If the man has opted-out for a lump of cells, that naturally means everything is opted-out thereafter.
I'm not disagreeing with that. What I'm saying is that this is not an equitable response to a woman's choice.
Quote:
Originally posted by Randycat99
If the woman proceeds to develop that lump of cells into a living baby, despite the man having already opted-out, then the liability and responsibility should be soley her own. The man has long since stepped out of the picture. Done. Finito.
Can a woman opt-out and leave a man with a human to raise? No.
This situation you so accurately describes proves my point. What trumptman is asking for has no equivalent for a woman. He's not asking for equality, he's asking for more.
And the opt-out decision you want can effect what the blob of cells is today, but not the human it will be in the future.
So... abortion will affect it much worse and is perfectly legal.
Quote:
I'm referring to the human that will grow from the blob. The effects the opt-out decision has on that blob.
Again so...abortion will affect the human that will grow from the blob as well.
You keep speaking about it in future and human terms. Certainly no act can be worse than death. Even if the father is given the option of abandoning what will be a human, that is certainly no worse than killing it.
We allow abortion for any and all reasons. It is pure discretion, especially in the first trimester. So the child may or may not be poorer. We don't really know, that is an assumption. The mother might hit the lottery, might get married to a different guy who cares about her and the child. It doesn't really matter. We can't control the future of people and their decisions, nor should we attempt to do so via legislation.
You are about the last person in the world who should condone taking pre-emptive action. Now not only are you a pro-lifer, you should join the Bush cabinet.
Hmmm...I re-read my last two posts and noticed that I didn't mention abortion. Why are you derailing the thread?
Because when you call a lump of cells labeled a fetus a human, and attempt to forgo the rights of a fully born human to protect the rights of that lump of cells, that sounds... just like the abortion debate.
Can a woman opt-out and leave a man with a human to raise? No.
This situation you so accurately describes proves my point. What trumptman is asking for has no equivalent for a woman. He's not asking for equality, he's asking for more.
You are incorrect. As you stated yourself, if the woman were to bare the child, thus not having exercised her choice to abort (1st choice in the matter) she could terminate her parental rights and give full custody to the father. I have witnessed this happen myself with men who really wanted the child, begged the women not to abort, and the women followed their wishes. The birthed the child, signed away the rights, and gave the man the child.
It is entirely possible.
Likewise it is not more because a woman ALWAYS has a choice to abort, adopt or abandon. She does not have to take the child she is left with if she does not want to do so. The man signing away his parental rights early on would only make all these processes less complicated and easier to accomplish. It doesn't not make it harder for her to exercise her choices, it makes it easier since she no longer has to worry about timelines for the father's rights terminating.
The only thing it makes it harder for her to do is have a child and then petition a court for 33% of his take home pay for the next 18 years.
Again so...abortion will affect the human that will grow from the blob as well.
You keep speaking about it in future and human terms. Certainly no act can be worse than death. Even if the father is given the option of abandoning what will be a human, that is certainly no worse than killing it.
Your whole premise is based on 'future and human terms', I'm only responding.
Abortion is not the death of a human. You have to have human life first.
You're not asking to abandon 'what will be a human', you're asking to abandon both what will be a human and what is a blob of cells. I can only say it so many times, but if you change your language to include only a blob of cells, I could accept it.
Let's get something figured out here then. What would be the equitable response (for a man) to a woman's choice to abort a baby, in your opinion?
Nothing.
Why must it be assumed that men should have a right equitable to abortion? Only women can abort. Only women can terminate pregnancies. It's a woman's right. The right to choose is conferred to women because the bodies of women are at stake in pregnancy...always. The pattern here, of course, is women, not men. Why some men see this biological and subsequently legal inequality as something that must be made equal is beyond rational thought.
Let's get something figured out here then. What would be the equitable response (for a man) to a woman's choice to abort a baby, in your opinion?
There may be nothing. But giving a man more rights doesn't make things better. There may be no equivalent to getting an abortion. Trumptman is just scared of this fact I guess.
There may be nothing. But giving a man more rights doesn't make things better. There may be no equivalent to getting an abortion. Trumptman is just scared of this fact I guess.
Yes, I sleep periodically and thus don't reply, so I must be scared.
You have reframed the question. The real question is, what is an equivalent way for men to terminate their parental rights. Women do so via abortion, adoption and abandonment. Men should be allowed to do so via opting out, adoption or abandonment.
What you are scared of addressing is there would be no equivelent of criminalizing a man and suing for support for 18 years for a 15 minute act.
How many other "crimes" do we give 18 year sentences for? Maybe attempted murder?
You also sidetrack the question in that men do not have to have a medical procedure to terminate their parental rights. Big deal. Abortion is an outpatient procedure done at a clinic.
You should just admit that you would prefer men have no option but supporting someone for 18 years. You haven't even indicated what rights they should have as a non-elective parent. You've decried the lengthy court procedures and the denial of father's rights via them, but you have offered no alternatives. (Something you accused me of that happened to be wrong) Offer your alternatives and we will see if your brand of feminism offers equality or coddling.
Why must it be assumed that men should have a right equitable to abortion? Only women can abort. Only women can terminate pregnancies. It's a woman's right. The right to choose is conferred to women because the bodies of women are at stake in pregnancy...always. The pattern here, of course, is women, not men. Why some men see this biological and subsequently legal inequality as something that must be made equal is beyond rational thought.
Why must a man have an equivelent right? Because their bodies are at stake in supporting an unwanted child for 18 years. That is much longer than the 40 weeks of pregnancy by which we give women the right to an abortion. If 40 weeks gives legal rights, what should 18 years give?
If a man, under threat of imprisonment,is required to support the child for 18 years, how is his body not at stake?
The thought associated with it is very rational and very equitable. It isn't to those like yourself who are self-loathing and accepting of this lack of equality.
Women and women's groups have made it clear. Sex is for pleasure, parenting is a choice. Abortion is available for those who had sex but don't wish to parent. The medical procedure involves their body, but the rational remains the same.
It should be the same for men as well.
Likewise to you Shawn, what are your alternatives? Men can not only be made to pay support, custody likewise defaults to the mother. There is no issue regarding her body with that. Would you support joint default legal and physical custody where the father is fiscally responsible for his 50% of the time and she for hers.
If you won't give him the right to opt out of parenting, would you at least support his right to parent equally? There is no woman, body, choice issue there. We will see if you are really about equality.
Your whole premise is based on 'future and human terms', I'm only responding.
Abortion is not the death of a human. You have to have human life first.
You're not asking to abandon 'what will be a human', you're asking to abandon both what will be a human and what is a blob of cells. I can only say it so many times, but if you change your language to include only a blob of cells, I could accept it.
You are repeating yourself. He abandons a blob of cells. What it becomes later is not his fault or concern. She has the right to abort if she chooses not to raise it alone when it becomes a child.
Yes, I sleep periodically and thus don't reply, so I must be scared.
Sorry, I wasn't referring to the fact that you hadn't responded. Just that you started the thread at all.
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
You have reframed the question. The real question is, what is an equivalent way for men to terminate their parental rights. Women do so via abortion, adoption and abandonment. Men should be allowed to do so via opting out, adoption or abandonment.
Men can via adoption or abandonment. There is no equivalent to abortion.
Sorry, I wasn't referring to the fact that you hadn't responded. Just that you started the thread at all.
Men can via adoption or abandonment. There is no equivalent to abortion.
Abortion /= opting out.
Men can via adoption or abandonment, if the mother consents. We have already discussed how the reverse is not true and the man's rights automatically time out. The reverse is not true for women.
Likewise I have explained how I think both people taking actions against a blob of cells is equal. How is it different to you? You mention the future ramifications, but women still have a choice to prevent that future via abortion.
And you did ignore the whole custody issue. Please let me know what you think there.
Men can via adoption or abandonment, if the mother consents. We have already discussed how the reverse is not true and the man's rights automatically time out. The reverse is not true for women.
I disagree that the reverse is not true. A woman can't put a child up for adoption or abandon it if the father does not consent.
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Likewise I have explained how I think both people taking actions against a blob of cells is equal. How is it different to you? You mention the future ramifications, but women still have a choice to prevent that future via abortion.
No. Taking action against a blob of cells is fine. YOU are the one that wants the decision to hold once the blob of cells grows up. So YOU are the one that wants the action to have ramifications against a human being. I'm all for actions being targeted at cells and cells alone. You refuse to acknowledge this option.
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
And you did ignore the whole custody issue. Please let me know what you think there.
What custody issue? Just trying to keep things clear so we're not arguing different points.
I disagree that the reverse is not true. A woman can't put a child up for adoption or abandon it if the father does not consent.
I think with this one, we are just going to have to agree to disagree. If she moves, lies, won't say he is the father, etc. It is almost impossible for him to exercise his "rights."
Quote:
No. Taking action against a blob of cells is fine. YOU are the one that wants the decision to hold once the blob of cells grows up. So YOU are the one that wants the action to have ramifications against a human being. I'm all for actions being targeted at cells and cells alone. You refuse to acknowledge this option.
I fully acknowledged that the cells become a human being with needs. The mother must weigh that when she exercises her choice to be a single parent with an unsupported child or abort. As for the decision holding, of course I do. Why would I want a man or a woman to pay for the rest of their lives for 15 minutes of sex. Isn't that why abortion is a woman's choice? So she may continue her life as she wishes without the role of parenting holding her back?
Quote:
What custody issue? Just trying to keep things clear so we're not arguing different points.
This one..Men can not only be made to pay support, physical custody likewise often defaults to the mother. There is no issue regarding her body with that. Would you support joint default legal and physical custody where the father is fiscally responsible for his 50% of the time and she for hers.
If you won't give him the right to opt out of parenting, would you at least support his right to parent equally? There is no woman, body, choice issue there. This would pretty much end the support issues as well.
Likewise please understand that in all these instances we are talking about two uncommitted adults. I don't think anyone here has claimed that a father in a marriage shouldn't assume responsibility for his child or that support issues still couldn't arise from divorce decrees. However even with divorce decrees I believe the default judgement should be 50-50 with no child support. If she wishes to pursue alimony related to lost employment opportunities due to staying home, etc. then that is another issue. However if both parties have the children 50% of the time, one should not have to pay the other. This is currently not the case no matter what type of relationship the man and woman had.
I think with this one, we are just going to have to agree to disagree. If she moves, lies, won't say he is the father, etc. It is almost impossible for him to exercise his "rights."
We can't protect men from women lying. It's just not possible. She has to be given the benefit of the doubt until proven guilty.
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
I fully acknowledged that the cells become a human being with needs. The mother must weigh that when she exercises her choice to be a single parent with an unsupported child or abort.
See, you want to push all the blame on to the mother. You want extra rights for men, not equality. Certainly the system can be exploited, but it can only be done by a women willing to lie, cheat and steal. Any system can be exploited by people willing to do that. You want to codify that right for men and that's wrong.
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
As for the decision holding, of course I do. Why would I want a man or a woman to pay for the rest of their lives for 15 minutes of sex. Isn't that why abortion is a woman's choice? So she may continue her life as she wishes without the role of parenting holding her back?
No. It's her choice because it's her body. Like getting a tattoo or a piercing.
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
This one..Men can not only be made to pay support, physical custody likewise often defaults to the mother. There is no issue regarding her body with that. Would you support joint default legal and physical custody where the father is fiscally responsible for his 50% of the time and she for hers.
50-50 isn't 100% correct. I believe the decision has to go up in front of a judge and that's where the situation is decided. Going to a 50-50 system would create problems just as it fixes some. As I told you, I know of a case where the father was given custody. If it had gone 50-50 likely one of his children would be dead right now. The judge made the right choice.
Judges aren't always correct, but I trust them more than I do a blanket 50-50 situation.
We can't protect men from women lying. It's just not possible.
So just leave in as many exploits in the system as possible? Sort of like keeping a Windows box secure? Hackers can get in anyway, so why bother any protection at all? Speaking of protection, sperm can get to the egg anyway, so why bother with any protection at all? This line of thought is pure bunk. You stop up as many holes as you can, and that will ward off most attempts at exploitation. A few may still get through in the end, but not w/o a considerable effort.
Quote:
She has to be given the benefit of the doubt until proven guilty.
Seems like "giving the benefit of the doubt" has worn away its welcome if women will readily lie to exploit the system. It's time to get back to "innocent until proven guilty" for both sexes.
Yes, a test that the alleged father has to push for through the court system (potentially over the course of years) under the premise of guilty until proven innocent.
Better to just employ a system where the man can call "opt-out", suggest that the woman do the same, and if not, she bears the burden entirely upon herself. If she was lying, that forces her to reevaluate her sinister plan. If she really just wanted to be a single mother with baby, she is free to do so, but the "tab" for her "choice" will strictly be on her. If she wasn't lying, but was "mistaken" of who the father is, that forces her to think wisely about who she declares the father, if she really wants to keep the baby and seeks child support for it. Better declare one that actually wants to be a father and is confident he is actually the genetic donor for the baby.
Comments
Originally posted by Randycat99
If the man has opted-out for a lump of cells, that naturally means everything is opted-out thereafter.
I'm not disagreeing with that. What I'm saying is that this is not an equitable response to a woman's choice.
Originally posted by Randycat99
If the woman proceeds to develop that lump of cells into a living baby, despite the man having already opted-out, then the liability and responsibility should be soley her own. The man has long since stepped out of the picture. Done. Finito.
Can a woman opt-out and leave a man with a human to raise? No.
This situation you so accurately describes proves my point. What trumptman is asking for has no equivalent for a woman. He's not asking for equality, he's asking for more.
Originally posted by bunge
And the opt-out decision you want can effect what the blob of cells is today, but not the human it will be in the future.
So... abortion will affect it much worse and is perfectly legal.
I'm referring to the human that will grow from the blob. The effects the opt-out decision has on that blob.
Again so...abortion will affect the human that will grow from the blob as well.
You keep speaking about it in future and human terms. Certainly no act can be worse than death. Even if the father is given the option of abandoning what will be a human, that is certainly no worse than killing it.
We allow abortion for any and all reasons. It is pure discretion, especially in the first trimester. So the child may or may not be poorer. We don't really know, that is an assumption. The mother might hit the lottery, might get married to a different guy who cares about her and the child. It doesn't really matter. We can't control the future of people and their decisions, nor should we attempt to do so via legislation.
You are about the last person in the world who should condone taking pre-emptive action. Now not only are you a pro-lifer, you should join the Bush cabinet.
Nick
Originally posted by bunge
Hmmm...I re-read my last two posts and noticed that I didn't mention abortion. Why are you derailing the thread?
Because when you call a lump of cells labeled a fetus a human, and attempt to forgo the rights of a fully born human to protect the rights of that lump of cells, that sounds... just like the abortion debate.
Nick
Originally posted by bunge
Can a woman opt-out and leave a man with a human to raise? No.
This situation you so accurately describes proves my point. What trumptman is asking for has no equivalent for a woman. He's not asking for equality, he's asking for more.
You are incorrect. As you stated yourself, if the woman were to bare the child, thus not having exercised her choice to abort (1st choice in the matter) she could terminate her parental rights and give full custody to the father. I have witnessed this happen myself with men who really wanted the child, begged the women not to abort, and the women followed their wishes. The birthed the child, signed away the rights, and gave the man the child.
It is entirely possible.
Likewise it is not more because a woman ALWAYS has a choice to abort, adopt or abandon. She does not have to take the child she is left with if she does not want to do so. The man signing away his parental rights early on would only make all these processes less complicated and easier to accomplish. It doesn't not make it harder for her to exercise her choices, it makes it easier since she no longer has to worry about timelines for the father's rights terminating.
The only thing it makes it harder for her to do is have a child and then petition a court for 33% of his take home pay for the next 18 years.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Again so...abortion will affect the human that will grow from the blob as well.
You keep speaking about it in future and human terms. Certainly no act can be worse than death. Even if the father is given the option of abandoning what will be a human, that is certainly no worse than killing it.
Your whole premise is based on 'future and human terms', I'm only responding.
Abortion is not the death of a human. You have to have human life first.
You're not asking to abandon 'what will be a human', you're asking to abandon both what will be a human and what is a blob of cells. I can only say it so many times, but if you change your language to include only a blob of cells, I could accept it.
I'm not disagreeing with that. What I'm saying is that this is not an equitable response to a woman's choice.
Let's get something figured out here then. What would be the equitable response (for a man) to a woman's choice to abort a baby, in your opinion?
Originally posted by Longhorn
Let's get something figured out here then. What would be the equitable response (for a man) to a woman's choice to abort a baby, in your opinion?
Nothing.
Why must it be assumed that men should have a right equitable to abortion? Only women can abort. Only women can terminate pregnancies. It's a woman's right. The right to choose is conferred to women because the bodies of women are at stake in pregnancy...always. The pattern here, of course, is women, not men. Why some men see this biological and subsequently legal inequality as something that must be made equal is beyond rational thought.
Originally posted by Longhorn
Let's get something figured out here then. What would be the equitable response (for a man) to a woman's choice to abort a baby, in your opinion?
There may be nothing. But giving a man more rights doesn't make things better. There may be no equivalent to getting an abortion. Trumptman is just scared of this fact I guess.
Originally posted by bunge
There may be nothing. But giving a man more rights doesn't make things better. There may be no equivalent to getting an abortion. Trumptman is just scared of this fact I guess.
Yes, I sleep periodically and thus don't reply, so I must be scared.
You have reframed the question. The real question is, what is an equivalent way for men to terminate their parental rights. Women do so via abortion, adoption and abandonment. Men should be allowed to do so via opting out, adoption or abandonment.
What you are scared of addressing is there would be no equivelent of criminalizing a man and suing for support for 18 years for a 15 minute act.
How many other "crimes" do we give 18 year sentences for? Maybe attempted murder?
You also sidetrack the question in that men do not have to have a medical procedure to terminate their parental rights. Big deal. Abortion is an outpatient procedure done at a clinic.
You should just admit that you would prefer men have no option but supporting someone for 18 years. You haven't even indicated what rights they should have as a non-elective parent. You've decried the lengthy court procedures and the denial of father's rights via them, but you have offered no alternatives. (Something you accused me of that happened to be wrong) Offer your alternatives and we will see if your brand of feminism offers equality or coddling.
Nick
Originally posted by Shawn
Nothing.
Why must it be assumed that men should have a right equitable to abortion? Only women can abort. Only women can terminate pregnancies. It's a woman's right. The right to choose is conferred to women because the bodies of women are at stake in pregnancy...always. The pattern here, of course, is women, not men. Why some men see this biological and subsequently legal inequality as something that must be made equal is beyond rational thought.
Why must a man have an equivelent right? Because their bodies are at stake in supporting an unwanted child for 18 years. That is much longer than the 40 weeks of pregnancy by which we give women the right to an abortion. If 40 weeks gives legal rights, what should 18 years give?
If a man, under threat of imprisonment,is required to support the child for 18 years, how is his body not at stake?
The thought associated with it is very rational and very equitable. It isn't to those like yourself who are self-loathing and accepting of this lack of equality.
Women and women's groups have made it clear. Sex is for pleasure, parenting is a choice. Abortion is available for those who had sex but don't wish to parent. The medical procedure involves their body, but the rational remains the same.
It should be the same for men as well.
Likewise to you Shawn, what are your alternatives? Men can not only be made to pay support, custody likewise defaults to the mother. There is no issue regarding her body with that. Would you support joint default legal and physical custody where the father is fiscally responsible for his 50% of the time and she for hers.
If you won't give him the right to opt out of parenting, would you at least support his right to parent equally? There is no woman, body, choice issue there. We will see if you are really about equality.
Nick
Originally posted by bunge
Your whole premise is based on 'future and human terms', I'm only responding.
Abortion is not the death of a human. You have to have human life first.
You're not asking to abandon 'what will be a human', you're asking to abandon both what will be a human and what is a blob of cells. I can only say it so many times, but if you change your language to include only a blob of cells, I could accept it.
You are repeating yourself. He abandons a blob of cells. What it becomes later is not his fault or concern. She has the right to abort if she chooses not to raise it alone when it becomes a child.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Yes, I sleep periodically and thus don't reply, so I must be scared.
Sorry, I wasn't referring to the fact that you hadn't responded. Just that you started the thread at all.
Originally posted by trumptman
You have reframed the question. The real question is, what is an equivalent way for men to terminate their parental rights. Women do so via abortion, adoption and abandonment. Men should be allowed to do so via opting out, adoption or abandonment.
Men can via adoption or abandonment. There is no equivalent to abortion.
Abortion /= opting out.
Originally posted by bunge
Sorry, I wasn't referring to the fact that you hadn't responded. Just that you started the thread at all.
Men can via adoption or abandonment. There is no equivalent to abortion.
Abortion /= opting out.
Men can via adoption or abandonment, if the mother consents. We have already discussed how the reverse is not true and the man's rights automatically time out. The reverse is not true for women.
Likewise I have explained how I think both people taking actions against a blob of cells is equal. How is it different to you? You mention the future ramifications, but women still have a choice to prevent that future via abortion.
And you did ignore the whole custody issue. Please let me know what you think there.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Men can via adoption or abandonment, if the mother consents. We have already discussed how the reverse is not true and the man's rights automatically time out. The reverse is not true for women.
I disagree that the reverse is not true. A woman can't put a child up for adoption or abandon it if the father does not consent.
Originally posted by trumptman
Likewise I have explained how I think both people taking actions against a blob of cells is equal. How is it different to you? You mention the future ramifications, but women still have a choice to prevent that future via abortion.
No. Taking action against a blob of cells is fine. YOU are the one that wants the decision to hold once the blob of cells grows up. So YOU are the one that wants the action to have ramifications against a human being. I'm all for actions being targeted at cells and cells alone. You refuse to acknowledge this option.
Originally posted by trumptman
And you did ignore the whole custody issue. Please let me know what you think there.
What custody issue? Just trying to keep things clear so we're not arguing different points.
Originally posted by bunge
I disagree that the reverse is not true. A woman can't put a child up for adoption or abandon it if the father does not consent.
I think with this one, we are just going to have to agree to disagree. If she moves, lies, won't say he is the father, etc. It is almost impossible for him to exercise his "rights."
No. Taking action against a blob of cells is fine. YOU are the one that wants the decision to hold once the blob of cells grows up. So YOU are the one that wants the action to have ramifications against a human being. I'm all for actions being targeted at cells and cells alone. You refuse to acknowledge this option.
I fully acknowledged that the cells become a human being with needs. The mother must weigh that when she exercises her choice to be a single parent with an unsupported child or abort. As for the decision holding, of course I do. Why would I want a man or a woman to pay for the rest of their lives for 15 minutes of sex. Isn't that why abortion is a woman's choice? So she may continue her life as she wishes without the role of parenting holding her back?
What custody issue? Just trying to keep things clear so we're not arguing different points.
This one..Men can not only be made to pay support, physical custody likewise often defaults to the mother. There is no issue regarding her body with that. Would you support joint default legal and physical custody where the father is fiscally responsible for his 50% of the time and she for hers.
If you won't give him the right to opt out of parenting, would you at least support his right to parent equally? There is no woman, body, choice issue there. This would pretty much end the support issues as well.
Likewise please understand that in all these instances we are talking about two uncommitted adults. I don't think anyone here has claimed that a father in a marriage shouldn't assume responsibility for his child or that support issues still couldn't arise from divorce decrees. However even with divorce decrees I believe the default judgement should be 50-50 with no child support. If she wishes to pursue alimony related to lost employment opportunities due to staying home, etc. then that is another issue. However if both parties have the children 50% of the time, one should not have to pay the other. This is currently not the case no matter what type of relationship the man and woman had.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
I think with this one, we are just going to have to agree to disagree. If she moves, lies, won't say he is the father, etc. It is almost impossible for him to exercise his "rights."
We can't protect men from women lying. It's just not possible. She has to be given the benefit of the doubt until proven guilty.
Originally posted by trumptman
I fully acknowledged that the cells become a human being with needs. The mother must weigh that when she exercises her choice to be a single parent with an unsupported child or abort.
See, you want to push all the blame on to the mother. You want extra rights for men, not equality. Certainly the system can be exploited, but it can only be done by a women willing to lie, cheat and steal. Any system can be exploited by people willing to do that. You want to codify that right for men and that's wrong.
Originally posted by trumptman
As for the decision holding, of course I do. Why would I want a man or a woman to pay for the rest of their lives for 15 minutes of sex. Isn't that why abortion is a woman's choice? So she may continue her life as she wishes without the role of parenting holding her back?
No. It's her choice because it's her body. Like getting a tattoo or a piercing.
Originally posted by trumptman
This one..Men can not only be made to pay support, physical custody likewise often defaults to the mother. There is no issue regarding her body with that. Would you support joint default legal and physical custody where the father is fiscally responsible for his 50% of the time and she for hers.
50-50 isn't 100% correct. I believe the decision has to go up in front of a judge and that's where the situation is decided. Going to a 50-50 system would create problems just as it fixes some. As I told you, I know of a case where the father was given custody. If it had gone 50-50 likely one of his children would be dead right now. The judge made the right choice.
Judges aren't always correct, but I trust them more than I do a blanket 50-50 situation.
Originally posted by bunge
We can't protect men from women lying. It's just not possible.
So just leave in as many exploits in the system as possible? Sort of like keeping a Windows box secure? Hackers can get in anyway, so why bother any protection at all? Speaking of protection, sperm can get to the egg anyway, so why bother with any protection at all? This line of thought is pure bunk. You stop up as many holes as you can, and that will ward off most attempts at exploitation. A few may still get through in the end, but not w/o a considerable effort.
Quote:
She has to be given the benefit of the doubt until proven guilty.
Seems like "giving the benefit of the doubt" has worn away its welcome if women will readily lie to exploit the system. It's time to get back to "innocent until proven guilty" for both sexes.
Originally posted by Randycat99
So just leave in as many exploits in the system as possible?
No, we have a paternity test to make things 100% sure in case a woman does lie. There's no better way than a test.
Better to just employ a system where the man can call "opt-out", suggest that the woman do the same, and if not, she bears the burden entirely upon herself. If she was lying, that forces her to reevaluate her sinister plan. If she really just wanted to be a single mother with baby, she is free to do so, but the "tab" for her "choice" will strictly be on her. If she wasn't lying, but was "mistaken" of who the father is, that forces her to think wisely about who she declares the father, if she really wants to keep the baby and seeks child support for it. Better declare one that actually wants to be a father and is confident he is actually the genetic donor for the baby.