Take a Break from COVID Discussions—Something Else to Argue About?

a reply to: Uknownparadox

I was should have asked you the same thing.

I didn't whine about anything. And I have plenty of cheese, thank you. Several different varieties in fact!

Those are the same choices women have. Given to everyone by the DNA/God/Universe.

Yup! Both parents have the same rights and the same responsibilities, albeit not necessarily the same needs, from that first twinkle in the eye.

American law gives men no choices. That's a fact. But it gives women choices. That's a fact.
You are being disingenuous at the least, to say men have any legal choices lady.

Do tell. What legal rights do women/mothers have that men/fathers do not have. Be specific please.

a reply to: Boadicea

Here in Arizona, Mothers can give up their child to a fire station or hospital and no questions will be asked and they will effectively be relinquished of all responsibility for that child.

Fathers cannot do this. We pay no matter what

Link

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Boadicea

And yet this not a good argument against abortion on demand?

From all I've read and heard, lots of people think it's a great argument against abortion on demand!

In fact, as one poster so awkwardly phrased it, "keeping her legs closed," seems to be the go-to argument for placing blame/responsibility on the woman alone.

So of course men AND women have to bear the consequences and responsibilities for their choices. But as long as those choices are made by two consenting adults, they bear equal responsibility before, during and after.

Beyond the morality and legality of abortion itself, the stickier question is if a man should have a choice in whether or not a pregnancy is terminated or carried to term.

a reply to: Boadicea

I didn't whine about anything. And I have plenty of cheese, thank you. Several different varieties in fact!

Hmmm... nine months of having your body put through massive changes -- both internally and externally, often with major serious side effects and adverse conditions (including death), followed by horrendous excruciating pain of labor and delivery, and all its inherent side affects and adverse conditions (including death), with more internal and external bodily changes following delivery... um, yeah, I'd say the woman is definitely most impacted. Fair enough!

Sounds like whining and complaining to me. But you're taking it up with the wrong entity. No surprise there.

Do tell. What legal rights do women/mothers have that men/fathers do not have. Be specific please.

In a lot of states a woman can just give up the child. As already posted. A woman can abort the pregnancy. A woman can put the child up for adoption. The man may be able to adopt the child. But the woman is relieved of all financial responsibility. As a woman You already know this. I do not enjoy seeing anyone, male or female at a disadvantage to another. I am not like other humans. And I am not playing this game with you anymore.

a reply to: Boadicea

“ So sooooooooooo sad and pathetic. ” I hope your not referring to me, personally, but rather the deadbeat dads! I hope I’ve made it clear I don’t condone their behavior. I’m just sick to death (no pun intended) of all this talk about COVID and wanted to stir the pot about something else, for once.

a reply to: Chalcedony

Thanks! You bring up a great point: there’s some atrocious behavior on both sides of the gender line; best to make SURE about who you have kids with!

I don’t ‘have a dog in this fight’. Human nature, relationships, marriage, kids…what a MESS! Seems to me all anyone can do is try hard to make things work and be an adult about things when it doesn’t.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: tanstaafl
I would say financial responsibility should be equal no matter the circumstances of the split. And quite frankly, any parent who would punish and deprive their child for the sins of the parent is a POS.

I agree, and women do this far more often than men.

Women (not all) will far more often be extremely vindictive (I guess this is the 'woman scorned' gene or something) lie, cheat and steal in an effort to deprive the father of any and all rights to visitation or shared custody, and...

I don't see how abuse should enter into providing for the needs of the child.

one of their favorite tactics is false claims of abuse (either toward themselves, or the child/children, or both).

What goes on between the parents is not the fault nor the responsibility of the child. Regardless of how pisspoor the adults act, their responsibility to the child is completely separate.

In a sane, rational world, yes. So... where do you live?

If we really want to go down this road, should wives/mothers demand child care costs/credits for taking care of their own children? How about housekeeping fees? Gardener? Accountant? Travel agent? Laundress? Chauffeur? Because I can guarandamtee you that I did the overwhelming majority of all of that!!!

Yes, absolutely, you should get 100% full tax credits for all of that.

The ridiculous thing is (a totally separate topic for another day), if you had the same Rights and Privileges as Corporations, you would absolutely get tax credits for all of that.

Corporations have far more rights than people do.

originally posted by: PraetorianAZ
a reply to: Boadicea

Here in Arizona, Mothers can give up their child to a fire station or hospital and no questions will be asked and they will effectively be relinquished of all responsibility for that child.

Fathers cannot do this.

Yes, fathers can do this. Fathers are not exempt. The law applies equally to mothers and fathers.

Safe Haven laws aren't just for mothers

While we mostly hear of mothers abandoning their child, fathers are not exempt from this practice.

According to the Child Welfare Information Gateway, dads, moms, legal guardians or someone who has the parents' permission can give the child up at a Safe Haven location. This all depends on the state in which you reside.

Things you didn't know about Safe Haven laws: Every state has one

Arizona law specifically uses the gender neutral term "parent(s)". Arizona law does not stipulate "mothers" and does not exclude "fathers":

A. A person is not guilty of abuse of a child pursuant to section 13-3623, subsection B solely for leaving an unharmed newborn infant with a safe haven provider.

B. A fire station and a health care institution that is classified by the department of health services pursuant to section 36-405 as a general hospital or a rural general hospital shall post a notice that it accepts a newborn infant pursuant to this section. The notice shall be placed on the exterior of the building in a location that is noticeable to the public. The words "baby safe haven" shall be printed in bold-faced capital letters that are not less than two inches in height. The notice may include an identifying logo. A fire station or hospital that does not post a notice as prescribed by this subsection is not subject to civil liability. A notice that is valid before September 30, 2009 remains valid after September 30, 2009.

C. If a parent or agent of a parent voluntarily delivers the parent's newborn infant to a safe haven provider, the safe haven provider shall take custody of the newborn infant if both of the following are true:

1. The parent did not express an intent to return for the newborn infant.

2. The safe haven provider reasonably believes that the child is a newborn infant.

D. The safe haven provider shall comply with the requirements of section 8-528 and report the receipt of a newborn infant to of the department of child safety as soon as practicable after taking custody of the newborn infant. The department shall report the number of newborn infants delivered to safe haven providers pursuant to section 8-526.

E. A parent or agent of a parent who leaves a newborn infant with a safe haven provider may remain anonymous, and the safe haven provider shall not require the parent or agent to answer any questions. A safe haven provider shall offer written information about information and referral organizations.

F. A safe haven provider who receives a newborn infant pursuant to this section is not liable for any civil or other damages for any act or omission by the safe haven provider in maintaining custody of the newborn infant if the safe haven provider acts in good faith without gross negligence.

G. This section does not preclude the prosecution of the person for any offense based on any act not covered by this section.

H. For the purposes of this section:

1. "Newborn infant" means an infant who is seventy-two hours old or younger.

2. "Safe haven provider" means any of the following:

(a) A firefighter who is on duty.

(b) An emergency medical technician who is on duty.

(c) A health care institution that is classified by the department of health services pursuant to section 36-405 as a general hospital or a rural general hospital. The parent or agent must deliver the newborn infant to a medical staff member at the health care institution.

(d) A staff member or volunteer at any of the following that posts a public notice that it is willing to accept a newborn infant pursuant to this section:

(i) A private child welfare agency licensed pursuant to title 8, chapter 4, article 4.

(ii) An adoption agency licensed pursuant to section 8-126.

(iii) A church. For the purposes of this item, "church" means a building that is erected or converted for use as a church, where services are regularly convened, that is used primarily for religious worship and schooling and that a reasonable person would conclude is a church by reason of design, signs or architectural or other features.

13-3623.01. Safe haven for newborn infants; definitions

Women still die in childbirth, leaving a baby with only their father. I would expect that it's not unheard of for fathers to be quite overwhelmed, and decide this is the best option for their child. Even if it hurts like hell to do so.

originally posted by: PraetorianAZ
My argument is that if a mother wanted to abandon a child they can do so to a fire station or hospital no questions asked and they are not forced to care for that child in any way shape or form.

Fathers don't get the same privilege. Even if a father gives up his rights to a child he is still forced to pay support. So much for equality.

So mothers can abandon children consequence-free and fathers have to pay no matter what. There have even been cases of fathers being forced to pay child support for children that are not adopted or biologically theirs.

My Ex even tried pulling some crap like this. We were going through a divorce and I was in a very rough financial spot and she offered to not force me to pay child support if I relinquished my rights to my daughters. My lawyer thankfully had seen this a million times where a father gave up their rights and hadn't seen their children in years then suddenly they get hit with a summons to pay child support including arrears. Happens all the time he said and most fathers are to stupid to read into it

Sadly, all true— to the best of my knowledge. But like I said, times are changing; I wouldn’t be surprised to hear some judge ordering a woman to at least make a legally binding document renouncing her rights to visit or support her child/children. And here’s why: I was reading an advice board online; some guy was facing this exact situation. After about 15 years of marriage (and three kids), his wife abandoned them. A year later (without so much as a phone call), she shows up and wants to visit ‘her’ kids. He was asking if there was anything he could do without “alienating” the kids from their mother!

originally posted by: Thoughtcrime
a reply to: Boadicea

“ So sooooooooooo sad and pathetic. ” I hope your not referring to me, personally, but rather the deadbeat dads!

Yes! I should have been clearer. My apologies.

I hope I’ve made it clear I don’t condone their behavior. I’m just sick to death (no pun intended) of all this talk about COVID and wanted to stir the pot about something else, for once.

Understood! Definitely understood... better than I ever wanted!!!

a reply to: tanstaafl

I agree, and women do this far more often than men.

Women (not all) will far more often be extremely vindictive (I guess this is the 'woman scorned' gene or something) lie, cheat and steal in an effort to deprive the father of any and all rights to visitation or shared custody, and...

I won't even try to quantify it! I don't know that one does it more than the other, but I do think men and women do so differently. The most significant difference that I've seen is that women will often convince themselves that they are doing it FOR the child(ren). They actually believe their nasty games are in the child's best interests.

In my experience, though, the moms who do this ultimately lose the respect of their children. The moms that just trudge along and make the best of it all -- no matter how horrible the fathers act -- are the ones who receive their children's eternal respect and admiration. Kids grow up and figure it out for themselves.

one of their favorite tactics is false claims of abuse (either toward themselves, or the child/children, or both).

Gotcha! For some reason I was thinking in terms of simply how much should be paid -- or paid at all -- based on past abuse. I didn't even think in terms of custody and visitation rights. Doh!!!

In a sane, rational world, yes. So... where do you live?

I live in my own little world with lots of special voices that only I can hear.... It's all good. Everyone knows me here!

a reply to: Boadicea


Whew! Thanks! And I really like what you said here!:
“ So of course men AND women have to bear the consequences and responsibilities for their choices. But as long as those choices are made by two consenting adults, they bear equal responsibility before, during and after.

Beyond the morality and legality of abortion itself, the stickier question is if a man should have a choice in whether or not a pregnancy is terminated or carried to term.”

Ooff! Now you’ve opened a can of worms!

a reply to: Boadicea

In my experience, though, the moms who do this ultimately lose the respect of their children. The moms that just trudge along and make the best of it all -- no matter how horrible the fathers act -- are the ones who receive their children's eternal respect and admiration. Kids grow up and figure it out for themselves.

Ya know…? When I read that, I realized I DO have a dog in this fight! I swear I wasn’t being disingenuous on this topic! But what you wrote about moms trudging along regardless of how the father acts hit me between the eyes! One of my sisters is going through this situation. Her son doesn’t want anything to do with his father, now that my nephew has grown up (17y.o); The kid will talk with his father, if the father calls, but that’s about it. My sis has NEVER badmouthed her ex to their son. She’s always been classy about it—sad, yes. Furious, yes. But always classy. You’re right: kids are smarter than we think…they’ll figure it out in the end.

originally posted by: Thoughtcrime
a reply to: Boadicea

Ooff! Now you’ve opened a can of worms!

LOL! I just may have... but so far, no takers. So looks like we're safe!

originally posted by: Thoughtcrime
a reply to: Boadicea

Ya know…? When I read that, I realized I DO have a dog in this fight! I swear I wasn’t being disingenuous on this topic!

Well.... hrmph!!! However, you came clean of your own volition, so you get a point for that. And you have expressed the proper angst and remorse, so there's that as well.

I think you've redeemed yourself quite well. We can let it slide this time.

But what you wrote about moms trudging along regardless of how the father acts hit me between the eyes! One of my sisters is going through this situation. Her son doesn’t want anything to do with his father, now that my nephew has grown up (17y.o); The kid will talk with his father, if the father calls, but that’s about it. My sis has NEVER badmouthed her ex to their son. She’s always been classy about it—sad, yes. Furious, yes. But always classy. You’re right: kids are smarter than we think…they’ll figure it out in the end.

My sister also. It's hell to watch, eh? They had three kids when he walked out on her. None of them have a real relationship with their dad beyond phone calls at Christmas and birthdays. But she never ever bad-mouthed her ex to the kids or anyone really. Even at the absolute worst of times. She just carried on and did her best. I don't know how she did it.

She definitely earned my eternal respect and admiration as well. Somehow I think her kids' respect and admiration means more to her though!

a reply to: Boadicea

HA!


Wow. I’m kinda glad I brought up this topic. Didn’t realize it would help clear up some stray thought that have LONG outlived their rent in my head! Like, did you know that as many as a THIRD of children in the 19th Century (at least in the U.S.) were ‘orphans’!? Quite shocking. I might have that figure wrong, but it’s pretty close. Dads abandoned their families regularly—especially if they lost their jobs or the farm. Sometimes, the mom would kick out the father for being a lazy drunk, or abusive; if the mom later died, the kids often had nowhere to go. I learned about this after doing some background reading for Huck Finn. [Honestly! who the hell let’s their kid build a raft and float 1,000 miles downriver?!

Another stray thought: my late Step-father was abandoned as an infant on the steps of a Nunnery. Didn’t leave until he was 17. Man…THAT’S ‘Old School’!

originally posted by: Thoughtcrime
a reply to: igloo

“ a reply to: Thoughtcrime
Having children and bailing on them financially, emotionally, or physically is immoral. There are other laws based on immorality so I'd say expecting a parent (not just dads) to help provide the needs of their children is within the scope of this too.”

Agreed. There IS a moral obligation by the father (or mother) to this topic. For arguments sake, someone once said ‘you can’t legislate morality’—usually in the context of Prohibition/anti-alcohol laws. Yet there are still laws against prostitution in most of the States. But I digress…

Then, by that measure, why hold anyone accountable? why have prisons, and courts? is crime in general..a morality question?

If you are a father, or mother..you should be financially responsible.

originally posted by: Thoughtcrime
a reply to: Boadicea

HA!

Wow. I’m kinda glad I brought up this topic. Didn’t realize it would help clear up some stray thought that have LONG outlived their rent in my head! Like, did you know that as many as a THIRD of children in the 19th Century (at least in the U.S.) were ‘orphans’!? Quite shocking. I might have that figure wrong, but it’s pretty close. Dads abandoned their families regularly—especially if they lost their jobs or the farm. Sometimes, the mom would kick out the father for being a lazy drunk, or abusive; if the mom later died, the kids often had nowhere to go. I learned about this after doing some background reading for Huck Finn. [Honestly! who the hell let’s their kid build a raft and float 1,000 miles downriver?!

Another stray thought: my late Step-father was abandoned as an infant on the steps of a Nunnery. Didn’t leave until he was 17. Man…THAT’S ‘Old School’!

I can't speak to the numbers either, but I know I've heard and read the same thing. A lot of those children ended up as indentured servants working in factories and mills (when that was still a thing). Many of them took on apprenticeships, and at least got a skill for their future. They were probably among the luckiest. Even into the 20th century, there were no good options for orphans. My grandmother talked about losing her brother to the Spanish flu... but the family took in two more boys that lost their parents to the flu. If there wasn't a family to take them in, nunneries were probably among the best places to end up. But that probably isn't saying much, given just how horrid conditions were for so many orphans.

originally posted by: Thoughtcrime
a reply to: Boadicea
Beyond the morality and legality of abortion itself, the stickier question is if a man should have a choice in whether or not a pregnancy is terminated or carried to term.”

Ooff! Now you’ve opened a can of worms!

Not really...

If the woman has sole say in whether or not the baby lives, then if the man wants to abort, and she refuses, then he should not be forced by the law/at gunpoint to pay the woman a damned thing.

Whats good for the goose...