allhart]

I have full custody of my two kids AND I let the mother keep them every other week because she is their mother and I will not let a broken marriage cause my children to only see half of what makes them who they are. The courts do not make me and I can pick up and move anywhere at any time.

Of course, her home is safe, we live in the same school zone, and we do not hate each others guts "all" the time, just most of the time.

They get to see from both parents that we love them the most.

Keep up the good work!

 

[Belk]

The ideal and I mean Ideal condition to which society has and should raise up children is in the traditional sense is between one man and one women! The rest is in effect after sin or in sin!

really? Why is that the ideal? So back in the middle ages when children where raised by the entire extended family it was not the ideal?

 

[PreachersWife2004]

The ideal and I mean Ideal condition to which society has and should raise up children is in the traditional sense is between one man and one women! The rest is in effect after sin or in sin!

to the bolded part.

I'm sure that what you mean is that you believe core families are best defined with a father and a mother. As Belk pointed out, many families are extended and children aren't necessarily raised by just their father and just their mother.

 

[keith99]

really? Why is that the ideal? So back in the middle ages when children where raised by the entire extended family it was not the ideal?

Hey, I'm not that old.

While as far as who lived in the house went it was mom, dad and us kids, who was involved in raising us involved all my grandparents. My family was far from unique. This provided support which made raising us much easier. I would go so far as to say it may even have made the difference between it being a chore and a pleasure for my parents. (And provided much pleasure for my grandparents as well).

Perhaps the idea of a family consisting of just parents and their chilren is not just not ideal, it just might be a big part of the problem.

 

[Belk]

Hey, I'm not that old.

While as far as who lived in the house went it was mom, dad and us kids, who was involved in raising us involved all my grandparents. My family was far from unique. This provided support which made raising us much easier. I would go so far as to say it may even have made the difference between it being a chore and a pleasure for my parents. (And provided much pleasure for my grandparents as well).

Perhaps the idea of a family consisting of just parents and their chilren is not just not ideal, it just might be a big part of the problem.

Frankly, I think the problem is trying to apply a one size fits all solution to something as varied as the human race. Over history, there have been many different types of families. Saying this one here works best in all situations seems somewhat short sighted to me. I will need a lot of corroborating evidence.

 

[Belk]

to the bolded part.

I'm sure that what you mean is that you believe core families are best defined with a father and a mother. As Belk pointed out, many families are extended and children aren't necessarily raised by just their father and just their mother.

Exactly. There are also many different types of extended families.

 

[keith99]

Frankly, I think the problem is trying to apply a one size fits all solution to something as varied as the human race. Over history, there have been many different types of families. Saying this one here works best in all situations seems somewhat short sighted to me. I will need a lot of corroborating evidence.

I agree totally. But that said a parents and children and nothing more seems to me a very poor model. And anything saying the ideal or nothign mekes it even worse. One huge advantage of having the ideal of an extended network is that if a couple of the ideal pieces are taken out of the picture it still works. In my case if my mother and father both died it would have been terrible, btu I still would ahve been raised by family. If both sets of grand parents died too, still family. If my father brother also died then I might have been in trouble, but not hopeless, there were still second cousins.

Much as I in some ways dislike the Catholic Church their insistance on Godparents helps to create an even better safety net for children. At least with those who take oaths seriously.

 

[RobinRobyn]

Which is kinda the whole point of this thread, or maybe you missed it.

We already KNOW guys get the short end of the stick. What we're talking about is WHY the playing field is lopsided and if there's any fixes to it.

The playing field is lopsided because men don't get pregnant. Why? I dunno, I guess you have to ask whoever designed human reproduction.

The only "fix" I can think of is for men to think before they have sex. Since prolife men are all about responsibility, that shouldn't be a problem. Unless they're only concerned about the women's responsibility.

We really don't need someone to just keep telling us the system - we've got that down pretty well.

Apparently not, since there a few people here who seem to think that options they don't approve of simply do not exist.

FTR - I do not believe that simply being pregnant gives a woman any special rights over her fetus, just like being a sperm donor doesn't give a father any special rights over his fetus. (and let's be honest, it is his fetus as much as it is hers...)

Then why isn't it in his body too?

The thing that gives women "special rights" is that the embryo IS in her body.

 

[RobinRobyn]

Very unfairly applied obligations.

You think it's unfair that men have to support the children they father? I'm afriad we're just going to have to agree to disagree on that.

Slavery, even temporary, is slavery. This is why forcing the woman to remain pregnant is slavery.

True. But the difference between forced pregnancy and forced child support is that the father only pays with his wallet, not his body.

The volutariness of sex does not imply consent to care for a child, especially in the situation where protection was used (or assumed to be used, if the woman lied).

Maybe not to actually care for a child, but men do have a legal obligation to financially support the children they've fathered. I understand you may disagree with that fact, but it's still a fact.

If you like, you can work within the legal system to change that, so that men are free to sire children with no obligations toward them whatsoever.

I do not disagree with the options, what I disagree with is that the reasoning for those options are not fairly applied.

It's as fairly applied as biology allows, I think.

The woman has options because there is no agreement to be a caretaker while pregnant, yet the man has obligations because there is an agreement to be a caretaker? Inconsistent.

Actually, the woman has options because she's the one who gets pregnant. And, those options involve her body, which he has no rights over.

Custody issues come into play after birth, not before.

 

[Yusuf Evans]

In that case, I'd say your legal system needs some major adjustments... I understand men not having any say on abortion, that makes sense, but not being able to adopt?

A man is looked at under suspicion for wanting to be an elementary school teacher, but a woman is not. If a man works at a daycare, he is looked at under suspicion but a woman is not. Anytime a man wants to work with younger children, he is looked at as a potential child molestor and the woman is not. This is society's norm and needs to change.

As for where my info comes from, I see it on the news and also from people I work with on a daily basis. I'm in the US Army and most Soldiers marry civilians. They get divorced, because the wife was cheating on them with mulitple partners and the man gets the shaft most of the time. It's not just in the United States, but also in Germany as well. Seen it happen within the German court system.

 

[RobinRobyn]

A man is looked at under suspicion for wanting to be an elementary school teacher, but a woman is not. If a man works at a daycare, he is looked at under suspicion but a woman is not. Anytime a man wants to work with younger children, he is looked at as a potential child molestor and the woman is not. This is society's norm and needs to change.

I agree. But the problem is, there are pedophiles who look and act normal, and some of them do get jobs as elementary school teachers, day care workers, etc. Until we can tell them apart from the harmless ones, there will always be some degree of suspicion, warranted or not.

As for where my info comes from, I see it on the news and also from people I work with on a daily basis. I'm in the US Army and most Soldiers marry civilians. They get divorced, because the wife was cheating on them with mulitple partners and the man gets the shaft most of the time. It's not just in the United States, but also in Germany as well. Seen it happen within the German court system.

It's true, the courts tend to favor the mother in custody issues. This is from the idea that women are better suited as caregivers than men. It's outdated and archaic, but like so many other issues today, many people still believe it because it's "traditional."

However, it won't change if some men persist on shirking their obligations as fathers, even when that obligation is only financial. Arguments that favor allowing men to "opt out" of father hood won't help change that perception either.

 

[Mystman]

A man is looked at under suspicion for wanting to be an elementary school teacher, but a woman is not. If a man works at a daycare, he is looked at under suspicion but a woman is not. Anytime a man wants to work with younger children, he is looked at as a potential child molestor and the woman is not. This is society's norm and needs to change.

To be fair, a large part of that is down to biology.. the average woman is more likely to want to care for children. It's what they (most of them) are programmed to do.

A woman wanting to work at a daycare is just following the average behavorial pattern.

A man wanting to work at a daycare deviates from the average pattern. The question is then: in which way? In the "some guys are just a bit more feminine" way? (no disrespect intended; I think I fall in that group myself ) Or in the "some guys are aroused by little children" way?

Now, the "more feminine" group is probably much larger than the "child molestors" group, and restricting someone's employment opportunities on gender is illegal, so I can see why guys are allowed to work at day cares and do a wonderful job. But I can also see why parents might be a bit suspicious.

(in summary: we may want a society where men and women are treated completely equal, but there simply are biological differences between the two that make it difficult to attain that goal)

 

[lawtonfogle]

You think it's unfair that men have to support the children they father? I'm afriad we're just going to have to agree to disagree on that.

It is unfair when we do not force the same on the mother.

True. But the difference between forced pregnancy and forced child support is that the father only pays with his wallet, not his body.

Most people who pay child support earn that money through the use of their body. But I agree there is a difference here, but that difference results in the mother being able to actually terminate the pregnancy, while the father is only able to terminate his responsibility. He gets less power to terminate, but he still gets some.

Maybe not to actually care for a child, but men do have a legal obligation to financially support the children they've fathered. I understand you may disagree with that fact, but it's still a fact.

You just appealed to the law ("legal obligation"). If you have nothing better to defend the law than circular reasoning... normally that is a bad sign.

If you like, you can work within the legal system to change that, so that men are free to sire children with no obligations toward them whatsoever.

Got bigger fish (injustices) to fry (fix) first.

It's as fairly applied as biology allows, I think.

But not fairly applied as the law can allow (not does allow).

Actually, the woman has options because she's the one who gets pregnant. And, those options involve her body, which he has no rights over.

The point being, if the woman had an obligation to be a care taker, then she has given up the right to her body by taking on that obligation. My point stands you force the obligation on the man but not the woman, which even considering the differences in what the obligation entails, is still inconsistent.

Custody issues come into play after birth, not before.

Where did I mention custody in that part of it?

 

[lawtonfogle]

[/color]

I agree. But the problem is, there are pedophiles who look and act normal, and some of them do get jobs as elementary school teachers, day care workers, etc. Until we can tell them apart from the harmless ones, there will always be some degree of suspicion, warranted or not.

Females are pedophiles too, so should we not look at them with suspicion too? Also, even if a person admits to being a pedophile, assuming they have never done anything illegal, should that disqualify them from the job?

It's true, the courts tend to favor the mother in custody issues. This is from the idea that women are better suited as caregivers than men. It's outdated and archaic, but like so many other issues today, many people still believe it because it's "traditional."

However, it won't change if some men persist on shirking their obligations as fathers, even when that obligation is only financial. Arguments that favor allowing men to "opt out" of father hood won't help change that perception either.

If the man wins, is the woman forced to pay child support in the same way? Does it vary by state?

 

[RobinRobyn]

It is unfair when we do not force the same on the mother.

We do. Woman are just as responsible for the children they bear as the father is. This begins the same time the father's obligaions begin: birth.

Most people who pay child support earn that money through the use of their body.

True, but that isn't required of them. Pregnancy does require the use of the woman's body. There is no other option.

But I agree there is a difference here, but that difference results in the mother being able to actually terminate the pregnancy, while the father is only able to terminate his responsibility. He gets less power to terminate, but he still gets some.

She gets the "power" because it's her body doing the work. His isn't.

You just appealed to the law ("legal obligation"). If you have nothing better to defend the law than circular reasoning... normally that is a bad sign.

I'm not defending the law so much as stating that it exists. If you want to change it, then present a legal argument for doing so. All you've said so far is that it's unfair, but that is false since both mother and father have obligations to the child after it's born.

You have not given any reason why a father's parental rights should extend to the mother, who is not his child.

Got bigger fish (injustices) to fry (fix) first.

Your call, of course. It'd be a hard battle anyway, since some men have been trying for centuries to shirk their fatherly duties, to no avail.

But not fairly applied as the law can allow (not does allow).

I disagree. Both mother and father have rights and obligations toward their children. After birth.

The point being, if the woman had an obligation to be a care taker, then she has given up the right to her body by taking on that obligation.

You base that on what principle of law, exactly? Far as I can tell, this is just your opinion, an opinion no woman is required to obey.

My point stands you force the obligation on the man but not the woman, which even considering the differences in what the obligation entails, is still inconsistent.

Both woman and man have obligations as caregivers. Those obligations begin when the child is born. Not before.

Where did I mention custody in that part of it?

Caretaking = custody, does it not? The primary caretaker is the one who has custody of the child.