Parental Rights Questions: why does the mom seemingly always win.

[Iniquitous]

If a man is signing away his rights as the father of that child - meaning he has NO say so whatsoever concerning that child - then why should he still pay for the child? If he is still paying for the child then he still has rights to that child. That is the part you are grasping. It is also why Pa (and likely many other states) do not allow the signing away of rights unless there is someone in the picture who wants to adopt the child in the biological fathers place.

And do you know for a fact that he chose to do something like that as a way to save money each month? No, you do not.

What I find sad is a woman can choose to abort a pregnancy she does not want whether the father wants the baby or not - but a father cannot choose to sign away his rights when he never wanted a child in the first place. And while abstinence is the only surefire way to not get pregnant, you cannot expect people to not have sex unless they are willing to be parents - because there are a LOT of people out there that do not want children ever and you cannot expect them to go through life without ever having sex. Not too mention the nut jobs that sabotage birth control just to force a man into getting her pregnant.

[Callie Del Noire]

I thought I remembered you saying that somewhere else - it's a sad thing that I know so many people with neighbors like that. 

I had a coworker whose wife went hog wild while he was away on deployment. She would spend ALL his money (he gave her power of attorney while he was overseas) and since they were in base housing the 'BIG PROBLEM' bills were taken care of (utilities, rent, ect) and kept an airmen around for 'party time' (her words not mine). They'd drive down to clubs in Portland every night they could, leave the 8 year old to look after the baby (my buddy's wife would go up to help out after mom left.. or bring them down to feed them).

It was horrible seeing an 8 year old having to feed, clean and look after her baby sisters. It's worse seeing her play the system. She pulled all types of gags after my buddy came back. He was the 'bad guy' for filing on her, she reported him to the cops. According to her, while we were grilling on the back porch and introducing the kids to Monty Python, he was down in Portland beating her up. (her boytoy airmen backed her.. UNFORTUNATELY.. we were only 3 doors down from the kid's command master chief.. needless to say..he lost off base privileges and other things..)

Lots of charges.. she tried pretty much everything. Word was she tried to get someone to shoot her husband. Last I heard she tried to hire an undercover to destroy his car. He, needless to say, got full custody when the smoke cleared.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Because he fathered the child.  He was one of two people that brought a child into this world and so he is one of the two people charged with taking care of that child.  If both parents decided to put the child up for adoption, then that is their choice as a couple.  The father can give up his rights over the child such as visitation and participating in the child’s care, but he cannot give up the responsibility. 

Once more, show me evidence where the child benefits by losing income from the household.  Show me some sort of evidence that displays the man was giving that child any sort of benefit by his decision to sign away his parental rights and we can discuss that he might have had pure intentions at heart.

As for abortion, women carry the babies.  There is nothing that equality can do to change biology short of an artificial womb.  Abortion is protected under a right to privacy, because women have a right to privacy regarding medical treatment and procedures.  A woman decides what happens to her body, including carrying a child to term.

People participate in an activity knowing the risks.  On each and every package of birth control, every condom and on any other contraceptive device is the warning.  The end result of sex can be a child, simple.  Don’t have sex, won’t have a child.  Have sex even with contraception then a child can still result.  Neither the man nor the woman get to say, well I tried so I don’t have to take responsibility.  People take risks all the time and we may mourn that their risk hurt them, but we don’t say they weren’t expecting the result.  Not sure why sex is so different.

[Chris Brady]

Pumpkin Seeds, you're making a hell of an assumption here.  You're assuming that the mother in this case is actually caring for the kids, rather than using them as an excuse to get free money.  According to Callie's first post, based on his testimony, this is not the case.

As for Sereph's example, this woman pulled the same stunt at least TWICE, got the same agency to pretty much screw the two men out of most of their income.  And yet you're claiming that these women deserve the kids, just because of what?  The woman is the one who gets pregnant?  That's a highly unfair assumption.  And one that's likely used in court by sadly unfit mothers to get the kids, I'm thinking, but that's PURE conjecture.

It sounds to me, from what you are saying on this thread, that you believe that the mother of the child has the sole right to raise said child, no matter how unfit she may be.  Because the woman has to carry the child, the father has 0 say?

Is this what you are saying?  Please correct me, because that's what I am getting.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Well, to my understanding Callie and Sereph are talking about two different people.

I am going on what Sereph stated.  He did not mention her using the agency to go after the second man and honestly he would not know for certain if she did.  A lot of what he says about her is conjecture from others at this point.  He stated that his source saw the paperwork for the first man.  As for screwing them out of their money, she is getting child support.  We have already thrown into question whether or not father number 1 was paying adequate child support before she got ahold of this agency to “screw him out of his money” and pay for his child.  Your assumption that he is, my assumption backed by his child support arrangement that he was not is a lot more plausible considering the laws of child support.

I have never said that a woman should get custody of a child simply because she carried the child.  I do not think anyone in this thread has made such a statement.  Women do get credit in terms of taking care of the child during their pregnancy if the father has shown no interest or support.  Never have I said that a father is unfit to care for a child based on him being a man, nor have I ever said that a father is less fit than the mother.  If you are “hearing” that from my words then you are hearing them by your own design. 

I have posted a book to help dispute the claim that men are that out done in child custody cases.  That was refuted as being “political” despite a review from Psychology Today.  I then posted three separate articles showing that fathers are gaining custody more and more.  My statement being that the case originally indicated is not as widespread as he might think and women do not always have the upper hand. 

Women do have the “caregiver” stereotype given to them.  That is something that women have fought against for some time.  Many women feel dejected when they find out caregiving is not a natural part of being a mother, some women are just not caregivers by nature.  Some men are natural caregivers and men also fight the stereotype that they are not.  Times are changing, but courts move slowly.  Considering not too long ago a woman could be raped by her husband without recourse or be beaten half to death in her home while everyone turned a blind eye, I think the courts are making progress in regard to disparities by sex.

The woman in Sereph’s case I can only assume is caring for the children because he has given no indication that she has not done so.  On the other hand, the father mentioned for the first child attempted to sign away his responsibility so that he would not have to pay child support.  So he attempted to not have any responsibility for the child.  The woman is promiscuous apparently, but to my knowledge that is not illegal or an indication of poor motherhood.  You are making those assumptions about her mothering skills based on her having a child with another man, in an unknown timeframe and then seeking child support for that child.

As for Callie, Beguile is pretty much correct that judges do not like to overturn decisions without a lot of reason to do so.  I do not have enough information to conclude why Callie’s friend only had visitation and not joint custody of the child or full custody. 

[Serephino]

While it's true I can only go off of what my boyfriend tells me, he wouldn't lie to me.  He was also skeptical about it all at first, but D did bring in the paperwork, and everyone who has known D for any length of time backs it all up.  I have been talking to my boyfriend about it to make sure I have the facts straight.  She did use the same agency to go after the other men.  In fact, it was a marathon screwing all on the same day.

He tried signing away his rights because at the time he was living in his car.  Other co workers have confirmed this.  The woman doesn't work.  She doesn't need to because of how much she's getting in child support.  Shouldn't she like have to get a job?  Shouldn't she share some of the financial burden as well?  She was the one who decided to keep the kids.  Call me crazy, but I really think fathers should be left enough to live comfortably on.

And yes, sex can result in a child.  That is one of the reasons I'm extremely picky about who I have sex with.  But I do find it extremely hypocritical that a woman has an out, where a man doesn't.  It's okay to tell a man he should've kept it in his pants, but how dare anyone say to a woman she should've kept her legs closed.  Yes, it's her body, and unless she's a moron, she knows damn well what the risk is when spreading her legs. 

However, she can get rid of it.  No matter what the reasons, no matter if it's a difficult decision, it boils down to the cold hard fact that the woman decided she didn't want to be a parent, and made the embryo go poof.  The way I see it, it's only fair that men get an out too.  It should be a discussion that both parties have.  If the father wants no part in it from the start, then the woman can decide if she wants to take on the responsibility.  If she doesn't, then there is adoption or abortion.   

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Women have always been told to keep their legs closed.  A senator made a joke about how women should keep a quarter between their knees.  Women are encouraged far more than men to not have sex.  Men are given a pat on the back, while women are branded as sluts and whores.  Women are kept from getting vaccinations because people in office believe they will be promiscuous.  I think women suffer far more for having sex than a man does in that regard.

So wait, the woman had all three children and then went to this agency for child support from each father?  So we’re looking at roughly three years, give or take a few months before she actually pursued child support through legal channels against the first man?  Also if he was living in his car at the time she was pursuing child support, then how did they decide on that number?  If he did not have money for a place to stay, then they cannot garnish wages he doesn’t have.  If he was living in his car then he also probably wasn’t paying her child support. 

A woman has the option of getting rid of a pregnancy because during the time an abortion can be performed there is no “human” inside of her.  After a certain time she can no longer have an abortion and must, to the best of her ability, carry the baby to term.  The procedure is protected under a right to privacy stating that a woman has the right to her own body.  A woman carries the child, a woman bears all the risks and problems of pregnancy and so a woman has the ability to choose not to endure carrying the child.  After a certain point, she can no longer make that decision.

Once the baby is born, the child’s welfare is considered over either parent desires for money or freedom of responsibility.  Unless both parents state an unwillingness to care for the child and give the child for adoption, the law is designed to uphold the interest of the child.  A father cannot relinquish his responsibility to the child because the child’s need for money and care is considered a higher priority.  A mother cannot relinquish her responsibility over the child because once again, the child’s welfare is considered higher priority.  Child support is not meant to punish either party for having sex, it’s meant to secure needed funds for the child from the parties responsible for its creation.

[Iniquitous]

Admittedly, no, he isn't a loving parent.  He didn't want kids.  He did use condoms.

I went back and quoted that because I do not think you are remembering that. The guy did not want kids. Therefore, it is not an issue of 'gees, I do not want to lose money to this kid.' It is an issue of the man knowing he did not want kids and contraceptives failed. Yes, there are consequences for actions we take but that does not mean he does not have the ability to sign away his right as a parent and not be expected to pay for the child he did not, does not and will not want.

The other thing you are not seeming to grasp is the act of signing away your rights as a parent means that the child is no longer yours. Period. When I signed the papers to put the child I carried up for adoption I was legally saying that I had no claim to that child ever again. No visitations, no say in how the child was raised. Signing those papers also meant that the parents adopting the child could not come after me for support of the child as they became, through the law, the parents of that child. If the father would have been able to sign away his rights then no, he does not owe a penny to the mother for the child because he has signed documents in the court of law stating that he is terminating all of his rights as the father of the child.

Either way, I think you are hung up on the 'men don't want to pay for their children!' side of the discussion and refuse to admit that there are some men out there that simply do NOT want to be a father ever and things happen that force them into such a circumstance. For me, I think it would be less harmful to a child for a man who never wanted to be a father to be allowed to give up his rights as a father so another (wo)man can adopt the child instead of spending 18 years paying child support and outright ignoring the child.

[Serephino]

Also, does it do a child any good to see his/her parents fighting over them?  Like it or not, right or not, kids get dragged into this crap.  Kids hear stuff.  Sure, knowing your father didn't want you would be upsetting.  However, it's better than listening to the back and forth of your parents fighting.  Your father gets taken to court because of you, and you know it.  It's a constant reminder that you are not wanted.  You can't move on and forget about it, because your mother will talk about it, and you'll hear it.

And to clear it up, the guy was not living in his car when the first court order was made, but he ended up there and tried to contest it.  He lost his house because he couldn't pay for anything.

I very much believe in personal responsibility.  The whole quarter between the knees thing was said by someone who wants to outlaw abortion, which has nothing to do with this.  I have working female parts as much as I wish I didn't.  This means pregnancy is a real possibility.  And so, I keep track of my cycle.  If my boyfriend wants to have sex during my fertile period I have two options.  I can have sex with him and risk it, or I can tell him no.  Most of the time I tell him no.  That doesn't mean I don't ever have sex.  But when I do, and if it's during my fertile period, I'm well aware that pregnancy could result.  That's why I usually go with the option of saying no.  It doesn't take anything away from me.  In fact, the option of saying no gives me the power to avoid getting pregnant when I don't want to.   

Because I never said a woman should be punished for sex.  However, since women are the ones who get pregnant, a woman has the responsibility to make sure she doesn't get pregnant if she doesn't want to.  All a man can do is use a condom or get a vasectomy.  Of course, most doctors won't do a vasectomy on a man who hasn't had at least one child, no matter how sure he is he doesn't want any.  Women have the same issue with sterilization, which I don't think is fair either. 

I've heard women complain, but yeah, the extra responsibility is on you because you carry the child.  And so, you either have to take birth control, make sure a condom is used, or barring that, know when you're fertile and at least keep your legs closed during that time.  The point some of us are trying to make is that should your method of contraception fail, you can go get an abortion.  You also seem hung up on the right to an abortion, which also is not being disputed.  The point is, that unless there is a medical reason, you are getting rid of the embryo because even though you may have taken precautions, nothing is fool proof.  You got pregnant.  You don't want to carry to the child.  You don't want the responsibility of said child.  You go get an abortion and get an instant get out of jail free card.

I'm not saying it isn't a difficult decision either.  I've been faced with it myself.  Birth control and my bi-polar disorder don't mix well, so I was naturally concerned how my bi-polar disorder and pregnancy hormones would mix.  I ended up not having to make that decision in the end.  Either the home test was a false positive, or I had a spontaneous miscarriage between then and when I could get myself to the doctor.

My point is, you can make that decision.  You can say okay, I'm pregnant, but I really can't have/don't want this kid.  You can even get an abortion to avoid pregnancy.  But a man can use a condom and all that, and if you choose to keep the child, he has absolutely no say.  Before you even have sex with him he can make it very clear to you he doesn't want kids.  It doesn't matter.  You can completely ignore his wishes and have the kid, and go after him for child support.  Then he resents both you and the child.  The child has to live with being resented even though it didn't do anything wrong.  It's not a good situation for anyone involved.   

[Pumpkin Seeds]

The woman’s “get out of jail free card” includes as possible consequences lifelong trauma, post-traumatic stress disorder, permanent infertility, pain, humiliation, public shame, fear of discovery and oh yeah…death.  Not much of a “get out of jail free card.”  Also, once more the woman carries the child and she does get that decision.  She has a small window of opportunity for that decision to be made before the embryo is considered viable and a human child.  Then she cannot take that option.  Once the child is born, the child’s welfare once more becomes the state’s top priority.  People do not have a “right” to get out of responsibility. 

Once more Opheliac, show me the evidence stating that a child is better off without monetary support from one of the parents.  I have asked twice for that information and you have failed to provide this information to back up your opinion.  Show me where a child benefits from a loss of income to the household.  A father is welcome to remove his presence from a child’s life, as is the mother for that matter.  Loss of financial support though is not beneficial and so the state takes an active interest in upholding the child’s access to those finances.  I understand that there are some men that don’t want to be fathers, just like there are some women that don’t want to be mothers.  Guess what?  They took the risk. 

Once the child is born that is a life dependent on others for existence.  Neither the father or mother have the right to simply abandon the child without steps being taken to ensure not only the child’s survival but possibility for success, no matter how slim that possibility might be.  The father’s desire to retain his money and have his freedom is not a right and is secondary to the child’s need to survive.

Also Serephino, I agree abortion isn’t part of this discussion.  I even asked for abortion to be taken off the table.  I am not the one continually bringing up abortion and making reference to it as a “get out of jail free card.” 

The extra responsibility is on the woman to not get pregnant?  So the responsibility is not on the man to ensure that he is not getting someone else pregnant by using a condom or refraining from sex.  Not true.  If a man wants to prevent this situation then he needs to take into consideration that the child is also his responsibility and preventing pregnancy is also his responsibility.  Men have access to various condoms and men can say no as well if they feel pregnancy is a reasonable outcome for whatever reason.  I find it funny you listed for women the ability to “keep their legs closed” but didn’t list that same ability for men. 

[Sabre]

I have posted a book to help dispute the claim that men are that out done in child custody cases.  That was refuted as being “political” despite a review from Psychology Today.

Psychology Today is not a scientific journal for psychologists.  The book is no more research than an Ann Coulter book, and the review no less political or opinionated than any other magazine out there.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Well since she is a psychologist and a professor of psychology and Psychology Today is a magazine that every therapist I know reads, I will go with those sources as having more credential and bearing then a random internet poster on an adult website forum.  My opinion, you may of course feel free to add your own weight to the evidence as presented.

[Sabre]

That's just it.  She's a professor of psychology writing on a matter of judicial and legal precedent and trends.  And a magazine being a popular read is different from it being a peer-reviewed journal of science and law.  The review carries no more weight than does a review in the New York Times about a political best seller - it is an opinion piece written about an opinionated political book that does not enjoy the authoritative backing of being a book based on a subject the author is educated in - psychiatry.  It is what it is, but evidence it is not.

[Serephino]

No, you keep saying women have the right to medical privacy and the right to abortions.  The legality or morality of abortions is not what is being discussed.  You did open the door by saying men just want to shirk their responsibility.  Yeah... they face psychological trauma, and possibly death... to what...?  To not be a mother!  You keep missing that point, or ignoring it, so this will be the last time I say it.  Unless it's a medical issue, a woman getting an abortion doesn't want to be pregnant.  They had sex, if they were using contraception it failed, and rather than taking responsibility of engaging in an activity where pregnancy may be a result, they get rid of it.  It may not be a piece of cake, but the end result is no baby to be responsible for.  If getting an abortion is as horrible an experience as you keep claiming, then why do it?

Can a man do that?  No.  All he can do is pray the woman will honor his wishes and not drag him into it.  Women raise kids by themselves without the father's help all the time.  Men do it without the mother's help too.  It may not be easy, but that is what the parent chose to do.  You keep harping on the loss of money.  Isn't a child better off without all the drama?  How is a child not better off without a father who resents them? 

My high school friend had a 'deadbeat dad'.  Her and her siblings knew what was going on.  They knew he wasn't paying.  They knew he didn't care.  It caused serious psychological trauma to the kids because their mother made sure they knew how little their dad cared.  Eventually she remarried and let him sign away his rights so the new husband could adopt them.  But by then the damage was done.  C wasn't paying anyway, so no income was won or lost until the very end when she used the very same advocate agency.  All it did was create unnecessary drama and permanent damage to the kids.           

[Chris Brady]

Pumpkin Seeds, it seems to me like you have too much emotion invested in this.  I'm not sure we, as a group, can continue to discuss this without someone getting upset.

[Iniquitous]

Now that I am home from work and can address this…

I’ve never once said that the loss of income for the child is best for the child.  I understand that the reason some states (might be all states though I have not bothered to do any research to find out for sure) refuse to allow a non custodial parent to sign away their rights without someone else being there to adopt the child is because they do not want the child to lose that income.

With that said - Sere has pointed out that single parents have been raising children alone and on their own for a very, very long time. What is your response to a situation of a couple breaking up and the non custodial parent dying. There is a loss of income for the child right there and guess what, the surviving parent has to go it alone.

I can honestly say that were I in a situation where I ended up pregnant by a man that did not want to be a father and I chose to carry the child and bring the child into the world, I’d have no issues with him not having any rights to the child. How can I say this? Because I DID IT. I was seventeen when I found out I was pregnant - a failure of birth control - and the father wasted no time in making it clear he did not want anything to do with me or the child. So, when I had my son I made sure to put ’father unknown’ on the birth certificate and I did not go after him for child support. I respected his wishes to never be a father (something that he has stuck to to this day). My son did not grow up with the bitching and the bickering. He did not grow up having to constantly know that his father begrudged his very existence every time a check was made out.

Was it easy? Hell no. Would I change it if I could? No. My son is better off without having gone through the emotional hell of such a thing. And while my son never had the best of everything, he never lacked for what he needed. He always had a roof over his head, food in his stomach, clothes on his back, he went on every field trip the school had and he even got to spend a summer in Japan as an exchange student. As for his sperm donor? Now that he is an adult he knows the guy’s name and knows he can hunt him down if he so wishes - and he does not wish to. 

[Trieste]

Just a reminder that if something here does upset you, you can always take a breather and step away from the computer.

If someone is breaking the rules, make sure to hit "report to moderator" instead of retaliating and making the situation worse.

And most importantly, if there is something that you don't want to read, remember that you do have the choice to stop reading and skip a post that you find hard to read for whatever reason.

Thanks, all.

[Serephino]

My boyfriend never knew his father.  All he knows is the man was sent to jail for molesting a 12 year old girl when he was an infant.  He spent the first 6 years of his life with his grandparents because his mother asked them to watch him for a few hours, and it took her 6 years to come back.  She had re-married and decided she wanted to be a mother again.  His grandparents didn't get child support from his father because he was in jail, and they didn't know where his mother was. 

They tried to get custody of him back when she took him, even pointing out that she'd abandoned him.  But back then it was still viewed it was always best for the child to be with its mother, and they were too old.  He wishes they would have been able to get custody because they gave him a stable, loving environment.  That's what a child needs.  I've met his mother, and his grandparents.  I agree he would've been better off with his grandparents.   

[Caela]

On men signing away their rights: I have no problem with this provided it is done before the child is born. If a man signs the birth certificate than he is, legally, acknowledging his paternity and is on the hook...end of story. If he doesn't want to be a father however then I see no reason why he shouldn't be able to sign away his rights to that child. Since it keeps being compared to the fact that women can abort, I would even say we could tie it to that same timing. If he want what would in effect be a "paper abortion", he has to sign and file the paperwork within the same timeframe that a woman has to get a physical abortion.

I had this particular belief put to the test 3.5 years ago when I got pregnant with my daughter. She was a surprise and neither of us wanted to be parents. Abortion was never an option for me but I did take the time to consider giving her up for adoption. In the end I made the chose to keep my child and have never regretted that choice. Even on her worst day she is the most amazing thing in my life and I love her more than I ever knew it was possible to love another person! I was, however, faced with a man whose views on parenthood didn't change along with mine. He didn't want to be a father...end of story. In my state you can't sign away your rights and so he had the very real concern that I would try and drag him to court for support.

I chose to respect his desire not to be a parent. We have an, unwritten, agreement that he stays away from me and MY child and I don't take him to court but if he ever shows up on my doorstep thinking he gets to change his mind I will drag him through the messiest court battle I can! She's almost 4 now and he's never seen her. As far as I know he's never even told his family she exists and we do just fine without his presence or his money.

[Zakharra]

On men signing away their rights: I have no problem with this provided it is done before the child is born. If a man signs the birth certificate than he is, legally, acknowledging his paternity and is on the hook...end of story. If he doesn't want to be a father however then I see no reason why he shouldn't be able to sign away his rights to that child. Since it keeps being compared to the fact that women can abort, I would even say we could tie it to that same timing. If he want what would in effect be a "paper abortion", he has to sign and file the paperwork within the same timeframe that a woman has to get a physical abortion.

What if he doesn't even know about it? The woman might have gotten pregnant and never even knew or hid it from him before the were parted. Whether through splitting up or just being away from each other for whatever reason? Perhaps he's in the military and they are lovers and he's deployed and doesn't see her for months at a time. A long business trip to another country or another part of the country. Whatever the reason, just say he didn't know and all of a sudden there is a woman with a baby in her arms demanding he support a child he never knew existed. Why shouldn't he be able to sign away his rights then?

[Trieste]

Because it is plausible for a woman not to know that she is pregnant until past the time period for a legal abortion. Because if she is not allowed to get an abortion due to rape, she should be able to sue her rapist for child support. Because if there are going to be limits on what women can do with their bodies, there should also be limits on what men can do as well.

I don't support limiting peoples' choices in any way, but if you're going to do it, that would be a fair way to do it, in my estimation. Shit happens and if you're going to tell the woman she shoulda kept it in her pants, you have to tell men the same thing.

[Callie Del Noire]

I have reservations about paternal rights of the father. My older brother is actually my HALF-brother.  His father skipped out on the child support, but this was back in the 'bad old days' where daddy could bail on his responsibilities. Which he did.. for YEARS. The vibe I got from my granddad was that he was 'encouraged' to leave my mom alone after they split up. Little things like the fact that NO ONE mentioned him till I was in my late teens, the family avoided their old church and stayed out of the town he was a member of the police in. FOR YEARS.

Knowing my grand-dad.. and his stonelike right hand I have my suspicions. If it hadn't been for him FINALLY signing over full custody to my brother when I was six, I'd have never met him at all. Hell I didn't get an explanation for who I was till I could DRIVE. It took my brother getting made senior partner in a law firm that pulled in INTERNATIONAL links. (His english associates represented the men who sued Dan Brown over his use of Holy Blood/Holy Grail) and BIG law suits in the US. (We're talking a nation wide one into the BILLIONS.)

Only then..after YEARS of ignoring him and never once trying to help us out, he surfaces and tries to make good with his SON. Who now lived in a house worth millions, contributed gobs of money, and made the news state wide and had just recently helped charter a bank.

I don't envy my brother.. he worked hard to get where he is. He and his wife do a LOT of good, normally very discretely. (He has for YEARS supplied teachers in his hometown with school supplies, donated publicly and privately to a LOT of folks and causes in an area that was wiped out from NAFTA's elimination of 'low paying blue collar jobs').

I heard from my mom that he was trying (up to the last six months of his life) to reclaim the role of 'dad' after years of ignoring my mom and brother. My brother is a much better man than I am to accept him in his life after the shit that he did to my mom (after his death.. my mom told me some of the shit he'd done. I'd have shot the man. I suspect that my grandfather read him the riot act. Abuse like that doesn't stop unless you're afraid of your own safety and I KNOW my granddad would have gleefully killed him, buried him in the back of a cotton field with a couple bags of quicklime if he pushed things. I loved my old paw-paw.. but there were few things that you didn't do. Hit women in is presence was one. My uncle's crooked nose is testament to that.)

So, I'm sorta split on a 'fathers rights'. I suspect a lot of my brother's biological father, but I've also seen a LOT of good men who got screwed because of laws enacted after my brother's childhood.

In the end.. I think that there are some issues that need to be addressed. Right now the country is a hodge podge of craptastic laws and precedents. Add in things like child pregnancy, rape, incest, medical issues. Pregnancy, child responsibilities are a nightmare that would have Solomon tearing his hair out.

[Sure]

Because it is plausible for a woman not to know that she is pregnant until past the time period for a legal abortion. Because if she is not allowed to get an abortion due to rape, she should be able to sue her rapist for child support. Because if there are going to be limits on what women can do with their bodies, there should also be limits on what men can do as well.

I don't support limiting peoples' choices in any way, but if you're going to do it, that would be a fair way to do it, in my estimation. Shit happens and if you're going to tell the woman she shoulda kept it in her pants, you have to tell men the same thing.

By this logic, we should just make abortion illegal to induce a parity in rights. After all, that's what men have effectively right now: you lose all right to control over such things the moment you consent to sex (or even if you don't). Women obviously need to be brought down to this low standard. Who cares if it's wrong? It's what men have, so we obviously need to have it for women too! This is called negative equality, and it's not an argument you want to make, particularly because women, at the moment, have more rights than men and thus would lose more by both genders losing any claim to them.

[Caela]

What if he doesn't even know about it? The woman might have gotten pregnant and never even knew or hid it from him before the were parted. Whether through splitting up or just being away from each other for whatever reason? Perhaps he's in the military and they are lovers and he's deployed and doesn't see her for months at a time. A long business trip to another country or another part of the country. Whatever the reason, just say he didn't know and all of a sudden there is a woman with a baby in her arms demanding he support a child he never knew existed. Why shouldn't he be able to sign away his rights then?

Honestly, if he didn't sign the birth certificate, than I wouldn't care. I only mentioned the time limit because a father signing his rights away kept being compared to a woman's ability to have an abortion so I thought that putting the same time limit on a man sounded fair if we were trying to keep everything equal.

[Zakharra]

Honestly, if he didn't sign the birth certificate, than I wouldn't care. I only mentioned the time limit because a father signing his rights away kept being compared to a woman's ability to have an abortion so I thought that putting the same time limit on a man sounded fair if we were trying to keep everything equal.

What if the mother put his name on it?