Posted on 10/31/2005 7:34:44 AM PST by governsleastgovernsbest
I've tried and I've tried! I find "Desperate Housewives"... boring. It reminds me of the same "serial" style as "30-Something" which I also found boring. So many people seem to enjoy this show.. Watching this show, to me, is like sitting through the longest hour.. waiting for something interesting, really interesting, to happen. All that seems to happen is overblown trivia. And then ya get to sit through another 15 mins of non-stop boring chick blather to get to MAYBE another "plot trick". I come away from watching it.. exhausted. So. No. I don't watch.
You are correct. Either parent can get full or partial custody based on the facts in the individual case. Joint custody is the norm, and if the parents live close enough, joint physical custody is often sought.
In fact a pregnany woman can often go to court and get payment for medical and other expenses associated with the pregnancy - of course, the resolution of these cases is often after the child is born.
And really, the woman only has a choice before the pregnancy occurs, as does her partner. Afterwards, depending on your view, there is no choice but to carry to term if you are pro-life.
In PA, a child is considered to "cost" so much per month, based on parental income - whomever does not have primary physical custody provides their share by paying money to the custodial parent, mother or father. The custodial parent of course pays the remainder by providing the necessities and beyond. And as you note, this is true regardless of the marital status of the parents.
Naturally, this is a very contentious issue, but I bring it up because it applies no matter which parent has custody.
I don't buy the "her choice his extortion" argument. He knows the possible result, so don't cry when the chickens come home to roost, or blame it all on her because she didn't release him from his responsibility. That's why sex is for grown-ups only.
As far as the woman's right to choose to carry to term rather than abort, is there any alternative to current arrangements ? If you're 50% of the cause, you should be 50% of the solution. If you value life, you should sustain that which you create. Men have choices too - contraception of various types, vasectomy, masturbation, prostitutes etc etc. If a man just "has to have it", he can make choices too, and take the responsibility for it, otherwise it's just so much whining and immaturity.
I wonder tho -- if in the scenario you laid out what are the odds that father can petition for full custody. Despite that "she chose" to bear the child to term. Under the genuine "golden rules" laws of fairness, shouldn't the bio dads get to petition the courts, then, for full custody of the infant?
At the same time, shouldn't DNA'd non-"fathers" be permitted to sue the custodial mother for wrongful "naming" and "child support" monies back? I should think this would be fair.
I grant that both "adults" vis a vis consent in advance for responsibility for ensuing results of sexual activity (although many claim not to have "thought about that").
I know in most states the "Tender Years" doctrine still holds a very large sway in rulings in re "custody".
As long as a "baby" remains HER (h-e-r) choice, as it is her anatomy which bears it; it strikes me that then the greater responsibility should fall upon the shoulders of the woman.
IMHO, there is nothing moral in aborting a baby. But yet, there's a "moralistic" approach to dealing with a baby brought to full term, by, HER choice. Meaning, she holds all the cards.
Which also means, that men should have the greater interest in supporting abortion. And also have a "equal" say in whether or not a baby is aborted or brought to full term.
This is not what happens. Women are given all the trump cards: They rule not only whether or not a soul is permitted life, but they can dictate a father's purse for 18 years via the courts.
FOR her choice. If abortion is not moral; then why are "fathers" bound to a moral course but ONLY if a woman chooses to do the moral thing of permitting a new soul to come to life? Especially if the man has NOT IN WRITING made a statement averring his intent to "support" their child.
Why should a man, then, be enslaved to the dictates of a female biology and a female "choice"?
This is the part that always troubles me and why I've hated ROEvWADE and the resulting feminist legal rulings and laws since then (from a purely "legal" aspect; outside my own distate for abortion).
If bearing a child to term is HER choice, then choosing to be a part, or not, of HER CHOICE should be of no "concern" or penalty to the man.
Women get pregnant and have abortions and without ever informing the "father" in question. If they do not include the "father in question" in this decision, then upon what kind of logic should he be financially and legally dragged into the results?
In a "moral" world, I agree with your post -- 50/50. But we do not live in a time with such rulings as "her choice" which grant in fairness that "50/50".
It's her ballgame from the word "screw".
I've always maintained that women are in the control seat, given their biology. To support the laws as they currently exists, posits a "sexual identity preference to females" and while at the same time positing them as "thinkless blobs" unable to plan ahead for themselves. That they are unable to control their own sexual natures. And therefore, a man must be held accountable for HER behaviors and HER CHOICES; beyond the initial "consensual" sex act. Somehow, in a mystic world, he's responsible for his own biology as well as hers, AND her "choice". But not his own. A man cannot order a woman to abort. Nor does his say on the matter of "pregnancy" matter a single iota in the eyes of the laws.
An anology might be (on a cold scale); a traveling salesman selling you snake oil. If he offers no guarantee of money back for failed results; then is he not in the clear? Legally, YES, he is. The onus is on the purchaser, no?
RoeVWade was the beginning of the invasion into everyone's private lives, and privacy; not to mention, civil rights.
Funny you should ask; I was in that situation 7 years ago, which is why I know and have stayed somewhat current on the laws and cases.
My ex, after having walked out and been "absent" for 4.5 years, took me to court without warning when our daughter was 8 and sued for full custody - legal and physical. His primary motivation was for me to pay him and his new wife and baby child support, which would enable his new wife to stay at home to raise their child. And no, I didn't make that part up - he told me that himself.
The courts eventually decided that he had to re-establish a relatonship with his daughter according to the custody terms of our divorce agreement for a year or so, after which he cold come back and petition for full custody again. Of course, since it didn't involve immediate money, he lost interest and became "absentee" again.
I didn't fault him for his desire for custody - if it had been to provide our daughter with a happy home. Of course, I was providing her with a good home, albeit just one without a father. Unfortunately, that motivation was not the case and I fought him tooth and nail because he was trying to take our daughter from the only home and parent she's been relying on for 8 years.
Re the non-DNA fathers - I agree with you in part. The part where I don't agree is this; if the child was raised to consider the father her "real" father, and he accepted that role no matter the reason, how could he just walk away from that relationship with that child ? It's just as hurtful as the case where the DNA father walks out. From the child's point of view, he is her father. So where do you draw the line ? Before 2 ? After 1 ? I have no blanket answer on this - I feel the courts are the worst place to decide these issues, because ultimately it's up to the individuals involved.
As long as a "baby" remains HER (h-e-r) choice, as it is her anatomy which bears it; it strikes me that then the greater responsibility should fall upon the shoulders of the woman.
I think the greater burden is there; biology is destiny. Short of putting the child up for adoption, the mother most often remains with the child when the father walks away, at least in large measure because she has to give birth. And often this remains true, as it takes years sometimes for these cases to get thru court proceedings. And I really do think the greater psychological responsibility never leaves the mother; the few women I know who've had abortions wonder many times thru the years what the child would have been like - do the fathers think the same ? I don't know.
IMHO, there is nothing moral in aborting a baby. But yet, there's a "moralistic" approach to dealing with a baby brought to full term, by, HER choice. Meaning, she holds all the cards. Which also means, that men should have the greater interest in supporting abortion. And also have a "equal" say in whether or not a baby is aborted or brought to full term.
And this is exactly what the Planned Parenthood statistics show (I'll try to find them; they've been discussed here on FR a few times). The primary beneficiary of abortion is the 20-something man who impregnated the teenage girl; he gets rid of the evidence of statutory rape and all responsibility.
This is not what happens. Women are given all the trump cards: They rule not only whether or not a soul is permitted life, but they can dictate a father's purse for 18 years via the courts.
When the primary burden is on the woman, so are the primary decisions. Another great argument for sex only in the context of marriage - then the father gets to have his 50% say too. But, I don't consider that the mother dictates the father's purse in most cases - do you consider 400-600 dollars a month for someone making 4000 a month to be dictatorial ? That's barely a car payment these days
FOR her choice. If abortion is not moral; then why are "fathers" bound to a moral course but ONLY if a woman chooses to do the moral thing of permitting a new soul to come to life? Especially if the man has NOT IN WRITING made a statement averring his intent to "support" their child. Why should a man, then, be enslaved to the dictates of a female biology and a female "choice"?
Do you consider marriage "enslavement" ? LOL many probably do. But more seriously, if a man understands female biology, then a man makes his choices too. And if he doesn't understand sperm+egg=baby, he should have paid better attention in sex ed in school or at least studied personal finance and career choices.
This is the part that always troubles me and why I've hated ROEvWADE and the resulting feminist legal rulings and laws since then (from a purely "legal" aspect; outside my own distate for abortion). If bearing a child to term is HER choice, then choosing to be a part, or not, of HER CHOICE should be of no "concern" or penalty to the man.
And there's the crux of the matter - you just cannot see it as his choice, too. Is it her responsibility alone if she's fertile when they have sex ? He also chose to live with the possibility of conception, and then he wants to run away from the consequences. Spilt milk and all that.
Women get pregnant and have abortions and without ever informing the "father" in question. If they do not include the "father in question" in this decision, then upon what kind of logic should he be financially and legally dragged into the results?
And there's the reversal - now she's faulted for NOT informing him of his choices. Note your premise - it's always the female in control, dictating all choices. I posit that while there is unequal control at various aspects of the relationship, ultimately the responsibility is 50-50. And yes, I'd support the notion that if the female gets pregnant and wants the abortion but the male wants the child, then she's equally responsible to have the child and provide child support while he takes physical custody. See, I'm logically consistent.
In a "moral" world, I agree with your post -- 50/50. But we do not live in a time with such rulings as "her choice" which grant in fairness that "50/50".
It's her ballgame from the word "screw".
I've always maintained that women are in the control seat, given their biology. To support the laws as they currently exists, posits a "sexual identity preference to females" and while at the same time positing them as "thinkless blobs" unable to plan ahead for themselves. That they are unable to control their own sexual natures. And therefore, a man must be held accountable for HER behaviors and HER CHOICES; beyond the initial "consensual" sex act. Somehow, in a mystic world, he's responsible for his own biology as well as hers, AND her "choice". But not his own. A man cannot order a woman to abort. Nor does his say on the matter of "pregnancy" matter a single iota in the eyes of the laws.
Wow, so much here. I disagree with your idea that the law makes mothers infantile in the eyes of the law, and regards fathers as wholly responsible (woman as victim). The entire concept of either parent paying child suppoprt speaks against that concept. I think privacy from state intrusion ensures the woman has the choice of remaining pregnant - I don't think any of us want to see a law that would allow the father to order an abortion, or otherwise terminate a pregnancy. Yes, after the birth, the law (at least in the states with which I'm familiar) is more impartial regarding the mother vs the father. In practice I know the father often loses because the interpreters of the laws - judges, social workers, psychologists - often presume the mother is necessary for young children as more of a nurturer(not necessarily true, of course), yet I have often seen where the father wins more often as the children reach double digits in age. There's a really great book that touches on this subject (and many like subjects) called "The Mismeasure of Women" by Carol Tavris. Its premise is that laws that presume to treat the sexes equally often result in unequal outcomes.
An anology might be (on a cold scale); a traveling salesman selling you snake oil. If he offers no guarantee of money back for failed results; then is he not in the clear? Legally, YES, he is. The onus is on the purchaser, no?
No, if the snake oil causes harm, the snake oil salesman is not in the clear. Yes, for results, without a guarantee the onus is on the purchaser. Carry the analogy further - if the snake oil causes 18 years of disability, should the snake oil salesman be responsible for that which he "harmed" ? So, if the "harm" here is 18 years of responsibility for another life, then the snake oil salesman should "pay".
RoeVWade was the beginning of the invasion into everyone's private lives, and privacy; not to mention, civil rights.
You are right about that; a bad decision in the wrong cause.
And I really do think the greater psychological responsibility never leaves the mother
I agree. And whether or not the mother chooses to be in denial or not over it.
- do the fathers think the same ? I don't know.
The fathers, potential fathers I've interviewed since the 1970s? Yes, it has an psychologic impact on males. That males process and deal with that impact differently from females has been made obvious to me, certainly.
The primary beneficiary of abortion is the 20-something man who impregnated the teenage girl; he gets rid of the evidence of statutory rape and all responsibility.
I was in CA at the time this statistic was finally "aired". Feminist and liberal legislators in the state did three things: 1. Pushed to lower the age of consensual sex "statutes". 2. Lowered the age of statutory rape (statutes) IF the parent(s) of the underage female had approved of the relationship. 3. But still refused to legally demand/compel/command Planned Parenthood to open its books concerning instances of statutory rape, citing a "privacy" clause on behalf of the female.
But, I don't consider that the mother dictates the father's purse in most cases - do you consider 400-600 dollars a month for someone making 4000 a month to be dictatorial ? That's barely a car payment these days
I know this happens. I also know a great deal about the other "gouging" happening. Most states use a dissomaster to compute what a "father" must pay. I know in CA, for example, for many years, the state dissomaster also added in "credit lines". There were three instances that I knew of where the father had to go to court against the state. And why? The state had considered "credit card applications" sent to the father as a "possible source of income". No. I'm not kidding. The father didn't even have to accept those "anon" mailings to him, the state "agents" could cull the data that an application for card with credit limit of $7K was "added" to his "income" as the basis for the dissomaster number.
So, two instances here -- your example and mine about the power of "lawyers" and activist courts.
Do you consider marriage "enslavement"
I don't know how you got that from what I wrote? I've always been pro-marriage.
If a man understands female biology, then a man makes his choices too. And if he doesn't understand sperm+egg=baby, he should have paid better attention in sex ed in school or at least studied personal finance and career choices.
This argument is where the brawl exists, doesn't it. It posits that "he" should understand her biology, but not the other way around. If we go to core biology, the male (repro) job is to spread his seed, no? "She" doesn't understand this? There's a reason WHY there is "marriage". And marriage before sex used to be considered a very wise standard. It still is.
If his "core biologic imperative" is to spread his seed, if her core biologic imperative is to be fertile for that seed -- then the discussion of who pays what and holds which responsible is actually another topic up on the "reproductive" heirarchy.
Underneath this veneer we call "civilization" is a harsh reality. Bluntly put, she can't become pregnant until she willfully, of her own choice and volition, "invites" him in (rape, incest arguments aside). Your argument postures that some tacit agreement exists wherein if she "invites" him in, that he is somehow "legally" involved with any results of that engagement.
Current law, IMHO, does a chimera of equating the sexual man (with a woman) to a criminal entering the woman's home. Meaning, if some "harm" ensues (and in this context, a baby is considered a "harm") as a result of that "engagement", the woman is the victim and the man is the criminal. This is messed up, IMHO. A woman's womb is NOT a "home" but the law currently treats it as "private property". And upon this basis, ultimately, is ROE v WADE based.
Now, were we to accord a man's penis his "home", his act of "spreading his seed" (given biologic imperatives) would be given cart blanche freedoms, too -- should so-called "gender fairness" be the real name of the game at hand. IMHO, of course.
And there's the crux of the matter - you just cannot see it as his choice, too. Is it her responsibility alone if she's fertile when they have sex ? He also chose to live with the possibility of conception, and then he wants to run away from the consequences. Spilt milk and all that.
Actually, my counsel all these many past years to men has been "I don't give two rats if she says she's on the pill, wearing an IUD, etc. -- YOU PROTECT YOURSELF! Just do it!" Here I go being blunt again -- but in CA, I've seen more than enough men "set-up" by this game to be fathers they didn't wish to become and because "she lied" about being protected, or saved the used condom later for artificial insemination processes. Basically.. I began to understand the roots of where the old myth of yore about "vagina with teeth" might have arisen from.
I disagree with your idea that the law makes mothers infantile in the eyes of the law, and regards fathers as wholly responsible (woman as victim).
I respect that we disagree here, and as I've laid out above. If we go to "core biology", the greater responsibility does indeed lie with the female; but the law excuses the female and punishes the male. It's the liberal "equalizing outcomes" thingie in my lights. With all freedoms comes responsibilities. We do agree here. A man engaging in unprotected sex is taking risks, as well as a female doing same. But the pregnancy thing falls upon the female. She should, therefore, exercise far greater caution when choosing to have unprotected sex. Can she still get pregnant regardless of whether or not she was protected? Of course. Welcome to life. Best laid plans of mice and men can be counted upon to go awry from time to time. But that's the roll of the dice, isn't it.
In a sweet world, a pregnant girlfriend would go to her lover and tell him she is pregnant with their child. He would do the honorable thing and marry her. The child would be raised with both parents, and no questions about parentage from the public; and those thorny "social" issues to deal with.
But as long as "sex" is treated by law as a "civil right" -- and it is, and wrongfully so, both sides of the equation, males and females, will not be made nor be made encouraged to be more responsible. This grows bureacracies for larger government. And many related and ancillary tax-confiscatory programs and laws.
Re the non-DNA fathers - I agree with you in part. The part where I don't agree is this; if the child was raised to consider the father her "real" father, and he accepted that role no matter the reason, how could he just walk away from that relationship with that child ? It's just as hurtful as the case where the DNA father walks out. From the child's point of view, he is her father. So where do you draw the line ? Before 2 ? After 1 ? I have no blanket answer on this - I feel the courts are the worst place to decide these issues, because ultimately it's up to the individuals involved.
I do understand what you are saying here. But would you fault a spouse from divorcing were he/she to learn about the other spouses adultery, and/or long term affair? Of course, most do not fault the spouse demanding the divorce in instances like this.
I am one of those parents of "old-school" who has always considered the "best interests" of the child. Were I a man, loving my children, and then learning that I'd been lied to by my "wife", I'd have to divorce her.
Here's why. You raise your children to be truthful. To be an honorable individual. To not tolerate liars. And you discover you married one. You are put into a bad, very bad position. Here's the play: 1.) You can stay married, never trusting your spouse again -- who knows what other tricks she has up her sleeve she hasn't told you about. 2) You pretend to be the "biologic" father for the sake of the child. Most often, life has a way, of routing lies and things crop up. Your child learns that you are not her bio father, she isn't angry at mommy -- no she becomes ANGRY AT DADDY for "his" deception.... And/Or 3.) You and wifey sit down and tell child that daddy isn't her "bio" father. I've done plenty of work with adoptees to know how the rest of this scenario plays out... The child, at various ages, may accept this. But they don't actually take this lightly; it weighs on the child. The "truth" then becomes a heavy burden for the child. The child will demand to know who the bio father is. The child very possibly might begin seeing all tenderness from the father as "sexual" and not "daddy-like". The list is endless.
Bottomline, "her deception" ends up as Daddy's "to Blame.".
Yes, I'd have to divorce a woman who did this to me.
Then to a more reasonable model. The most reasonable approach is so dependent upon the woman. Her character.
I know plenty of single mothers who married, and the husband adopted her children of "other" father(s). This is workable. But, in this case, there's no deception by the mother. And no blame attributed to the adopting daddy. Child may still wish to contact bio father one day -- but that's another story. In this scenario, the "story lines" remain clear and above board. This, then, is not an undue burden or an emotional trauma to the child. Yes, a burning question ("Why didn't my bio daddy want me"). But both parents can answer this question reasonably and in accordance with the child's ability to comprehend (age-appropriateness). There are not "intimate deceptions" necessarily involved by the most important parties to the child -- mum and dad. The "fault" should there be one can be attributed to whatever lay at the breach between the bio parents, and why they did not marry. There's far more clarity and workability in this scenario, for the best interests of the child, than in what is discussed in the earlier post.
Then, there's the other possibility -- and this is the one I think you are thinking of: Wife and Husband are close and reasonable. Wife reveals that within the first year of marriage, she'd had an affair resulting in the child. There's going to be trauma here within the marriage; but yes, dependent upon the nature of the marriage and each involved -- ultimately, it could result in the daddy legally adopting the child.
This, however, does not at all mitigate my earlier written concerns about "deceptions". The wife has willfully deceived the husband, no matter what spin she's put on it. This is a problem. Should child learn the truth, will she use it against her mother during her own teen years? Teen years are a trip. Oh yes. And the other concerns about the relationship between daddy and the child are still consistent in this scenario as I wrote in my earlier post.
Your posts have been great on this subject, and I find that we are at the end in total agreement - that character is paramount to success and good outcomes for parents (married or not) and children. Everything else is simply the law attempting to remedy that which has no good or convenient outcome.
I understand completely the teen years issue - mine has avoided the worst, but I have enough divorced friends with teenage kids who blame mommy, daddy and everyone else for their angst instead of living with reality.
The root of much of this, as you so rightly point out, is deception and lies. I have always told mine the truth in a very factual manner, without emotion but with empathy, so she can put her dad's actions in proper perspective. And, as a result, when she does see him those few times a year, she can enjoy what he can offer and not look for what he is unwilling (or emotionally unable) to give. It works so far, I don't know if it is better than some other approach, but it sure beats trying to lie when attempting to answer the question "Why doesn't my Dad _____ with me ?" - and fill in the blank with those normal things dads are supposed to do with their daughters.
I so perfectly agree with your approach, Cinives. This is how I raised my children to: Honesty with empathy. So the brick wall of reality, when it did arise, didn't hit them so hard they'd fall. Further, it opens a child's eyes to reality -- it doesn't overly protect the child from the vagaries of life. I think you are doing a spectacular job of raising your daughter with these values and methods. I've enjoyed our exchange, thank you!
Thanks, I've enjoyed this very much also. It's why I like FR so much - sometimes I meet people with whom I can have a marvelous discussion, something I haven't been able to do much of since my college days.
I agree with you. I'm glad you are here!
She comes across to me as basically a pretty extreme libertarian type.
Tammy Bruce: "The New American Revolution"
Liberty Belles | 12/13/05 | Jennifer Freeman
Posted on 12/14/2005 8:53:20 AM PST by kiriath_jearim
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1540279/posts
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.