Father's Rights (Children)

[mormont]

He might be able to visit the child. What chance does he have of being granted primary care?

If he's genuinely better qualified to be a parent, a non-trivial one, at least.

Single fathers with primary care are not the norm by any means, but it happens. I should know. I doubt there's one person here who would not welcome the idea that more fathers should step up and seek primary care, or who would not deplore the bias against them when they do so.

[Sheep the Evicted]

The ct emphasized that the duty of child support was owed to the child and could not be contracted away by the parents. Phrased that way, child support isn't a fathers right, but a child's.

Canadian courts agree with this.

I've never been in the abortion threads before so this is news to me. But for all the times that a "childs right" is being mentioned why do most abortionists - and though i haven't really given it too much thought i count myself one - ignore the child's right to life. It seems to me you can't have one without the other.

[mormont]

I've never been in the abortion threads before so this is news to me. But for all the times that a "childs right" is being mentioned why do most abortionists - and though i haven't really given it too much thought i count myself one - ignore the child's right to life. It seems to me you can't have one without the other.

It seems to me you're quite confused.

Child support is not payable for a foetus at any stage of development (even after the point at which abortion is legal). Conversely, the pro-life position does not suggest termination at the point where child support is payable (i.e. after birth).

So there's no contradiction there. Two completely different situations.

[Sheep the Evicted]

It seems to me you're quite confused.

Child support is not payable for a foetus at any stage of development (even after the point at which abortion is legal). Conversely, the pro-life position does not suggest termination at the point where child support is payable (i.e. after birth).

So there's no contradiction there. Two completely different situations.

I thought it might be that, good to check.

[Lyanna Stark]

If he's genuinely better qualified to be a parent, a non-trivial one, at least.

Single fathers with primary care are not the norm by any means, but it happens. I should know. I doubt there's one person here who would not welcome the idea that more fathers should step up and seek primary care, or who would not deplore the bias against them when they do so.

I think it's definitely a valid complaint that fathers get looked over in custody battles in a way they absolutely shouldn't be. Fathers have as much right as mothers to spend time with their children, and to be considered for primary caretaker. Being a woman should in no way guarantee a free pass when it comes to getting the kids at a divorce; nor should mothers be seen as automatically "better parents". It really riles me up when fathers get shafted by courts in custody battles.

Personally I think this is an issue feminists should put more focus on, since it deals with both the well being of the children and both parents having the right to their children and to their own time.

[Kalbear]

and you don't get to tell men to have an invasive and emotionally traumatic operation.

Invasive? They do it these days without a blade!

I can't believe you'd compare an abortion procedure to a vasectomy. Okay, I can believe you would do it, but I can't believe that a functioning human would.

As to custody and a man's rights: if the problem with a man not having a say in the abortion/birth of the child stems from custodial rights, perhaps the solution is not to contract the man's duty to pay child support away and instead to, ya know, fix the custodial issues? It's like saying that because men are taller than women we should give all women a sandwich.

Because the two are totally related.

I've never been in the abortion threads before so this is news to me. But for all the times that a "childs right" is being mentioned why do most abortionists - and though i haven't really given it too much thought i count myself one - ignore the child's right to life. It seems to me you can't have one without the other.

Most pro-abortionists don't. Rather, they view the right of the woman having the child as being stronger than the right of the child, at least at the point where the child cannot survive without heroic measures outside of the womb.

[wyrdite]

There is this thing called, um, "adoption". Which if the father doesn't want the child, is usually pretty hassle free.

Or as mentioned there are even rights in many places where the child can be abandoned into care.

Well, that's kind of ignoring the whole thing where the woman still has to go through pregnancy... you know, that thing that leaves you sick, swollen, in pain, unable to work, and often mentally unstable for weeks to months? That thing where most of your internal organs are stretched or contracted or shunted aside by a cluster of cells which grows rapidly to the size of a watermelon? It's strenuous, and it's certainly dangerous; the litany of things that could go horribly wrong at any stage is actually quite terrifying. And then either vaginal childbirth, which even wonderful modern drugs tends to be nasty and leaves damage to the woman's genitalia which can be permanent, or a C-section, which is major abdominal surgery and takes a significant amount of time to fully recover from--and again, can do damage to the woman's uterus etc. Fortunately medical advancements have made C-section complications rare, but they still happen (and it's still <i>major abdominal surgery</i>--ouch!) Abortion's not just about the right to not have a child; it's also about the right to not go through pregnancy.

Not to mention the rush of seratonin mothers (excepting cases of post-partum depression, etc.) get at the end of labor, which causes them to begin bonding before they've even really held the baby. Even with all the good intentions in the world, it can be really, really hard for a mother to give up a child; it's not always a rational thing. Human brains are tricky that way.

This isn't even going into all the logistical difficulties you're overlooking ("hassle free"? Are you for real? xD)--just the biological aspects.

@Lyanna Stark: I think a lot of feminists tend to chalk this one up to "patriarchy screws everyone over."

[Mlle. Zabzie]

If he's genuinely better qualified to be a parent, a non-trivial one, at least.

Single fathers with primary care are not the norm by any means, but it happens. I should know. I doubt there's one person here who would not welcome the idea that more fathers should step up and seek primary care, or who would not deplore the bias against them when they do so.

And when I looked at the title of this thread, this is what I thought the thread would be about. This, to me, is more of a real issue.

On the actual topic, besides my initial flip reaction (apparently shared by many) of "wear a condom," one thing to keep in mind is that, if, for whatever reason a guy DOES wear a condom and it fails (stuff happens): (1) sorry, it's the woman's choice to go through with the pregnancy or not - she is the one with the non-zero chance of (a) being dead at the end of it or (more likely in modern society) (B) forever peeing a little bit when she sneezes (by the way, I'm not trivializing (a) - people forget that even though pregnancy and childbirth are much safer today than they ever have been, stuff happens, and when it does, it's not pretty). (2) once the child is born, support is for the CHILD not the mother.

Also, do you know how hard it is to get pregnant? And it's not like there are roving bands of baby-hungry women out to "trick" poor innocent men into impregnating them. Really.

[BigFatCoward]

Okay, I can believe you would do it, but I can't believe that a functioning human would.

ah, thats what bale was talking about in the board etiqutte shift thread. someone disagrees with something you hold dear so you can refer to them as a non functioning human. ironic considering you spend so long sat in front of your computer you have 28,000 posts, not a great indicator of a normally functioning human is it?

ps, i have no problem with anyone's number of posts nor what it implies about your how much of a social animal you are, but he was being rude!

[Lyanna Stark]

*really good post about what it means to be pregnant*

Totally.

An anecdote: I had to have a C-section and was put on a ward with other C-Section mums. The morning after they help you off the bed and make you stand up. The woman in the bed opposite me could not stand the morning after. 5 minutes after the midwives realised, she was wheeled off to another surgery and I never saw her again. Have no idea whether or not she'll ever get back the capacity to walk or not.

So people who think pregnancy and child birth is a minor inconvenience, think again!

That doesn't even take into account the 10 weeks of agony after having the C-section done and the inability to walk upright or drive for ages and ages. I fucking hated the whole thing.

EDIT: This is not even taking into account that you bleed like a gutted pig for two weeks flat afterwards, regardless of method of delivery. I don't mean like a period, or a strong period, I mean like a proper, gutted pig.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

Totally.

An anecdote: I had to have a C-section and was put on a ward with other C-Section mums. The morning after they help you off the bed and make you stand up. The woman in the bed opposite me could not stand the morning after. 5 minutes after the midwives realised, she was wheeled off to another surgery and I never saw her again. Have no idea whether or not she'll ever get back the capacity to walk or not.

So people who think pregnancy and child birth is a minor inconvenience, think again!

That doesn't even take into account the 10 weeks of agony after having the C-section done and the inability to walk upright or drive for ages and ages. I fucking hated the whole thing.

EDIT: This is not even taking into account that you bleed like a gutted pig for two weeks flat afterwards, regardless of method of delivery. I don't mean like a period, or a strong period, I mean like a proper, gutted pig.

All this. I also had an emergency C section. I had to go all the way under, rather than do it under epidural. I was not breathing properly when I came out of anesthetic. I was not permitted to sleep because every time I did, I stopped breathing (though apparently I was pretty funny because I would fall asleep mid-sentence, the alarm would go off, the nurses would rush in, I would wake up, and begin talking again as if I hadn't fallen asleep - morphine rules). So, like I said, the decision to have a child is non-trivial.

Chats - you are totally right. It's completely wrong and unfair.

[Lyanna Stark]

All this. I also had an emergency C section. I had to go all the way under, rather than do it under epidural. I was not breathing properly when I came out of anesthetic. I was not permitted to sleep because every time I did, I stopped breathing (though apparently I was pretty funny because I would fall asleep mid-sentence, the alarm would go off, the nurses would rush in, I would wake up, and begin talking again as if I hadn't fallen asleep - morphine rules). So, like I said, the decision to have a child is non-trivial.

Chats - you are totally right. It's completely wrong and unfair.

Ugh, freaky! 0.o

It always amazes me that so many people view C-Section as something as trivial as having a pedicure, even though it's major surgery.

Agreed with Chats as well. I wonder if this doesn't tie in with the fact that people very much still view mothers as the "default" parents and homemakers.

[mormont]

On the other hand, there's not much bias that I've seen against single fathers...there is a HUGE bias against non-custodial mothers - it's an automatic judgement against the mother that she "must not be a good mother".

On rereading that, I see I wasn't very clear. I meant the bias against men in terms of obtaining custody. Once they have custody, by and large I'd say they don't experience any more bias than a single mother does: in fact, in my own experience probably less. After all, since paternal custody is not the default, people tend to assume that a single father is a particularly committed parent, whereas a single mother doesn't always get the benefit of that assumption.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

It always amazes me that so many people view C-Section as something as trivial as having a pedicure, even though it's major surgery.

Agreed with Chats as well. I wonder if this doesn't tie in with the fact that people very much still view mothers as the "default" parents and homemakers.

If I ever have another child (debatable), I will definitely try a VBAC for EXACTLY this reason.

Interesting, historically, mothers were NOT the default custodial parent (at least in the US). In fact, that was one reason why women did not seek divorces (even if they were available) if they had children - the children were presumed to stay with the father.

[TerraPrime]

This thread is turning out to be exactly what I thought it would be.

[mouse]

My C-section was kind of great. I was walking around within 6 hours, and walking around the block the day I got home. So, so, so much better than my induction. (Also, so, so, so much better than the kidney surgery I had several years ago.) If I ever have another child, and if the OB gives me the option of a C-section, I will be jumping on that.

But in all other respects, I agree with everything Lyanna said.

[Humble Asskicker]

This thread is turning out to be exactly what I thought it would be.

:lol:

Just to add fuel to the fire. What if a woman rapes a man, becomes pregnant and has a child? Should a man be obligated to pay child support then?

[TerraPrime]

:lol:

Just to add fuel to the fire. What if a woman rapes a man, becomes pregnant and has a child? Should a man be obligated to pay child support then?

You're asking the wrong question.

"Is she hot?"

Because if she is, then it's not a rape. At least, that's what I've been told.

[Humble Asskicker]

Truly, truly. Whatever the male's age.

(I think I lost 1000 karma points just by making this joke.)

[Tinydigit]

If a man elects to forego proper condom use to protect him from accidental pregnancy or intentional “baby-trapping,” then he deserves to have to pay child support. The same is true of divorced couples who meant to have a child and any other situation you can think of. You did something that made that kid possible, own up to it and act like a being with male-suggestive genitalia should.

Having said that, there needs to be some sort of controls on which necessities of life, and to what extent, those are supported by the money he pays to the mother. Because of the complete lack of decisional authority as to how the money is spent, it can appear to some men that it is supporting the mother more than the child. I’ll use myself as an example:

Due to a very pronounced income differential between my parents, my dad was paying the maximum amount of money that was allowed under state law at the time in child support. As the income differential became greater over time, he voluntarily increased the amount of money he was paying, with the condition that she put whatever the increase was into a savings account for my college fund (since her lifestyle was the same, she did not demonstratively need more money to put a roof over my head and food in my stomach). It came as somewhat of a surprise when I was 17 and looking at colleges to ask about the money and be told there was no college fund. Not one fucking cent had been saved. All the money he paid went towards debt that had piled up while my mom and stepdad bought themselves matching BMW’s, a yacht, two jet skis, two snow mobiles, a state of the art home theater experience, 40K worth of credit card debt, and a tax bill for almost the same amount of money because she had borrowed against her 401K.

If a man just wants to write a check or have his wages garnished and be done with it, fine. But there should be some way for the courts to track how the money is being spent. I am thinking a contract where you can say 65 percent of every check is deposited into the mother’s checking account for the major expenses; 20 percent is deposited into a college fund; and 15 percent is deposited into an account that can only be used for incidentals and the father has all the requisite rights to account information to see that it is not spent frivolously.

Let’s modify the system to actually make it about the child and not about the mother.