Parental Rights, Child Rights and Reproductive Rights

[pharphis]

I'm starting this thread continuing from here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=12414676

It is my belief that both children and fathers are lacking in rights.
For fathers:
1) paternal certainty
2) a choice to "opt out" of responsibility (child support) for a child they don't consent to wanting/creating (whether sex was consensual or not, deception was involved or not)

For children:
1) knowledge of their biological father (paternal certainty)

Aside from the more obvious reasons paternal certainty is important, it has health considerations for the child, since family medical history is taken into account in medicine (and for good reason).

Before anyone chimes in with strawmen, I am
PRO abortion and PRO birth control and believe both should be relatively easily accessible.

At the moment, women are not held to the same standard as men, as mentioned in my posts in the above thread. Read the closely related posts... I will just quote my own below.

No, the point is that it is an additional right that women have that men do not.

as well as others alluded to that are available to women like legal abandonment (safe haven laws) as well as parental certainty (this is a given for women but varies in legality for men.

It should be done automatically, imo. I would say that paternal certainty should be something we strive for. After all, not only is it already obvious for women but we take some effort to make sure that in a hospital that newborns aren't mixed up by accident.

Sounds like chump should have used a condom. Bet he doesn't wear a seat belt either, and is first to cry when he takes a windshield face first.

What if he did use a condom? What if she said she was on the pill (and was lying)? What if she took the used condom and emptied it into herself?

Does this apply to lying about having STDs?





uhh you just take it out of the garbage. "Disposing" of a condom doesn't mean it vanishes.

https://nypost.com/2011/11/26/ex-girlfriend-hid-sperm-and-used-for-in-vitro-pregnancy-suit/

But it is an extreme case but I bring it up because it needs addressing. A man can take every reasonable precaution (except pure abstinence) and still be hooked for 18 years of child support (and their genes being used without their consent)

A condom is one example, but another even more absurd example is a blowjob followed by not spitting/swallowing and using the sperm.

https://rollingout.com/2014/02/04/w...sex-get-pregnant-force-man-pay-child-support/

Women aren't FORCED to raise their children, either. There is adoption OR safe-haven abandonment (varies) as possible options. So women aren't held responsible for their actions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safe-haven_law

Now, I'm not going to pretend that sperm-jacking from condoms or oral sex is common. I doubt it is. Much, much more common would be simply lying about being on the pill in order to trap a man or just out of selfishness.

The below clip makes me cringe
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CNHwhHWPoQ

 

[angrysoba]

A friend of mine here in Japan is likely going to get divorced with his wife. When they are divorced he will have no custody rights over his twin children (or his step-children) and will not even have visitation rights. On top of that he will have to pay alimony and child support.

I raised this example with some friends of mine as an example of how there can indeed be sexism against men and they argued that, no, it is just a reflection of the sexist patriarchy that assumes raising children is women’s work.

 

[pharphis]

Right. I didn't even mention the topic, here, but it's just as important.

People will say you just need to go to court and spend tens of thousands of dollars to argue for SHARED custody, and that men don't fight hard enough for it and that they're deadbeats... but lawyers know that it's a costly, losing battle, and that mothers can be encouraged to use every tool at their disposal (claims of abuse, absence, etc.) in order to guarantee primary or sole custody.

Not all women do this, of course, but when someone argues for primary custody in cases outside of abusive relationships I think it is very selfish if it's not a joint decision... and this makes these mothers more likely than the average woman to use these tactics.

and then what happens when you can't afford child support? Well you can lose your driver's license (how is that supposed to help you support the kids?) and be thrown in jail (same question)

 

[angrysoba]

Right. I didn't even mention the topic, here, but it's just as important.

People will say you just need to go to court and spend tens of thousands of dollars to argue for SHARED custody, and that men don't fight hard enough for it and that they're deadbeats... but lawyers know that it's a costly, losing battle, and that mothers can be encouraged to use every tool at their disposal (claims of abuse, absence, etc.) in order to guarantee primary or sole custody.

Not all women do this, of course, but when someone argues for primary custody in cases outside of abusive relationships I think it is very selfish if it's not a joint decision... and this makes these mothers more likely than the average woman to use these tactics.

and then what happens when you can't afford child support? Well you can lose your driver's license (how is that supposed to help you support the kids?) and be thrown in jail (same question)

In fact, his lawyer even said that custody is not even a possibility. Japan is more extreme in this regard than the US or UK AFAIK.

 

[pharphis]

That's very sad. It's weird that people frame it as a "patriarchal" thing that women have the choice of excluding the father mostly or entirely. It's also bizarre that this principle is considered patriarchal since it is more modern (and therefore you would think LESS patriarchal) than the old systems. In the past the father had custody rights primarily (presumably because he could provide for them financially)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tender_years_doctrine

 

[TragicMonkey]

Make up your minds: are you complaining that the fathers have too much responsibility, or not enough? You can't have it both ways. Either he's free to cut and run when an unintended pregnancy occurs, leaving it all on the woman, or else he's owed custody and rights to the children. The former is what was being argued in the original thread. Now an exactly opposite claim is being argued. Make up your minds!

Unless of course the real argument is that the man should get to choose whatever level of responsiblity he wants at the time, from zero to a hundred percent. Why on earth should he get that?

As I said in the other thread, 50/50 split of responsibility seems fair to me. But I'm being attacked for suggesting that so I guess that's not acceptable either.

 

[pharphis]

Make up your minds: are you complaining that the fathers have too much responsibility, or not enough? You can't have it both ways. Either he's free to cut and run when an unintended pregnancy occurs, leaving it all on the woman, or else he's owed custody and rights to the children. The former is what was being argued in the original thread. Now an exactly opposite claim is being argued. Make up your minds!

Unless of course the real argument is that the man should get to choose whatever level of responsiblity he wants at the time, from zero to a hundred percent. Why on earth should he get that? As I said in the other thread, 50/50 split of responsibility seems fair to me. But I'm being attacked for suggesting that so I guess that's not acceptable either.

This is what women have at present. They choose how much responsibility they have themselves AS WELL as what level men have.

My argument is one of freedom, that someone should have the choice to be a parent or not, and that parents making claim for custody should be treated equally.

But it's not really "0 to 100 percent".

It's "has custody rights/child support" or "does not". There isn't really an in-between except partial custody rights but even that CAN be reasonable if it's an agreed upon outcome among the parents, rather than a presumed one in advance.

 

[TragicMonkey]

This is what women have at present. They choose how much responsibility they have themselves AS WELL as what level men have.

If the man didn't want to risk that outcome he could have prevented it by using a condom or getting a vasectomy. If he gambles and loses (at 99:1 odds in his favor, by the way) then he can hardly complain that the mechanics of biology have forced him into an untenable position. Or rather, he can complain, but not without sounding like a whining fool.

 

[Information Analyst]

Unless of course the real argument is that the man should get to choose whatever level of responsiblity he wants at the time, from zero to a hundred percent. Why on earth should he get that?

Because invariably that's what the woman can get, if she wants.

 

[Arcade22]

In fact, his lawyer even said that custody is not even a possibility. Japan is more extreme in this regard than the US or UK AFAIK.

Japan is in a lot of aspects very conservative and sexist. Having a huge population of elderly citizens and an entrenched gerontocracy does that.

 

[cullennz]

If the man didn't want to risk that outcome he could have prevented it by using a condom or getting a vasectomy. If he gambles and loses (at 99:1 odds in his favor, by the way) then he can hardly complain that the mechanics of biology have forced him into an untenable position. Or rather, he can complain, but not without sounding like a whining fool.

So if the father wants to take responsibility for and build a relationship with the child but the woman goes out of her way to deny access, he is a whining fool?

 

[uke2se]

This is what women have at present. They choose how much responsibility they have themselves AS WELL as what level men have.

My argument is one of freedom, that someone should have the choice to be a parent or not, and that parents making claim for custody should be treated equally.

But it's not really "0 to 100 percent".

It's "has custody rights/child support" or "does not". There isn't really an in-between except partial custody rights but even that CAN be reasonable if it's an agreed upon outcome among the parents, rather than a presumed one in advance.

What if both parent opt out of being parents?

How is the mother able to chose her level of responsibility?

 

[cullennz]

What if both parent opt out of being parents?

How is the mother able to chose her level of responsibility?

That is usually called adoption

 

[uke2se]

That is usually called adoption

Not available for all. It's also a medical procedure that the mother is forced to go through while the father doesn't have to do anything.

 

[applecorped]

DNA bonds are overrated

 

[Wolrab]

It sucks that the deck is stacked against men for custody in the US. I had a child with my ex. She was extremely pissed off when I had a DNA check done. I know five guys that let out a collective "phew!" when it came back he was my child. The womb donor would let me have him (after withholding visitation for over two months for spite) 2-4 days a week with her grandmother watching him most of the remaining days of the week. She may have had him once a week.
She played games with support money and managed to develop quite the hard drug habit (who can blame her for doing hard drugs after we broke up?) with the support money as she never bothered to work. She did manage to go out to bars with the babies money. She was also violent and I am not. The one time the police were called, by her when we were together, they took one look at my bleeding scalp and hauled her off for a few "breakfast on the county" days.


I went to a lawyer, he was also a judge, and he told me to forget even attempting to get custody. Finally, her grandmother called me and let me know the womb donor had left her new baby, from another guy, at a neighbor's house because she went on a drug binge in the city (Rochester, NY) and that I should seek emergency custody. I did.

First I was asked by Child Protective Services, CPS, if I could bring my child in for their investigation. I agreed and when there, they asked if I would answer some questions. I did. The next time I saw the WD, she repeated what I told CPS. I was astonished as it should have been confidential information.


We then went to Family court. She was provided a free lawyer, I wasn't and I had financial difficulties at the time. As the days proceedings were coming to a close, I asked the judge for drug tests. He said that would be done at the next hearing giving her time to get clean. She must not have heeded the advise because she did not show up at that hearing. Her free lawyer attempted to reschedule but the judge gave me custody with visitation "as the parties agree".



If that violent drug addled bitch had shown up I probably would have lost my sole custody. I raised my boy, he just graduated high school and is now 18. He has never been in serious trouble and is an all around well adjusted young man.



Her other two kids, one older and on younger, by different fathers, none of which were any of the 4 guys she married and divorced, ended up in trouble. The older, a 22 year old girl, had her first child at 15. She just got arrested for stabbing an ex lover in the back, almost killing him. The younger, a boy, has been arrested several times for break-ins and drugs. The bitch has been in and out of drug rehab and jail for heroin.


The system sucks. I know plenty of good men that basically lost their children to bad women only because the system favors women. I was lucky.

 

[pharphis]

What if both parent opt out of being parents?

How is the mother able to chose her level of responsibility?

aside from abortion which I grant as being one-sided for good reason,

1) adoption
2) safe-haven abandonment

 

[Belz...]

It sucks that the deck is stacked against men for custody in the US. I had a child with my ex. She was extremely pissed off when I had a DNA check done. I know five guys that let out a collective "phew!" when it came back he was my child. The womb donor would let me have him (after withholding visitation for over two months for spite) 2-4 days a week with her grandmother watching him most of the remaining days of the week. She may have had him once a week.
She played games with support money and managed to develop quite the hard drug habit (who can blame her for doing hard drugs after we broke up?) with the support money as she never bothered to work. She did manage to go out to bars with the babies money. She was also violent and I am not. The one time the police were called, by her when we were together, they took one look at my bleeding scalp and hauled her off for a few "breakfast on the county" days.


I went to a lawyer, he was also a judge, and he told me to forget even attempting to get custody. Finally, her grandmother called me and let me know the womb donor had left her new baby, from another guy, at a neighbor's house because she went on a drug binge in the city (Rochester, NY) and that I should seek emergency custody. I did.

First I was asked by Child Protective Services, CPS, if I could bring my child in for their investigation. I agreed and when there, they asked if I would answer some questions. I did. The next time I saw the WD, she repeated what I told CPS. I was astonished as it should have been confidential information.


We then went to Family court. She was provided a free lawyer, I wasn't and I had financial difficulties at the time. As the days proceedings were coming to a close, I asked the judge for drug tests. He said that would be done at the next hearing giving her time to get clean. She must not have heeded the advise because she did not show up at that hearing. Her free lawyer attempted to reschedule but the judge gave me custody with visitation "as the parties agree".



If that violent drug addled bitch had shown up I probably would have lost my sole custody. I raised my boy, he just graduated high school and is now 18. He has never been in serious trouble and is an all around well adjusted young man.



Her other two kids, one older and on younger, by different fathers, none of which were any of the 4 guys she married and divorced, ended up in trouble. The older, a 22 year old girl, had her first child at 15. She just got arrested for stabbing an ex lover in the back, almost killing him. The younger, a boy, has been arrested several times for break-ins and drugs. The bitch has been in and out of drug rehab and jail for heroin.


The system sucks. I know plenty of good men that basically lost their children to bad women only because the system favors women. I was lucky.

Dude, I'm so glad your son turned out okay. That's messed up.

 

[Giordano]

[snip]

For fathers:

2) a choice to "opt out" of responsibility (child support) for a child they don't consent to wanting/creating (whether sex was consensual or not, deception was involved or not)

[snip]

Just this part: can mothers? Do all women consent to a pregnancy? What if the deception is on the part of the father? "Don't worry - I've had a vasectomy." or even more common "I'll love you forever. We will always be together and I will always take care of you." If so can the mother "opt out" of supporting the child and just hand it to the father at birth? Or insist instead that the father do all the work and pay all the costs of rearing the child until 18?

I also am uncertain by what you mean by "deception or not." I suspect that most unwanted pregnancies are accidents rather than deceptions. Are you suggesting that a father should also be able to just declare no responsibility for an accident? Would it also apply to the mother? Would it apply in a marriage too? "I didn't want the child so I'm just walking. Especially now that they are 14 and kind of annoying." Sorry, I am not trying to create a straw man here: I just want to know more about what you are actually proposing.

Separately, although your OP focuses on legal responsibility, I am afraid that it paints a pretty dismal overall picture of males and their sense of moral responsibility. "Oops, I've made a kid but I didn't waaannnt toooo. Thank god I won't have to visit or take care of it, but child support is really going to be a drag on my life style. Wouldn't it be great if we change the law so that I can just announce that I didn't want it and then not even have a financial responsibility? Then I can just completely forget this new person even exists! It's the mom's problem after all, right?"

From my perspective as a dad: if one creates a child, in any context, there deep, unavoidable moral responsibilities that come with it and can't be simply whined out of or undone by law. It isn't all, or even mostly about the dad and what they want- it has to be primarily about this vulnerable new person and what they need. Who will take care of them, who will love them, who will provide support, both emotional and financial, so they have a good childhood and will be ready for adult life. Wanted or not, even accidental or a deception, here is a new human being that the father helped create and who will need help. Both the mother and father are morally responsible for ensuring these needs of this human being are met by one means or another. "The mother tricked me!" Nasty, but the kid didn't and he/she is not going away.

A couple of additional points. I am pro-choice, an embryo is not a child, and I hope that a woman's option of an abortion will remain available. Nonetheless I cannot image a false "symmetry" where the father can force a pregnant woman against her wishes to have an abortion or else forego child support. Similarly it may seem conceptually (pun intended) "fair" but I cannot imagine a "symmetry" where the father can insist the mom give up the baby for adoption against her wishes or else forego child support. Like it or not the biology of reproduction is inherently asymmetrical.

If one choses to have genital/genital heterosexual sex one must be aware of the possibility of making a baby. And if that happens it's the needs of the baby that then come first whatever the circumstances of the conception.

 

[Giordano]

DNA bonds are overrated

From when they were born to now I found myself loving and needing to protect my children at a level beyond any such feeling before or after. I still would willingly give up my life for theirs without question. Although I sense these feelings in my brain and heart as love, I realize they really reflect evolution whispering in my ear: "Okay, I'm nearly done with you old man, but here is someone who will carry on half your DNA. Make sure they can do so."