Grandmaster Jogurt wrote:When men push to get custody, odds are they will get custody. If they push, between 2/3 and 70% of the time they will get it.
So you're right, it isn't 50/50, but in the opposite way than MRAs would try to have you believe.
Seeing as you seem to have looked into this, could you post some sources confirming it. If it's true it obviously changes things by a huge amount.
-----
The Duchess of Zeon wrote:But that isn't what happens. We let men get back into children's lives even if they're felony rapists in prisons. Men have enormous power in the current system, far more than women do. The system has continuously and absurdly supported the absolute right of the sire to intrude on the lives of the children he incidentally created and then vanished on. This is how systematically the current law is
stacked against women, not men. That's right, it's stacked against women, not against men. Women are still not allowed control over the fate of their own children even when the sire is a rapist and the system essentially regards the father as having a right to come back years, decades later and intrude themselves on a normal home and family situation. You've got the problems all reversed.
The only way that child support would
start to become unfair was if women had an absolute right to refuse custody and visitation and parentage to men. In short: If only the mother was recorded on the birth certificate and she had the right to determine what men were involved in the life of her children and to what degree. If women had that right, THEN child support should be removed. But until then, child support is a necessary weregild on deadbeats who nonetheless retain enormous rights to change their mind and intrude upon a home situation and destroy it by the exercise of those rights years or decades after abandonment.
Note, women have no choice in this matter. You're required to put a man on the birth certificate and he, unless parentage can then be assigned to another male (to whom all the rights would then transfer), has the right to intervene in the lives of the children essentially indefinitely. This is the way the world works against women, forcing them to indefinitely associate with sires of children. You have no choice in the matter, no matter how bad that man is for your child and no matter how little you want him around. So the fact that he has no choice about paying child support is, for the moment, a system in balance after countless centuries of male dominance. Termination is irrelevant to fairness because to men and women both have burdens that cannot be avoided from pregnancy. One would argue that the woman's burden remains much, much greater than some trivial weregild, indeed, I can demonstrate that child support rarely even begins to cover the cost of raising a child on a woman, so that her share of the burden remains larger.
If you want to get out of child support, then a woman should, likewise, be able to exclude you from any kind of right of contact, association, acknowledged parentage, or anything whatsoever, with a child. As it is right now, men are buying those rates for a very cheap rate indeed when it comes to child support and that isn't particularly pretty.
That shit with a rapist is dumb and nobody should support that. The same goes for forcing a women to carry the product of rape to term, or making it hard for her to give that child up for adoption. These things are obviously bullshit and should be stopped.
An absentee father coming back into the picture is a bit more tricky than a rapist wanting to get involved. People make mistakes and can honestly want to have a positive impact in their children's lives. Assuming that his child support was payed, or he has made good on his back payments, there should be provisions in place for him being allowed to visit. It's a messed up situation, but why should be deny him the chance to try and make things better?
Now depending on the age of the children I support them telling him to piss off and refusing to see him. I also support this working the other way, if a mom that has ran off wants to come back years later and try and make things better.
That said, I think that we need to look at these meetings carefully and assess harm. If it's hurting the children and/or the family they are part of it should cease. What counts as harm is something I can't even begin to start defining.
Assuming the man legitimately wants to make amends can you seriously say that it is hurting the woman's rights to allow him a chance to do so?
-----
Broomstick wrote:Jub wrote:He has no control over the child being born or not, for obvious reasons, but shouldn't he be allowed some say in things given that both parties had equal responsibility before they had sex?
A man has no say in whether or not a pregnancy continues because he does not, and
will never, bear any of the physical risks of pregnancy. As the risk is entirely the woman's only the woman has a say in it.
If a man can't handle that concept he shouldn't have sexual intercourse with fertile women.
Although if by some medical miracle a man ever did become pregnant whether or not to continue to pregnancy would be his choice, but I can only assume such a state of affairs would never happen by accident.
Going down the path of artificial wombs, what is a man wants to keep the child and is willing to carry it to term. Is it infringing on her rights, to the degree that we allow her to terminate the pregnancy, to tell her to either carry the fetus to term or allow it to be transferred to the man?
This has more relevance than ever now with artificial womb transplants being possible.
-----
EnterpriseSovereign wrote:Broomstick wrote:EnterpriseSovereign wrote:This argument is going in circles; what I find most disturbing in this case is the guy being charged with fucking murder. Seriously? The woman was six weeks gone, I'm pretty sure the threshold for abortion is a lot later than that. Yes he committed crimes, but seriously, does that justify a murder charge?
First, she wasn't "six weeks gone", she was six weeks pregnant. No need for euphemisms.
While I am in agreement with the notion that a six week old fetus is not the equivalent of a fully developed human being there are jurisdictions where a
wanted fetus dying is treated like a full person dying because, outside of what caused the death, that fetus
would have been a full human being in less than a year. Oh, and nutty right to life sorts who are trying to use fetal homicide as a back door to outlawing abortion. Oddly enough, it's an area where pro-life and pro-choice overlap:
no woman should ever be forced to terminate a wanted pregnancy.
Agreed, it's the whole "would have been" part that these sorts use for justification that abortion=murder. I'd like to see if the murder charge actually sticks, especially given that this is taking place in Florida. This also reminds me of another case a few years ago where a doctor tried to slip abortion-inducing drugs into his pregnant mistress' drinks to induce a miscarriage:
Link
Though in this case, he failed and was charged with poisoning.
I don't want a murder charge to stick precisely because of how it could impact pregnant women. In a place with better laws I would support it, but I fear what prolife groups could do with this precedent.
-----
To the rest, most of you haven't added anything new and I can only respond to so much. If you think I've missed something feel free to send me a civil PM and I'll respond to it publicly if so desired. My goal isn't to piss anybody off even if my points are contentious.
