The other side is everyone but you

Humor, philosophical, theoretical postions, judicial reform, rants, etc.

Re: The other side is everyone but you

Unread postby Fatheroffour » Sat Apr 15, 2017 5:16 am

You do realize we now have DNA testing available at a very reasonable cost, right? Not to mention that the Dad is known to the Mom the vast majority of the time.


I've been trying to walk you through the scenario to help you understand the nuances, but I don't think you are intellectually capable.

Dad isn't at the hospital for the birth of the child. He didn't care enough to show, didn't vet his woman well enough, didn't even know he was going to be a father or is at home with his wife and other kids while his one night stand is having their baby. There is no national DNA database to run this new kids DNA through to identify the father.

Mom has sole custody. Dad is unknown.

Dad has no rights.

If dad comes forward and identifies himself as the father or if he is named by the state as part of a paternity action, he gets rights along with the obligations.


Why should the children be punished because their parents were never married?



Once again you demonstrate your ignorance of history and lack of historical perspective. Not long ago, identifying a child as being born out of wedlock was punishment. They were illegitimate. Bastards. The predominate attitude was that marriage was important to the raising of children and to the stability of the culture. Maybe children screwing around for the first time might have a child out of wedlock but adults didnt. Not responsible adults. Having a child outside of marriage was shameful and those children were shamed so as to not repeat that mistake.

You misstate the facts, you dont know why the system is the way it is and cant understand how it got to be that way. Its no wonder why you feel so outraged and rant like a child. You should educate yourself so you will better understand the why's and won't keep embarrassing yourself.

Your outrage is misplaced. Having children isn't compulsory. The legalities are established and known. Men having children out of wedlock is done with their consent. They are signing up for the trip, they don't need you to save them from themselves.
User avatar
Fatheroffour
Moderator
 
Posts: 35886
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 8:37 am
Location: Top of the world

Re: The other side is everyone but you

Unread postby dadforever » Sat Apr 15, 2017 7:22 am

Fatheroffour wrote:
You do realize we now have DNA testing available at a very reasonable cost, right? Not to mention that the Dad is known to the Mom the vast majority of the time.


I've been trying to walk you through the scenario to help you understand the nuances, but I don't think you are intellectually capable.

Dad isn't at the hospital for the birth of the child. He didn't care enough to show, didn't vet his woman well enough, didn't even know he was going to be a father or is at home with his wife and other kids while his one night stand is having their baby. There is no national DNA database to run this new kids DNA through to identify the father.

Mom has sole custody. Dad is unknown.



If you go back to my very first post, you will find that I identified the common stronghold of requiring accountability for men, but not for women. I believe this part of your post demonstrates exactly that. Dad possibly 'didn't vet his woman well enough'. In some cases Dad is married. In others Dad didn't know he was having a baby. But none of these things is a good argument for handing full custody to Mom and giving Dad 0 parenting rights. Mom needs to be accountable for identifying Dad. I understand that's not always going to happen in the hospital....so what? So it happens a couple of weeks or a couple of months later- at worst.

Dad has no rights.


Which is an overt discriminatory position.

If dad comes forward and identifies himself as the father or if he is named by the state as part of a paternity action, he gets rights along with the obligations.


He has to fight for those rights, that's the point. We all know as well that those 'rights' normally translate into eow screw job- at best.

Once again you demonstrate your ignorance of history and lack of historical perspective. Not long ago, identifying a child as being born out of wedlock was punishment. They were illegitimate. Bastards. The predominate attitude was that marriage was important to the raising of children and to the stability of the culture. Maybe children screwing around for the first time might have a child out of wedlock but adults didnt. Not responsible adults. Having a child outside of marriage was shameful and those children were shamed so as to not repeat that mistake.


So the solution is to take away the parenting rights of one gender? Again, if you really believe this I could just as easily make the case that Mom should be the one to have 0 parenting rights. Take the case of Dad being married and Mom being single. Wouldn't the child be better off being raised by an intact family as opposed to a single Mom?
Note: I don't actually believe this, I'm just pointing out the degree of gender discrimination and bias that you support.



You misstate the facts, you dont know why the system is the way it is and cant understand how it got to be that way. Its no wonder why you feel so outraged and rant like a child. You should educate yourself so you will better understand the why's and won't keep embarrassing yourself.


I'm not misstating the facts. Parents are unmarried, Mom gets full custody and Dad starts from a position of having 0 parenting rights. Zero, as in, if he takes the child for 30 minutes of parenting time against Mom's will he will probably be arrested.

There is no 'why' that makes this right. In fact it rises to the level of a historic human rights violation; tragic and with predictably tragic results- suicide, cycles of poverty, increased incarceration rates, etc etc etc....


Your outrage is misplaced. Having children isn't compulsory. The legalities are established and known. Men having children out of wedlock is done with their consent. They are signing up for the trip, they don't need you to save them from themselves.


In other words you actually think its a good thing for one gender to be given 0 parenting rights as a default. No matter how you dress this up, this is what it boils down to. This is an overtly discriminatory and biased position.
dadforever
100+ Posts
 
Posts: 115
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 10:11 am

Re: The other side is everyone but you

Unread postby BartSimpson » Sat Apr 15, 2017 8:03 am

Lord Mansfield called, and he wants to talk to you about his ruling.
Volenti non fit injuria
User avatar
BartSimpson
20K Club
 
Posts: 25746
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 8:50 pm

Re: The other side is everyone but you

Unread postby Fatheroffour » Sat Apr 15, 2017 8:43 am

Willful ignorance.

I've posted a document detailing the rights of unmarried fathers yet you continue to assert they have no right. Repeating your lies don't make them true.

Uncle.

Enjoy your pity party.
User avatar
Fatheroffour
Moderator
 
Posts: 35886
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 8:37 am
Location: Top of the world

Re: The other side is everyone but you

Unread postby dadforever » Sat Apr 15, 2017 11:10 am

Fatheroffour wrote:Willful ignorance.

I've posted a document detailing the rights of unmarried fathers yet you continue to assert they have no right. Repeating your lies don't make them true.

Uncle.

Enjoy your pity party.


Unmarried Dad asks unmarried Mom if he can take the newborn baby for the night, unmarried Mom says no. What happens to unmarried Dad if he takes baby? (Note: for anyone that doesn't know, the police would step in and return baby to Mom, possibly even arrest Dad)
Semantics aside, unmarried Dad has 0 effective parenting rights until he gets a court date and goes in front of a Judge. Zero. Not even the right to take his child for 15 minutes.
Said another way, unmarried Dad has 0 parenting rights by default.

And you support this.
dadforever
100+ Posts
 
Posts: 115
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 10:11 am

Re: The other side is everyone but you

Unread postby Fatheroffour » Sat Apr 15, 2017 11:23 am

Yes , I support legal strangers from being able to kidnap children. It's good policy.

If the father was concerned about his parenting rights he would have secured them before having children.

Zero fcks given.
User avatar
Fatheroffour
Moderator
 
Posts: 35886
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 8:37 am
Location: Top of the world

Re: The other side is everyone but you

Unread postby dadforever » Sat Apr 15, 2017 11:55 am

Fatheroffour wrote:Yes , I support legal strangers from being able to kidnap children. It's good policy.

If the father was concerned about his parenting rights he would have secured them before having children.

Zero fcks given.


The stronghold of holding one gender accountable and not the other, on full display.


And by the way, in response to your pity party quote from your previous post: this has nothing to do with my personal situation as I was married to my ex. This doesn't hurt me at all, but it does hurt plenty of people including kids.
dadforever
100+ Posts
 
Posts: 115
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 10:11 am

Re: The other side is everyone but you

Unread postby a dad » Sat Apr 15, 2017 12:08 pm

dadforever wrote:Besides, the court doesn't care a whit about proof when it comes to handing out child support orders.

This uninformed complaint shows that dadforever wants more people on welfare.

dadforever wants more single moms on food stamps.

...'til he realized he was wrong and flip-flopped.
User avatar
a dad
Moderator
 
Posts: 9171
Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 2:49 pm
Location: The Wild West

Previous

Return to Miscellany

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests