AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jan 2, 2014 10:31:25 GMT -5
Possession is 9//10ths of the law. How would a father come to possess a child? She's carrying the developing newborn for 9 months, you don't rip a child away from its mother during the nursing stage which can be another year or so (or probably up to 18 given our current nutty culture). I'm not saying it's fair, or even right in all cases- but even as a father, I'm thankful we have laws that generally favor the mother of the child. Possession or not, my problem is that the mother can unilaterally decide whether to have a kid or not. It's "her body" for only 9 months, it's the father's LIFE for the rest of his. Women hold a lot more cards in the baby making, baby bearing business. So, while it takes two to make that baby, it seems it only takes one to make major decisions. True. Some of us of the Christian persuasion would make the argument that this is why a healthy marriage is the only environment in which to have sex / get pregnant / raise children. I for one am happy that I never had to wonder if I'm a father, or register some place just in case.
|
|
chiver78
Administrator
Current Events Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:04:45 GMT -5
Posts: 38,626
|
Post by chiver78 on Jan 2, 2014 10:44:19 GMT -5
Possession or not, my problem is that the mother can unilaterally decide whether to have a kid or not. It's "her body" for only 9 months, it's the father's LIFE for the rest of his. Women hold a lot more cards in the baby making, baby bearing business. So, while it takes two to make that baby, it seems it only takes one to make major decisions. True. Some of us of the Christian persuasion would make the argument that this is why a healthy marriage is the only environment in which to have sex / get pregnant / raise children. I for one am happy that I never had to wonder if I'm a father, or register some place just in case. get off your high horse. most of us would make the argument that a healthy marriage is the best environment to procreate, not just those of you of the Christian persuasion.
|
|
|
Post by BeenThere...DoneThat... on Jan 2, 2014 10:49:36 GMT -5
Possession or not, my problem is that the mother can unilaterally decide whether to have a kid or not. It's "her body" for only 9 months, it's the father's LIFE for the rest of his. Women hold a lot more cards in the baby making, baby bearing business. So, while it takes two to make that baby, it seems it only takes one to make major decisions. True. Some of us of the Christian persuasion would make the argument that this is why a healthy marriage is the only environment in which to have sex / get pregnant / raise children. I for one am happy that I never had to wonder if I'm a father, or register some place just in case....make that two...
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jan 2, 2014 10:53:31 GMT -5
True. Some of us of the Christian persuasion would make the argument that this is why a healthy marriage is the only environment in which to have sex / get pregnant / raise children. I for one am happy that I never had to wonder if I'm a father, or register some place just in case. get off your high horse. most of us would make the argument that a healthy marriage is the best environment to procreate, not just those of you of the Christian persuasion. Well, sure- I mean it's not like we don't have 10,000 years of human history on our side. A generation ago, we used to have 'bastards', and single mothers were sluts, not saints.
|
|
|
Post by BeenThere...DoneThat... on Jan 2, 2014 10:54:55 GMT -5
get off your high horse. most of us would make the argument that a healthy marriage is the best environment to procreate, not just those of you of the Christian persuasion. Well, sure- I mean it's not like we don't have 10,000 years of human history on our side. A generation ago, we used to have 'bastards', and single mothers were sluts, not saints. ...and not subsidized... well, not officially...
|
|
chiver78
Administrator
Current Events Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:04:45 GMT -5
Posts: 38,626
|
Post by chiver78 on Jan 2, 2014 10:59:42 GMT -5
get off your high horse. most of us would make the argument that a healthy marriage is the best environment to procreate, not just those of you of the Christian persuasion. Well, sure- I mean it's not like we don't have 10,000 years of human history on our side. A generation ago, we used to have 'bastards', and single mothers were sluts, not saints. right, because those names did anything to help anyone involved. I'm not interested in an argument about morality this morning, or whether religion is a prerequisite because it isn't. I am interested in hearing more to this case, like the mother's side of it for instance, but I doubt that's going to happen.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jan 2, 2014 11:03:34 GMT -5
Well, sure- I mean it's not like we don't have 10,000 years of human history on our side. A generation ago, we used to have 'bastards', and single mothers were sluts, not saints. right, because those names did anything to help anyone involved. I'm not interested in an argument about morality this morning, or whether religion is a prerequisite because it isn't. I am interested in hearing more to this case, like the mother's side of it for instance, but I doubt that's going to happen. My point is very clear. No need to 'discuss'. I'm simply pointing it out.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,586
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jan 2, 2014 11:07:58 GMT -5
get off your high horse. most of us would make the argument that a healthy marriage is the best environment to procreate, not just those of you of the Christian persuasion. Well, sure- I mean it's not like we don't have 10,000 years of human history on our side. A generation ago, we used to have 'bastards', and single mothers were sluts, not saints. Why not 11,000 or 12,000 years?
|
|
formerroomate99
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 12, 2011 13:33:12 GMT -5
Posts: 7,381
|
Post by formerroomate99 on Jan 5, 2014 23:29:50 GMT -5
Honestly, if it's ok for a woman to have some doctor dismember her kid when she's 8 months pregnant, then I'll never understand why is it such a big deal if she gives the kid away a month later. It's the same kid, the same father. IMHO, if a woman gives birth and the 'father' isn't around, then unless he can demonstrate that he is up to the task of being a single father, the kid would be better off with married couple who have their acts together.
I knew girl I know gave birth at 14 and her 19 year old boyfriend was able to block the adoption, claiming he would take the kid. Since she had the baby at 14, and it takes 9 months to grow a baby, in all likelihood, an 18 year old man was having sex with a 13 year old girl. Why the hell would anyone think it makes sense to give a baby to a guy who does something like that? What do you think would have happened 13 years later if the baby had been a girl? She ended up having to keep the kid to protect it from this guy. And then you have the case of the looser guys who can't even support themselves and knock some woman up, but the law wants to give them the ability to keep the kid from going to a good family, even when they are either unwilling or unable to care for the child they created?
|
|
whoisjohngalt
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:12:07 GMT -5
Posts: 9,140
|
Post by whoisjohngalt on Jan 6, 2014 9:58:21 GMT -5
Honestly, if it's ok for a woman to have some doctor dismember her kid when she's 8 months pregnant, then I'll never understand why is it such a big deal if she gives the kid away a month later. It's the same kid, the same father. IMHO, if a woman gives birth and the 'father' isn't around, then unless he can demonstrate that he is up to the task of being a single father, the kid would be better off with married couple who have their acts together. I knew girl I know gave birth at 14 and her 19 year old boyfriend was able to block the adoption, claiming he would take the kid. Since she had the baby at 14, and it takes 9 months to grow a baby, in all likelihood, an 18 year old man was having sex with a 13 year old girl. Why the hell would anyone think it makes sense to give a baby to a guy who does something like that? What do you think would have happened 13 years later if the baby had been a girl? She ended up having to keep the kid to protect it from this guy. And then you have the case of the looser guys who can't even support themselves and knock some woman up, but the law wants to give them the ability to keep the kid from going to a good family, even when they are either unwilling or unable to care for the child they created? Bc that same law would expect that same looser guy to pay child support for 18 yrs if that 13 yr old didn't give up the kid for adoption. Can't have it both ways - either father has a say in things and takes responsibility or he doesn't
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jan 6, 2014 10:18:28 GMT -5
I'm all about the best interests of the child, but it is an EXTREMELY RARE case where a child is better off with a single father. I think if a 'father' doesn't bother to marry, and a woman doesn't bother to make it a precondition, then donating genetic material doesn't imply rights OR responsibilities- I agree women cannot have it both ways. If abortion is a 'choice', and adoption is an option- and they are the woman's alone, then she bears the responsibility for the decisions.
|
|
|
Post by BeenThere...DoneThat... on Jan 6, 2014 10:20:50 GMT -5
I'm all about the best interests of the child, but it is an EXTREMELY RARE case where a child is better off with a single father. I think if a 'father' doesn't bother to marry, and a woman doesn't bother to make it a precondition, then donating genetic material doesn't imply rights OR responsibilities- I agree women cannot have it both ways. If abortion is a 'choice', and adoption is an option- and they are the woman's alone, then she bears the responsibility for the decisions. ...so that applies to the gals donating genetic material, right?
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,508
|
Post by billisonboard on Jan 6, 2014 10:26:14 GMT -5
I'm all about the best interests of the child, but it is an EXTREMELY RARE case where a child is better off with a single father. ... But still the child belongs to the biological parent. And the state should do nothing but protect private property rights. Correct?
|
|