- Joined
- May 20, 2005
- Messages
- 5,980
- Reaction score
- 30
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
talloulou said:In the eyes of the law it would seem so.
teacher said:No. A good, determined Father can get his way. I stood before the court and was awarded custody.
This thread is about arguing about what you people know nothing about.
You are arguing from the far rights position here talloulou, not the reality of things, the law, as it truly stands.
:agreeA woman who does not give the Father the option to be a good parent is a piece of shi*t.
A Father who wants nothing to do with his child is a piece of shi*t.
By law, a good parent has more power in this nation far and above anything else. This nation is much too smart to squelch the rights of a good parent. I sat on the stand and scolded the prosecutor for daring to tell me I was not a good parent. The judge told the prosecutor to shut up. You want to see a true revolution? Try to take a child away from a good parent. Not gonna happen.
Befuddled_Stoner said:No, women should not have to right to deny that knowledge to men. Even if she's the victim of incest or rape or something like that, I think the scumbag deserves to know he'll be expected to pay out the *** for the next 18 years. I can't think of any good reasons why she should be allowed to not tell him he's a father. Maybe if he's incommunicado or mentally incapable of dealing with the news, but that would only be in extremely rare cases.
vergiss said:Not if he raped her, or was abusive. Otherwise yeah, it's his right to know.
Kandahar said:I didn't bother to read this whole thread, so I'm sure someone has probably already said this: I think that she should be obligated to tell the father that he is a father, unless she has reason to believe that he's abusive.
talloulou said:Are you saying the law should stay out of it though? We should just let women decide if a man is worthy enough or not to know he has fathered a child? And we should just trust her judgement if she decided he was unworthy?
Kandahar said:If the choice is between trusting her judgment or trusting the government's judgment, then yes, I think she should make the decision.
talloulou said:That's very interesting. Its weird I get why so many men would be prochoice and go with the idea that a women should decide the fate of that which grows in her womb. But the idea that some men think she should also have the right to raise a born child without ever telling the father of the childs existence is hard for me to wrap my head around.
Kandahar said:I don't think she has the "right" to not tell him unless she's afraid of him for herself or her child. But if the question is how to ensure that she does, I don't see how government solves the problem. The government is ill-equipped to render such judgments about the lives of people it barely knows.
I've no doubt that a few women will not tell the father when they probably should. But that's better than having the government tell a potentially abusive father the news, over the objections of a terrified mother.
talloulou said:hmmm well that's another thing I can't wrap my head around....why women are making babies with horrible men who terrify them but I guess that's the topic of another thread.
talloulou said:hmmm well that's another thing I can't wrap my head around....why women are making babies with horrible men who terrify them but I guess that's the topic of another thread.
talloulou said:But the idea that some men think she should also have the right to raise a born child without ever telling the father of the child's existence is hard for me to wrap my head around.
Korimyr the Rat said:In my mind, this is simple.
Until he is aware of the child's existence and he steps in to act as the child's father, he is not the child's father. I also do not believe, unless the biological parents are married, that the mother is under any obligation to allow him to declare paternity. She has an automatic claim simply by virtue of being the first person capable of taking responsibility for the child.
The converse of this, of course, is that if she does not inform the biological father and does not allow him to claim paternity-- or he refuses-- she should have no legal recourse to child support. It's not his child and he has neither legal nor social obligations to it.
That is the purpose of marriage: to provide legal and social backing for family obligations. It creates legal recognition of the relationship between husband and wife-- or other arrangements, where allowed-- and stipulates mutual agreement to several other obligations, including that of parent to the other's children.
That's also why I support requiring child support for children conceived by infidelity. He was married to the mother at the time of the child's birth and he agreed at the time that he was the child's father; he has neither the right nor the legal grounds to disown the child for the mother's sins.
And... if he is willing to disown a child that he has raised as his own because of the results of a paternity test, he is a scumbag. If he wishes to avoid paying child support to the mother-- which I sure as Hell can't blame him for-- he should demand custody.
talloulou said:hmmm well I can see trying to set things up so children aren't punished for the sins of their parents but at the same time it sure seems like you're saying a father doesn't make a father.......a father is assigned by the mother who owns the child which is more like property.
talloulou said:And while men are treated a little unfairly here and there so as to avoid hurting children... women are given pretty much free reign.
talloulou said:If all mothers were the most beautiful people in the world and the majority of fathers were scum I'd understand that type of set up better but honestly I don't think either sex has truely earned the cliche.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?