or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Parenting › Blended and Step Family Parenting › voluntary termination of parental rights
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

voluntary termination of parental rights - Page 5

post #81 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2lilsweetfoxes View Post



Quote:
Originally Posted by Super~Single~Mama View Post



Quote:
Originally Posted by 2lilsweetfoxes View Post

There are no good answers.  A woman, after finding out she is pregnant, has the option of saying, "I don't want to be a parent" and choosing either abortion or making an adoption plan.  Alternatively, she can opt to parent the child.  A man, upon hearing a woman is pregnant (with his child) must wait to know her decision.  If she chooses parenting and he wants to be a parent--great.  If she chooses abortion or adoption and he's in agreement, that's good, too.  There-in lies the issue.  If she chooses adoption, and he wants to parent, he can petition for custody (then the tables might be turned on the issue such as that at hand from the OP--now mom might be paying dad child support because he's raising the child--whether or not she has anything to do with the child's day to day life unless there is a stepmother available to adopt).  If she chooses abortion, and he wants the child--too bad, so sad.  If she chooses to parent, and he does not want to parent a child with her or at this time, well that will affect him for the rest of his life, as well as the standard of living for his future wife and (wanted) children.  Imaging wanting only to be a stay-at-home-mom but be unable to because he's paying child support to another child on the other side of the country whom he has never seen because of a one-night-stand or a failed relationship or a "friends with benefits" situation--so your income is necessary for your family's day to day life.



This is so offensive.  Seriously?  My ds is supposed to go without so some lady can be a SAHM?  Thank goodness his dad won't marry someone like that since he actually does want to parent.  Adults need to be able to handle disappointment, and if being a SAHM is that important, don't marry someone with another child.


That's why *I* didn't.  I was actually engaged to some guy who had kids from a previous relationship, and I saw how much of his income went to that child.  While I don't begrudge taking care of any child, I realized that if we were going to marry, unless I worked--and then I feared the state would compute my income in determining his child support--(ie, he earns $35K a year, I earn $40K a year, so they consider more of his income in the child support calculation) our standard of living would be way below the poverty line--but we wouldn't qualify for anything because our income was too high.  By the way, the mother's income was about $30K per year--until she chose to quit her job  and she was living with her boyfriend who made close to $50K.  That is neither here nor there.  Being a SAHM *was* that important to me.  Having at least 2-3 children was important to me.  I don't know if I'd have had even one child with him, unless it was a surprise.  But, no matter how we worked the numbers, it would not work out.  (Unfortunately, I married someone with aspirations of being a writer and who, since getting out of the army almost 8 years ago, refuses to work a traditional job until the whole writing thing takes off--so I don't get to be a SAHM, and I'll be (pleasantly) surprised if I get to be a SAHM by the time my youngest is in high school or college (can you tell I'm pissed about having to re-enlist--again.  DH swore the last time was the LAST time).) 

 

As for marrying someone with a child, what happens if the couple doesn't even find out about the child until after the marriage and when the wife is pregnant or the husband has an affair and gets the OW pregnant? 

 

Why should the wife be financially punished for that (with the loss of her husband's income--money that should be going to the benefit of their family?  I know someone (who didn't find out about the child until after she had children) and for her, seeing that child support check every month on the bank statement just upsets her, especially when she can't afford to buy her own children shoes.)

 

***

 

But, anyhow, the italicized portion was the important part I was trying to say.  The part that (by the way, I'm sorry that phrase was deemed offensive.  That was not my intention, it was more looking at it from another angle, which I explained above) was at the end was just an aside.


I beleive the bolded only happens in rare circumstances.  I know it happened to a family member of mine b/c he kept using his wife's income as a reason to seek custody (ie, saying that he should have custody b/c he was married and his wife worked and so he could provide a better standard of living - the judge got sick of him being in court harassing his ex, so he calculated her income into the support amount).


And more importantly, why should a CHILD be punished because his dad got married and the new wife doesn't want to pay child support?  People shouldn't have more children than they can afford - b/c the government can't exactly afford to support everyone's unlimited children either.  I'm sorry, but looking at it from that angle almost makes it worse - adults are required to provide for their families.  When its not financially feasible for mom to SAH, then thats too bad.  There are mom's WITHOUT step-kids who can't afford to SAH, why should a child be denied financial support from a dad whose new wife wants to SAH?  The CHILD needs to be supported.  The WIFE can work.

 

As for the italicized part, no there are no good options, the system is not perfect.  The system never has been perfect, and it probably never will be.  However, creating a double standard where men can have sex all they want with no consequences, but women have to keep it in their pants or parent all alone is certainly not the answer.  That would essentially legalize the already double standard of women are sluts and whores if they have more than one partner, but men are studs if they do the same. 

post #82 of 190

 

"Pre-existing commitment occurs when they HAVE SEX.  Period. "

 

That is how things stand now. I would like to see this change. Sex is not the equivalent of marriage of domestic partnership, and trying to make it so by assigning paternity and creating a host of unwanted custodial and financial rights between a woman, her baby, and a guy she had sex with 9 months before does not serve the interests of anybody involved. 

 

The question of whether a single man should be able to insist on paternal rights when a former sex partner has a child? To me, while I can empathize with men who want paternal rights in that situation, it comes right back to the disproportionate involvement issue. He didn't carry that baby. His spouse didn't carry that baby. I think that an important paternal relationship can be formed over time, but I don't think that any kind of important relationship exists at birth between a woman's baby and her ex. The state doesn't have a sufficiently compelling interest in creating that relationship. The amount of money we spend supporting the children of single moms with deadbeat exes who need help is not so much that we should extend the power of the state to create fictive families. I mean, seriously, a woman can choose for the baby not to be born at all, but can't choose that he'll be born to her and her alone? That makes no sense to me. The person with the uterus is the person who needs to be driving the bus in the absence of a formal legal agreement with another bus driver. 

 

S_S_M, you keep framing parental rights as a burden that two people MUST share, or else the mother is somehow punished. I regard it as a privilege that two people CAN share, but shouldn't always. One particular case where paternal rights should not be handed out is when one is dealing with a man who is sufficiently craven as to attempt to avoid them. The $$ that you might get out of such a person is not worth the downside of having such a person potentially take on an important role in your child's life. 

 

My message to all: Want to have the legal right to coparent? Get married. Want to have the legal right to demand support from a coparent? Get married. Coparenting agreements often arise between unmarried persons and work out very well. I'm all for them. But I'm not interested in having my government force unwilling parties into them, because I don't think that sex should be a legally enforceable commitment in any way. It's not a commitment to have a baby. It's not a commitment to raise a baby. It should sure as heck not be a commitment to pay child support for a baby that somebody else decided to have and raise. 

post #83 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smithie View Post

S_S_M, you keep framing parental rights as a burden that two people MUST share, or else the mother is somehow punished. I regard it as a privilege that two people CAN share, but shouldn't always. One particular case where paternal rights should not be handed out is when one is dealing with a man who is sufficiently craven as to attempt to avoid them. The $$ that you might get out of such a person is not worth the downside of having such a person potentially take on an important role in your child's life. 

 

My message to all: Want to have the legal right to coparent? Get married. Want to have the legal right to demand support from a coparent? Get married. Coparenting agreements often arise between unmarried persons and work out very well. I'm all for them. But I'm not interested in having my government force unwilling parties into them, because I don't think that sex should be a legally enforceable commitment in any way. It's not a commitment to have a baby. It's not a commitment to raise a baby. It should sure as heck not be a commitment to pay child support for a baby that somebody else decided to have and raise. 


How is this not telling men to go out and have premarital sex and avoid responsibility, but telling women they CANNOT have premarital sex?????  How does it NOT perpetuate the double standard that already exists?  Please explain your reasons for wanting to support that double standard even more.

 

SEX HAS CONSEQUENCES.  Bottom line.  It has consequences for TWO PEOPLE.  I'm not sure how sex is not a committment on the side of the man, but IS a commitment on the side of the woman.  I just don't see it.  Yes, abortion is an option - for SOME people.  It's availability is becoming more and more sparse due to heavy regulations being placed on it by both the federal government and state governments.  It's not always available.  And yes, you STILL think that men should be able to do whatever they want to with their sperm and spread it around like wildfire and not be responsible for the BABIES that come from it.

 

I feel like you're beliefs are very sexist.  And would impose HUGE burdens on one sex, and not the other.  The biological differences between men and women DO NOT take away the fact that men should be responsible for their actions.  And yes, SEX IS AN ACTION - it is not passive.

 

Would you be happier about imposing what you call "coerced paternity" on men if abortion was completely outlawed and made illegal 100% of the time?  I just don't get it.  Women have to choose either an invasive medical procedure, or being 100% responsible for a child?????  I'm not even sure how that measures up?  I mean, if men really don't want to parent they can always get a vasectomy.

post #84 of 190

Quote:
Originally Posted by Smithie View Post

 

1. If ever there was an example of a scenario where the social welfare system should kick in and the entire concept of fatherhood kicked to the curb, it's the example of the woman who became pregnant from a rape and carried the pregnancy to term. 

 

....

 

2. If my son someday happens to get a girlfriend pregnant, I wouldn't want her to be legally forced to coparent with him, and I wouldn't want him to be legally forced to send her checks for 18 years. 

 

....

 

3. I will never understand why single women are so gung-ho to pursue exes who are denying/avoiding paternity. How much money are you really likely to get? Is it worth the risk of sharing custody with the kind of man who'd deny paternity? The situations where the state pursues deadbeats are very different - that's not at the mom's instigation, she's just accessing services and telling the truth when asked to name a father. I understand not wanting to lie to the government. I just don't think it's the government's place to ASK in the first place for a list of all the guys a woman in need has UAVed the year before. It's irrelevant, and it's an invasion of privacy, and I wish they'd stop doing it and focus on helping our new citizen and the person who decided that he/she would be born. 


Since I can't do the multi-quote thing:

1. You are aware, I hope, that rape is a ground for the termination of a father's parental rights.  If the child is a product of a rape, the father's rights may be terminated if either the state or the mother file a petition.  

2. If the mother doesn't want to co-parent she doesn't have to.  She may have to provide visitation, but absent a VERY good reason, visitation between a child and its father is a GOOD THING and should not be discouraged.  SOMEONE will be financially responsible for the child.  Why should it be taxpayers exclusively when there is a father who walks away without paying a penny?

3. I'm sorry you believe that baby mamas are only out to get money.  In fact, single mothers should not have to shoulder the burden of parenthood alone, so if the father is only good for money, then he needs to cough it up - FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE CHILD. If he's capable of some parenting, then it will BENEFIT THE CHILD to have a relationship with their father. 

 

And as far as mothers having to identify the fathers of their children to the government, social benefits like AFDC, foodstamps, etc. are not RIGHTS, they are privileges. So if the mother doesn't want those benefits, she is under no obligation to identify the father.  If she is need of those services, the government is fully entitled to seek reimbursement from the father. 

 

 

Edited to add - Smithie, your views seem to be that fathers are not beneficial to children unless they are married to the child's mother.  I have to strongly disagree with you.  There are some deadbeat dads out there, and for them, there are two grounds to terminate their rights 1. abandonment and 1. no ongoing parent child relationship.  However, those dads are not the rule.  There are a bunch of em out there, but most men want to take SOME responsibility for their children.  I think you are losing sight of the benefit fathers have no matter what their relationship is to a child's mother.  Automatically discounting them is a disservice to all involved. 

post #85 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1stTimeMama4-4-10 View Post


Quote:
Originally Posted by Smithie View Post

 

1. If ever there was an example of a scenario where the social welfare system should kick in and the entire concept of fatherhood kicked to the curb, it's the example of the woman who became pregnant from a rape and carried the pregnancy to term. 

 

....

 

2. If my son someday happens to get a girlfriend pregnant, I wouldn't want her to be legally forced to coparent with him, and I wouldn't want him to be legally forced to send her checks for 18 years. 

 

....

 

3. I will never understand why single women are so gung-ho to pursue exes who are denying/avoiding paternity. How much money are you really likely to get? Is it worth the risk of sharing custody with the kind of man who'd deny paternity? The situations where the state pursues deadbeats are very different - that's not at the mom's instigation, she's just accessing services and telling the truth when asked to name a father. I understand not wanting to lie to the government. I just don't think it's the government's place to ASK in the first place for a list of all the guys a woman in need has UAVed the year before. It's irrelevant, and it's an invasion of privacy, and I wish they'd stop doing it and focus on helping our new citizen and the person who decided that he/she would be born. 


Since I can't do the multi-quote thing:

1. You are aware, I hope, that rape is a ground for the termination of a father's parental rights.  If the child is a product of a rape, the father's rights may be terminated if either the state or the mother file a petition.  

2. If the mother doesn't want to co-parent she doesn't have to.  She may have to provide visitation, but absent a VERY good reason, visitation between a child and its father is a GOOD THING and should not be discouraged.  SOMEONE will be financially responsible for the child.  Why should it be taxpayers exclusively when there is a father who walks away without paying a penny?

3. I'm sorry you believe that baby mamas are only out to get money.  In fact, single mothers should not have to shoulder the burden of parenthood alone, so if the father is only good for money, then he needs to cough it up - FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE CHILD. If he's capable of some parenting, then it will BENEFIT THE CHILD to have a relationship with their father. 

 

And as far as mothers having to identify the fathers of their children to the government, social benefits like AFDC, foodstamps, etc. are not RIGHTS, they are privileges. So if the mother doesn't want those benefits, she is under no obligation to identify the father.  If she is need of those services, the government is fully entitled to seek reimbursement from the father. 

 

 

 

Thanks for coming to my defense.  In the case of rape, I do not believe the father should have visitation (although if the mother decided that she was OK with it, I'm not going to argue with her) - I do believe there should be a financial burden though, since he chose to create the child against the mother's will.

 

post #86 of 190

 

"Would you be happier about imposing what you call "coerced paternity" on men if abortion was completely outlawed and made illegal 100% of the time?"

 

I'd hate to see that happen, but it's orthogonal to my beliefs about who should have legally enforceable parental rights. Men can certainly CANNOT do whatever they want with their sperm, but one of the things they CAN do with it is deposit into the body of a willing female partner. At that point, it's not theirs anymore. For better or worse, unless they are the husband I want them out of the legal picture. They shouldn't be able to force (or prevent) an abortion, they shouldn't be able to derail (or insist on) an adoption, and they shouldn't be given any right or responsibilities for a child they didn't want to have. 

 

Nothing can ever be completely fair and equal in every instance when it comes to human reproduction. Males and females do not have the same role to play in the process. But I'm unwilling for any person's last choice about parenthood to be made when they decide to have sex. I don't accept that a woman who engages in sex should be irrevocably signing up to birth or raise a child, and I don't accept that a man engaging in sex should be irrevocably signing up to be the other parent of said child. That's as fair as it can be IMHO. 

 

If you think that this translates to a clarion call for men to go out into the world and indiscriminately impregnate scores of women, then you must be acquainted with a very sorry lot of men. I hope none of them are legal fathers, regardless of how much DNA they've spread around. 

post #87 of 190

 

"I think you are losing sight of the benefit fathers have no matter what their relationship is to a child's mother.  Automatically discounting them is a disservice to all involved." 

 

There is a big difference between "automatically discounting" and "providing a legal means by which they may be discounted." Some of my very favorite fathers IRL were never married to the women they have children with, but they have legal rights based on being on the birth certificate, paying support, sharing custody etc. THAT is the normal outcome IME. The guy who doesn't want to be involved to the extent that he'd deny paternity, and the gal who doesn't want the guy involved to the extent that she declines to name him as the father, are edge cases. In those edge cases, I'm not for forcing the claim in either direction. 

post #88 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smithie View Post

I'd hate to see that happen, but it's orthogonal to my beliefs about who should have legally enforceable parental rights. Men can certainly CANNOT do whatever they want with their sperm, but one of the things they CAN do with it is deposit into the body of a willing female partner. At that point, it's not theirs anymore. For better or worse, unless they are the husband I want them out of the legal picture. They shouldn't be able to force (or prevent) an abortion, they shouldn't be able to derail (or insist on) an adoption, and they shouldn't be given any right or responsibilities for a child they didn't want to have. 

 

Nothing can ever be completely fair and equal in every instance when it comes to human reproduction. Males and females do not have the same role to play in the process. But I'm unwilling for any person's last choice about parenthood to be made when they decide to have sex. I don't accept that a woman who engages in sex should be irrevocably signing up to birth or raise a child, and I don't accept that a man engaging in sex should be irrevocably signing up to be the other parent of said child. That's as fair as it can be IMHO. 

 

If you think that this translates to a clarion call for men to go out into the world and indiscriminately impregnate scores of women, then you must be acquainted with a very sorry lot of men. I hope none of them are legal fathers, regardless of how much DNA they've spread around. 


How is this NOT sexist? 

 

So you think that men should be able to have indiscriminate sex, with no responsibility, but that women should have to keep it in their pants?  You are publicly advocating a HUGE double standard, one that is sexist and can be hugely damaging to 50% of the human species?  Namely women?  I hope you aren't teaching your children that you believe in this terrible double standard.

 

And, on top of that, thank goodness any legislation EVER passed to this effect would be a constitutional violation, so it would never stand for long.  How?  Well, any classification based on the illegitimacy of a child is subject to intermediate scrutiny and requires the government to prove that there is an important government interest, and that the means chosen are substantially related to that interest.  (its not an easy test to meet)

 

Here, you would have children born into wedlock entitled to child support, and children born out of wedlock not entitled to child support.  Which is a classification based on the illegitimacy of a child.  The government interest in not allowing children born out of wedlock child support is......well......protecting the mother from co-parenting?  And the means chosen is to make it so that the father has no responsibility or rights to the child.  How does that achieve the government interest?  It really doesn't.  Therefore, it fails the test, and would be unconstitutional.  Just like not allowing illegitimate children to inherit under their natural father's will - disallowing it completely wasn't substantially related, so it failed.

 

I'm REALLY glad that it would be unconstitutional, b/c it would also be supporting a huge double standard that puts women at a disadvantage.

post #89 of 190

I was in a relation ship where we a greedit wasn't heading to marriage, or anything serious, and that he didn't want kids. We agreed  on a method of birth control, with me telling him it was NOT 100% effective, and it would be better if he used condoms as well.

 

The bc didn't work, and he was upset, wanted me to have an abortion or give the baby up for adoption. I wouldn't agree. He actually threw quite the fit about it just before my daughter was born. He wanted me to lie on hte brth certificate, nad said he gv me some money under the table...

 

But ya know what? He still deserves to be in his daughter's life. He did pay some child support in the frst year, without me asking, and just before she was 1, I did go to court for sole custody, & to get child support. At that point,I found out he hadn't wanted to be obligated to pay support until he was done paying alimony to his ex...and he was done around the time we went to court. If i'd known that, I'd have been happy to tell him I would wait. (I was lucky I was in the postion to not need child support for the first year).

 

He is awesome about paying child support. He knows he can pay as required, or be hounded, and have his paycheque garnished...I'm not sure he would pay if it was at all easy to get out of it.

 

And no. women dont' have ALL the rights...adoption isn't something only the mom has a say in. If I wanted to give hte baby up, and he didn't, he could take the baby, and get child support from me. Adoption is ONLY an option for hte mom if the dad agrees. Abortion, yes, that is up to the mother. No its not fair, but, due to baisc biology, I don't see a way to make it fair.

 

I do think there are cases where it is better for the father not to be involved or pay support. I know, where I live, if the father is a documented threat, you can access services without having them go after the father for money.

 

If you don't mind lying, it's easy to say you don't know who the father is. In most cases, I think that is wrong. If the father is a huge danger, I could understand why a woman would do that. What I see happening, most often, is the parents living together,(unoffically, of course),mom gets welfare, and "dad" buys expensive toys for himself when he does work.

 

 

 

 

 

 

post #90 of 190

As for the men who impregnate women against their will, the woman still has choices:  abort, adopt, raise.  I agree that those "men" should have consequences.  Also, men who "trick" women into having a baby:  the whole "I love you forever" promises and all that, then when she's pregnant or has had the baby, walks out on her:  he should have consequences, too.  But, what about women who get pregnant against the man's will.  Maybe by saying she's on birth control, but lying about it.  I understand about birth control failure.  I'm talking about user-level failure (ie, not using it at all) and then lying about it and tricking a guy into impregnating her--perhaps he had one foot out the door and it was a desperate attempt to "keep her man".  Maybe she just wanted a baby.  But, I could see that in court devolving into a whole he-said/she-said as they try to untangle the whole fiasco.  Her:  "he told me we'd be together forever, that he wanted me to be the mother of his children.  Then, he left me for this other woman [indicates her ex and the woman standing with him] and is now denying the child he and I created together in love."  Him:  "I bought and paid for her birth control pills.  I watched as she took them every evening as we brushed our teeth together.  How was I to know she was spitting them out?  We talked it over and she knew I didn't want any children until after XYZ event.  Convenient how, just after we broke up, she was 2 months pregnant."

 

Let's have fun and turn this around--a woman has a baby, then a few days later drops it off with the father and walks out of their lives.  She wants nothing to do with the baby and wants to forget she ever had a baby (maybe she never wanted to be a mother).  Would you support him going after her for child support, even if she's doing everything within her power to avoid being tracked down and pay support.

 

In a perfect world, all babies would be born in a situation where both parents want them or at least are willing to parent them, and this conversation would be academic or not exist. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

post #91 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2lilsweetfoxes View Post

As for the men who impregnate women against their will, the woman still has choices:  abort, adopt, raise.  I agree that those "men" should have consequences.  Also, men who "trick" women into having a baby:  the whole "I love you forever" promises and all that, then when she's pregnant or has had the baby, walks out on her:  he should have consequences, too.  But, what about women who get pregnant against the man's will.  Maybe by saying she's on birth control, but lying about it.  I understand about birth control failure.  I'm talking about user-level failure (ie, not using it at all) and then lying about it and tricking a guy into impregnating her--perhaps he had one foot out the door and it was a desperate attempt to "keep her man". 

 

But women can get pregnant even when using birth control 100% correctly.  So this doesn't fly.  When a man has sex with a woman, he assumes the risk that a pregnancy will result and a baby will come of it.  You don't want babies, don't have sex.  Goes for women too.

 

Maybe she just wanted a baby.  But, I could see that in court devolving into a whole he-said/she-said as they try to untangle the whole fiasco.  Her:  "he told me we'd be together forever, that he wanted me to be the mother of his children.  Then, he left me for this other woman [indicates her ex and the woman standing with him] and is now denying the child he and I created together in love."  Him:  "I bought and paid for her birth control pills.  I watched as she took them every evening as we brushed our teeth together.  How was I to know she was spitting them out?  We talked it over and she knew I didn't want any children until after XYZ event.  Convenient how, just after we broke up, she was 2 months pregnant."

 

Yup, it would be a huge he said/she said, and the court wouldn't have a clue who to believe.  And, as I said above, birth control can fail anyway, so there's really no way to know if she would have gotten pregnant if she was taking the birth control anyway.  And condoms break - I know someone who was on hormonal BC and using condoms, and she got pregnant.  It's not 100%, so the birth control user failure isn't always the cause.

 

Let's have fun and turn this around--a woman has a baby, then a few days later drops it off with the father and walks out of their lives.  She wants nothing to do with the baby and wants to forget she ever had a baby (maybe she never wanted to be a mother).  Would you support him going after her for child support, even if she's doing everything within her power to avoid being tracked down and pay support.

 

Yup, dad should be able to pursue child support.  Absolutely.  If mom doesn't want visitation that's fine, she doesn't have to use it, but she should be financially responsible for the little person that she helped create and is now refusing to raise.  Absolutely.  Children don't support themselves, and they have the right to be supported by their parents - BOTH of them.

 

In a perfect world, all babies would be born in a situation where both parents want them or at least are willing to parent them, and this conversation would be academic or not exist. 

 

 

post #92 of 190

 

Look, we're talking in circles. You see a massively unfair double standard in the way I'd like things to be handled, and I see a massive double standard in the way things are handled now. We're not going to agree, but that doesn't make either of us a sexist. 

post #93 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smithie View Post

 

Look, we're talking in circles. You see a massively unfair double standard in the way I'd like things to be handled, and I see a massive double standard in the way things are handled now. We're not going to agree, but that doesn't make either of us a sexist. 



Whats the current double standard?  I didn't say YOU are sexist, I said that what you want to do is sexist.  The double standard that you want to impose legally is very sexist, and you have yet to say anything that even remotely shows anything else.

post #94 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Super~Single~Mama View Post



Quote:
Originally Posted by Smithie View Post

 

Look, we're talking in circles. You see a massively unfair double standard in the way I'd like things to be handled, and I see a massive double standard in the way things are handled now. We're not going to agree, but that doesn't make either of us a sexist. 



Whats the current double standard?  I didn't say YOU are sexist, I said that what you want to do is sexist.  The double standard that you want to impose legally is very sexist, and you have yet to say anything that even remotely shows anything else.



The current double standard, as I see it, is that the woman can opt out of parenting (through abortion whether or not the man agrees or placing the baby for adoption, if the man agrees), but the man has no means to opt out of parenting if the woman chooses to keep and raise the baby.  He can't force her to get an abortion, and he can't force her to place the baby for adoption. I know there was a court case about this the so-called "male abortion" (able to voluntarily terminate parental rights prior to the birth and have no further responsibility to the child), where someone argued this.  He failed. 

 

So, if the man can get a "male abortion" that would equal men can have sex with impunity and who cares about the seeds they spread.

 

I think it would seriously cut down on the "casual sex".  If a woman knows that if she were to get pregnant and that the guy could opt out of being a father--both physically and fiscally--she might be choosier about with whom and when she chooses to have sex.  If single, she might consider whether or not she can afford to raise a baby without help before having sex.  She might consider whether or not her partner is a good long-term choice.

 

post #95 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2lilsweetfoxes View Post



Quote:
Originally Posted by Super~Single~Mama View Post



Quote:
Originally Posted by Smithie View Post

 

Look, we're talking in circles. You see a massively unfair double standard in the way I'd like things to be handled, and I see a massive double standard in the way things are handled now. We're not going to agree, but that doesn't make either of us a sexist. 



Whats the current double standard?  I didn't say YOU are sexist, I said that what you want to do is sexist.  The double standard that you want to impose legally is very sexist, and you have yet to say anything that even remotely shows anything else.



The current double standard, as I see it, is that the woman can opt out of parenting (through abortion whether or not the man agrees or placing the baby for adoption, if the man agrees), but the man has no means to opt out of parenting if the woman chooses to keep and raise the baby.  He can't force her to get an abortion, and he can't force her to place the baby for adoption. I know there was a court case about this the so-called "male abortion" (able to voluntarily terminate parental rights prior to the birth and have no further responsibility to the child), where someone argued this.  He failed. 

 

So, if the man can get a "male abortion" that would equal men can have sex with impunity and who cares about the seeds they spread.

 

I think it would seriously cut down on the "casual sex"If a woman knows that if she were to get pregnant and that the guy could opt out of being a father--both physically and fiscally--she might be choosier about with whom and when she chooses to have sex.  If single, she might consider whether or not she can afford to raise a baby without help before having sex.  She might consider whether or not her partner is a good long-term choice.

 


And therein lies the problem.  Men would have a free pass to have sex as much as they wanted - and we all know that if MEN are having sex, SO ARE WOMEN.  It take TWO people to have sex.  Punishing women for having sex, and not imposing a consequence on men is a HUGE double standard.

 

Not to mention that such a statutory scheme would be unconstitutional, as it would differentiate between illegitimate children and legitimate children in a detrimental way.  Thank god its unconstitutional to do what you all want to do - its people who say these things who really scare me and make me afraid for the world I'm raising my children in.

post #96 of 190

 "but one of the things they CAN do with it is deposit into the body of a willing female partner. At that point, it's not theirs anymore." 

 

 

My dh (in law school) was just saying something about learning in class, when tissue or what-have-you leaves your body it's not legally yours anymore. Not true in the case of sperm that actually reaches an egg though, I guess.

post #97 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banana731 View Post

 "but one of the things they CAN do with it is deposit into the body of a willing female partner. At that point, it's not theirs anymore." 

 

 

My dh (in law school) was just saying something about learning in class, when tissue or what-have-you leaves your body it's not legally yours anymore. Not true in the case of sperm that actually reaches an egg though, I guess.


I just graduated law school, and in family law, when a man has sex he assumes the risk that his sperm will create another life and he will be responsible for it.  Period.  Even if the mother had a hysterectomy previously and somehow miraculously grew another one.  Even if he'd already had a vasectomy. 

post #98 of 190

I get that family law and property are different, it's just a little odd to me. But then again, I think a lot of the law is kind of odd...shrug.gif

post #99 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banana731 View Post

I get that family law and property are different, it's just a little odd to me. But then again, I think a lot of the law is kind of odd...shrug.gif



I think its odd to that my body tissues aren't mine after they leave my body.  I think that in property it was decided that way for financial reasons.  I'm pretty sure I actually remember the case your dh is talking about, and it was odd to me too, but it was for policy reasons, that kinda made sense, but was mostly in the financial interest of doctors and medical researchers so that they could make discoveries and whatnot without worrying about getting sued later.

 

post #100 of 190

At what point, say, do you think a woman, who had a child should *not* be able to go after the "sperm donor" for child support?  This is assuming that he had NO idea about the child's existence.

 

A.  Always, even if the kid is past the age of 18 for back support--with no limit as to the age--so mom could file for her 45 year old son who has been married for 18 years and has a kid about to start college himself, to take it to the extreme.

B.  Up until the age of 18, but cannot get back support.

C.  Up until the age of 10, with back support.

D.  Up until the age of 10, no back support.

E.  Up until the age of 5, with back support.

F.  Up until the age of 5, no back support.

G.  Up until the age of 2, with back support.

H.  Up until the age of 2, no back support.

 

Also, if you choose she should be able to get back support, how far back should it go:  life of the child; a percentage of the child's life (what percentage); a set number of years (how many?). 

 

(the without back support, the date of support would be the date of filing)

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Parenting › Blended and Step Family Parenting › voluntary termination of parental rights