Double standards of parents' rights

108 posts in this topic

Just wanna say guys, don't listen to all that research they did in California which suggested that daily dope smoking lowers the male sperm mobility to the point where it essentially renders him infertile. Does not bloody work atall. I've tried it. Twice. Bloody scientists, giving me false hopes...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there is a confusion here between financial obligations and parental responsibility. Being responsible for a child doesn't mean forking over x amount of money per month, it involves caring and raising, nurturing and supporting.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course it does. That's why the opt in/out would remove all of that.

 

If a woman doesn't want a child, she aborts. If the man doesn't want it, he "opts out".

 

That's as fair as you can get it...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really, because in your scenario 2, there is still a child. And still one parent unsupported raising it.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But then it's a choice the mother makes. Once the man "opts out", she can either raise it on her own - with the full knowledge of the situation, or abort it.

 

EDIT: The woman isn't forced to have a child that she doesn't want, so why should the man be?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If a woman doesn't want a child, she aborts. If the man doesn't want it, he "opts out".

That's as fair as you can get it...

I have to agree with Hazza, now, if I went and got myself knocked up (for what ever reasons birthcontrol failed) I would not expect the man to pay up any money or even have a part of the child's life if he doesn't want to, if I decide the keep the child. It is ultimately my decision I can keep it or abort it! If I keep the child, I cannot expect the man to have to agree with me and support me financially and with child care issues. Now, if he agrees to help out, then backs away, then I will hunt him down and kill him (just kidding) but I would get a signed parental contract.

 

I know of 6 men, that are living up to their end of the agreement with financial and physical (child care and helping out), and 2 of them were from one night stands. I admire them for doing it, just as I admire the women that decide to do it on their own, or have an abortion. Everyone deals with the situation in how it suits them the best and what they think they can handle. I cannot expect someone to go along with my personal decisions.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@DDBug, but even if a child is born you can't force a woman to be a part of its life if she doesn't want to. She can give the kid up and nobody can force her to visit the child. There is no difference there between a man and a womans rights.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True, Sim. Rare, but true.

 

But this whole argument of what's "fair" to the person, mom or dad, is forgetting the third person - the child. Kids have a right to their parents.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It's not, but there should be an "Out clause" for the father. Just like the mother is able to terminate a pregnancy, so too should the man be able to clearly state that he doesn't want to be the father.

 

It should actually be a statement that either confirms that he's "in" with all rights and obligations or "out" (but then has no rights at all to see the child) - signed within the time a woman can still abort. If the woman keeps it a secret from the man, and they go past the abortion deadline, then there should be a special provision to allow him to make the decision late.

This sounds fairly reasonable; everyone likes choices.

 

I think one reason why an "Out Clause" is unlikely to happen is because the government knows that it can't support single parents on its limited welfare funding. The single parent needs/wants help, and the government will get it for them . . . from the other parent's pocket . . . Then it can use what it takes from the taxpayer's pocket for other stuff ;) .

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

True, Sim. Rare, but true.

 

But this whole argument of what's "fair" to the person, mom or dad, is forgetting the third person - the child. Kids have a right to their parents.

No they don't. Children have a right to be brought up in a safe environment, but they already have no right to their parents. There are already plenty of parents who don't ever see their children now and have nothing to do with them. Nobody can take them to court and force them to do it with the argument that it's a child's "right"...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

@DDBug, but even if a child is born you can't force a woman to be a part of its life if she doesn't want to. She can give the kid up and nobody can force her to visit the child. There is no difference there between a man and a womans rights.

Just wondering . . . If the woman decides to give the kid up for adoption (no mention of father's ID), can/should the state make her pay child support to the Jugendamt/foster family?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe in personal responsibility, so yes, the mother should pay child support to the foster family as opposed to burdening society as a whole.

 

She shouldn't have become pregnant in the first place (either abstained, or used contraceptives), if that failed - had an abortion, if against her religion - then she shouldn't have had sex outside of marriage or been more careful (assumption of Catholicism and unmarried status). If it's a case of rape, then the lines are definitely blurred.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

In the end, we screw ourselves just to be able to screw you.

I was going to bring up the fact that the child is the one who gets screwed in the end. I see DD has already addressed that issue. It is ALWAYS the children who suffer the most in these situations. It takes 2 people to make them and 2 people to care for them, however that may look.

 

There are also many, many women who don't believe in abortion due to other reasons than religion.

 

It's not a perfect world. Yet.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Just wondering . . . If the woman decides to give the kid up for adoption (no mention of father's ID), can/should the state make her pay child support to the Jugendamt/foster family?

Interesting argument. Though I am with Hams on this to a degree - if I didn't think I would be able to support my kids on my own, I wouldn't have had them.

 

Hazza - sorry, I feel kids have a right to know their parents. And by running from the issue, those parents are showing their kids what they are really made of as well, unfortunately.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If it's a case of rape, then the lines are definitely blurred.

The lines in the latter case are not blurred at all. If a woman is raped and becomeS pregnant, she bears no responsibility for the act and none for the outcome.

 

I agree men get the short end of the stick when it comes to parental rights and custody battles etc. If a pregnant woman wants an abortion and the would-be father is against it, it seems there's nothing he can do. It seems it would be very wrong if a father could force the woman to have a baby against her will in this case. However I'm also really uncomfortable with the fact that men have no say whatsoever if a woman wants to have an abortion. Maybe in such cases (if the father wants the baby and the mother doesn't) - the father should have to sign a document stating that he will take full responsibility for raising and supporting the child. Maybe he should also have to support the pregnancy and birth (financially and otherwise) in this case. Likewise, if a woman wants to have the child and the father would prefer an abortion, then the mother should sign a document stating that she will be solely responsible for raising the child.

 

When it comes to parental rights in cases where both parents want the children, men get an awful deal. Women nearly always get custody - it's just assumed the mother is the better/more suitable/most appropriate parent when often that is not the case. I'm not sure how we could ensure a fair deal for all here. What's most important is that the kids are able to see both parents often. Part of the problem is also that the two parents may live far away from each other so that it would not be feasible for the children to see both every day/every other day. Perhaps that's a starting point...

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The lines with regards to abortion are blurred because abortion even when raped is not an option in some countries. What then? She has the baby and gives it up for adoption - she would then have no responsibility for any payment towards its upbringing. That is what I meant.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought you meant that the lines are blurred re: financial responsibility (as in -it's unclear whether or not she should have to support the child financially). If you mean that the case of rape is an exception to your general principle (that biological parents -or at least mothers- must financially support their offspring whether they keep the children or not) then I misunderstood

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I completely disagree with the title of the thread, but I'm not going to ping pong with editor bob about it.

 

The argument that the custodial parent has all the rights and the non-custodial parent has only responsbilities - as insinuated by the current sub-title - is wrong.

 

The custodial parent does NOT have the right to deny visitation, or to force visitation, to deny co-parenting, or to force co-parenting, unless the non-custodial parent has been deemed grossly incompetent.

 

The non-custodial parent can only be held to a certain financial obligation, and that certainly not in 100% of cases, but has the RIGHT to absolve themselves of all other responsibilities (visitation, parenting, etc) as they feel suits them.

 

And to assume the poor father is defacto the one disadvantaged is plain chauvenism.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry, I do not feel a women who gives a child up for adoption should have to still support that child! She made a decision, and someone/or the new parents have taken that responsibility over legally, she is not longer legally responsible for that child, but that child's new parents are now 100% responsible.

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now