NationStates Jolt Archive

with all the "fathers for justice" and other groups fighting for the rights of fathers around the country. i just want to hear people's views on this subject.

Personly i think its disgracefull how fathers are treated in legal battles over children. I remember reading about one of the protesters, he only gets to see his children for 2 days a week... the mother gets them 5 days a week.

what is your views on this?
do you think fathers are unfairly treated?
or do you think fathers have too MANY rights?

Im convinced that "fathers for justice" is actually a clever marketing stunt to flog condoms.

this is taken from the F4J website:

""All children, their parents and grandparents have inalienable rights to enjoy a meaningful, loving relationship with each other woven into our social fabric for over 6,000 years. Parliament's express intention in the 1989 Children's Act was exactly this yet the child's best interest principle has now effectively become the mothers best interest. A recent judgement by Lord Justice Thorpe severing contact between a child and her father gave the green light to recalcitrant mothers that they could veto contact between children and their fathers if this made them 'anxious or depressed.' So why is the Lord Chancellor's Department failing to uphold the will of Parliament? Why is it failing families? Why is it failing our children and grandchildren?"

[edit] if anyone wants to read about this subject before posting the address is: http://www.fathers-4-justice.org

I think that fathers have next to no rights when it comes to their children. I was 'awarded' to my mother as a child and spent far too long with her in the mental wing of Townsville hospital (4 or so). IT'S FUCKING SCARY! A few years later there was a royal commission that ended with the place being shut down.

Men have no right to keep their child alive when the mother wants to abort it in my country at least. I don't think they even have to be told.

On the other hand I watched this awful story of 'Fathers for Justice' or some similar group who was practically stalking this woman. Her ex-husband had bought this group over and they were standing in the front yard yelling things loud enough to disturb the neighbours. They did a letterbox drop saying she was robbing him of his rights as a father, even though the court awarded her the full custody of her daughter. She had filed a restraining order against him, which only added fuel to the fire. The 15/16yo daughter they interviewed was shamed and said she didn't want to know him.

These things are handled on a case by case basis, but statistically the mother has the best chance where I am.

I might as well edit this a second time. I guy I used to work with one day came in with a new name, like me he had been 'awarded' (like we're a fucking prize) to his mother who had cut off contact with his father. They met as adults and now he doesn't talk to his mother as I understand it.

like me he had been 'awarded' (like we're a fucking prize)

too often children are used as tools in wars between devorced/seperated parents...in a way this is more about the child's rights and wants than the parents.

It is rather disgusting. Basicaly unless the mother is a crackhead, whore and communist (Any combination of the two still wins out, usualy), she gets the kid. Doesnt matter, even if the father is the President and the mother is Britney Spears, the mother wins.
Of course, in my case, I would be all too happy to have five days a week off from my dad, whos words on arriving home tend to be along the lines of "YOu need to mow the lawn" >_<
Aside from me, most (males) tend to idenfity more with their fathers, so it seems that perhaps some studies need to be done into this.
One reason I think there is a bias towards the mothers is that almost every time a judge gives custody to a father, a billion (excuse the term) Feminazi groups start 'public inquiries' into his past life. Judges are people to, I imagine quite a few of them smoked pot in high school, something that is generaly bad for your career.
Other than that, it might be sentiement for the 'greiving mother', or something.

with all the "fathers for justice" and other groups fighting for the rights of fathers around the country. i just want to hear people's views on this subject.

Personly i think its disgracefull how fathers are treated in legal battles over children. I remember reading about one of the protesters, he only gets to see his children for 2 days a week... the mother gets them 5 days a week.

1.what is your views on this?
2.do you think fathers are unfairly treated?
3.or do you think fathers have too MANY rights?

1. I think that fathers are treated unfairly, I do not see why the mothers are a better choise if anything a father is better suited to raise his son or sons and that really is a fact. It is crazy that fathers get to see there children less then the mother, it is as much his child as hers.
2. Yes, fathers are treated very unfairly.
3. NO!

Why isn't shared custody actualy what it says. My friends parents are divorced and they ended up with shared custody. What that means for him is he gets to see his dad three weekends a month. His father is a good guy, hes nice, has a nice home. His mother treats him like a slave, he spent three weeks of his holiday cleaning his house and babysitting his little sister when his dad went away to china.

I actually have some personal experience in this in real life. Most cases (not all) of father's trying to seek sole custody of their children have been proven that it was an attempt by the father to get out of paying child support to the woman. They figure if they can get 50% of the time with the children they won't have to give the mother child support. This has been shown in case after case. Now, I have little doubt that there are fathers out there that this is not the case, but there is enough of them that the court has to take a very close look at the motives of these parents. It makes sense that whom ever was the primary care giver prior to the split should remain the primary care giver.

Most people figure that men just want sex and that if they don't have a woman, they won't care about the kid at all. It's false of course, but the courts are all fed lies by the radical feminists. Not the regular feminists that want equality, mind you, but the ones who think men are scum.

Personly i think its disgracefull how fathers are treated in legal battles over children. I remember reading about one of the protesters, he only gets to see his children for 2 days a week... the mother gets them 5 days a week.
so you would rather that the mother only gets to see the kids 2 days a week?

so you would rather that the mother only gets to see the kids 2 days a week?

What about something simpler, like one week here, one week there?

Or here's a novel idea: WHAT ABOUT DOING WHAT'S IN THE CHILD'S BEST INTERESTS? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

so you would rather that the mother only gets to see the kids 2 days a week?

How about 50/50?

and if the mother and father live in different cities?

hell, if the mother and father live in the same city, but in zones for different schools... what then?

does one have to drive the kid to school every day they have them and the other gets the bus?

how do you know that staying with the mother isn't the in the best interest of the child?

and also, did you know that in a divorce, it's usually the primary caretaker before the divorce who gets custody. if the father stayed home while the mother worked, then he would be more likely to get custody.

and if the mother and father live in different cities?
.
King Solomon would probably cut the kid in half so each parent could have a bit at all times.

and if the mother and father live in different cities?

hell, if the mother and father live in the same city, but in zones for different schools... what then?

does one have to drive the kid to school every day they have them and the other gets the bus?

how do you know that staying with the mother isn't the in the best interest of the child?

and also, did you know that in a divorce, it's usually the primary caretaker before the divorce who gets custody. if the father stayed home while the mother worked, then he would be more likely to get custody.

Why can't they both place the kid on a bus, reguardless of 'zones'? Actually you had better explain this to me, I'm not sure I get your meaning.

I don't know staying with the mother isn't in the best interest of the child, but if you read my earlier post I did say that these things should be decided on a case-by-case basis. In my case it was not in my best interests to be with my mother, but there I was.

As for your arguement over 'primary care giver,' does working to support the child mean you do not care for him/her?

around here they divide which ublic school a child attends by where he or she lives. usually they'll pick a major road or something to divide the zones for each school. thus if one parent lived in the zone of one school and the other lived in another, the school bus would only go to one of the parent's houses as it would only go to the house of the parent whose home is in the zone for the school the child attends. unless you propose the child alternate which school he or she attends each week.

and caregiver refers to whoever spends the most time looking after the child directly. this would be supervising, cooking for cleaning up after, basicaly whoever spends the most time with the child. if people didn't stick to the stereotype that men have to be the ones to work and be the breadwinners then maybe you would see more divorce cases where the man ends up with the kids.

Here's a new idea:

Particularly for couples with children - don't get divorced in the first place!!! Too many people give up too early on their marriages because it's "too hard", or "I don't love you anymore", or other such claptrap. It is very confusing and damaging to the children. Not to mention a poor example on how to maintain any kind of good relationship.

Here's a new idea:

Particularly for couples with children - don't get divorced in the first place!!! Too many people give up too early on their marriages because it's "too hard", or "I don't love you anymore", or other such claptrap. It is very confusing and damaging to the children. Not to mention a poor example on how to maintain any kind of good relationship.
Nice idea- although my "use condoms and dont have kids in the first place" is just as easy and cheaper too!

Nice idea- although my "use condoms and dont have kids in the first place" is just as easy and cheaper too!
Bad for the perpetuation of the species, though.

around here they divide which ublic school a child attends by where he or she lives. usually they'll pick a major road or something to divide the zones for each school. thus if one parent lived in the zone of one school and the other lived in another, the school bus would only go to one of the parent's houses as it would only go to the house of the parent whose home is in the zone for the school the child attends. unless you propose the child alternate which school he or she attends each week.


Does this mean you cannot choose which school you want to go to?

While alternate schools is an idea that may work, why not catch a connecting bus? It would probably cost slightly more to go an extra zone, how much on avarage do you pay for bus tix?

Here's a new idea:

Particularly for couples with children - don't get divorced in the first place!!! Too many people give up too early on their marriages because it's "too hard", or "I don't love you anymore", or other such claptrap. It is very confusing and damaging to the children. Not to mention a poor example on how to maintain any kind of good relationship.
it's actually worse for kids for some couples to stay together when they're constantly fighting.

Here's a new idea:

Particularly for couples with children - don't get divorced in the first place!!! Too many people give up too early on their marriages because it's "too hard", or "I don't love you anymore", or other such claptrap. It is very confusing and damaging to the children. Not to mention a poor example on how to maintain any kind of good relationship.

I have to agree with this, however IMHO sometimes divorce is necessary for compelling reasons, like abuse. Everyone has the right not to be abused.

Does this mean you cannot choose which school you want to go to?

While alternate schools is an idea that may work, why not catch a connecting bus? It would probably cost slightly more to go an extra zone, how much on avarage do you pay for bus tix?
In the US, unless your parent happens to be a teacher or works for the school district, and this varies some from state to state, you go to the school you are zoned for, and the buses used to go to school are specific for that purpose, and are "free", in the sense that the kids do not pay the driver money to get on the bus (paid for by our tax dollars).

Does this mean you cannot choose which school you want to go to?

While alternate schools is an idea that may work, why not catch a connecting bus? It would probably cost slightly more to go an extra zone, how much on avarage do you pay for bus tix?
i'm not talking about public buses, i'm talking about school buses... the big yellow ones that are free.

and alternating schools generally woudl not work as different schools not only have different schedules, but different teacher teach different things at different times. that's certainly not in the best interests of the child.

around here they divide which ublic school a child attends by where he or she lives. usually they'll pick a major road or something to divide the zones for each school. thus if one parent lived in the zone of one school and the other lived in another, the school bus would only go to one of the parent's houses as it would only go to the house of the parent whose home is in the zone for the school the child attends. unless you propose the child alternate which school he or she attends each week.

and caregiver refers to whoever spends the most time looking after the child directly. this would be supervising, cooking for cleaning up after, basicaly whoever spends the most time with the child. if people didn't stick to the stereotype that men have to be the ones to work and be the breadwinners then maybe you would see more divorce cases where the man ends up with the kids.

Is difficulty in catching a bus really a reason to keep a child away from his father?

I have to agree with this, however IMHO sometimes divorce is necessary for compelling reasons, like abuse. Everyone has the right not to be abused.
True. However, most divorces are not for such extreme reasons. That's why there is a movement towards "covenant" marriage, in which more premarital counseling is done, and is somehow more binding on those entering into it (not sure of the exact details).

i'm not talking about public buses, i'm talking about school buses... the big yellow ones that are free.

and alternating schools generally woudl not work as different schools not only have different schedules, but different teacher teach different things at different times. that's certainly not in the best interests of the child.
Dakini, Patra is from Australia (at least according to the public info), so may do things a little differently.

In the US, unless your parent happens to be a teacher or works for the school district, and this varies some from state to state, you go to the school you are zoned for, and the buses used to go to school are specific for that purpose, and are "free", in the sense that the kids do not pay the driver money to get on the bus (paid for by our tax dollars).

OK, I understand now. Things are diffrent here, you can choose which ever school you want to go to and you get your own way there. Many schools run buses for their students however.

Is difficulty in catching a bus really a reason to keep a child away from his father?
and if they live in different cities and it's impossible to get the kid to school on time commuting between them?

chances are living with one or the other parent during the week is better for the kid.

and if they live in different cities and it's impossible to get the kid to school on time commuting between them?

Well if they live in seperate cities they are both selfish and the kid should be given to welfare. :p :p

OK, I understand now. Things are diffrent here, you can choose which ever school you want to go to and you get your own way there. Many schools run buses for their students however.
You don't have to ride the bus here, either, although many do - saves on gas and traffic congestion around the schools.

My best friend could only see his dad every other weekend because his parents live in diffrent citites. His dad, a great guy, does alot with him, treats him well, if he asks for it his dad gets it for him. His dad, don't smoke, drink, or do drugs never has. His mom, a bitch, smokes, rips off his dad for all the money she needs, smokes, has for 32 years, drinks. Now this is kinda bullshit he has to stay with his mom, its sad when he don't want to go back to her after the weekend with his dad. But the court makes him.

My best friend could only see his dad every other weekend because his parents live in diffrent citites. His dad, a great guy, does alot with him, treats him well, if he asks for it his dad gets it for him. His dad, don't smoke, drink, or do drugs never has. His mom, a bitch, smokes, rips off his dad for all the money she needs, smokes, has for 32 years, drinks. Now this is kinda bullshit he has to stay with his mom, its sad when he don't want to go back to her after the weekend with his dad. But the court makes him.How old is your friend? In Australia, a child can state a preference for which parent they wish to live with from when they are about 12 and it is given particular weight after 14. You also need to bear in mind that his dad can afford to be the consistently good guy when he only sees him once a fortnight. He doesn't need to bother with petty things like day to day care or discipline, he can just be the party guy. Not that I know the circumstances of your friend, but these are points to bear in mind.
Here's a new idea:

Particularly for couples with children - don't get divorced in the first place!!! Too many people give up too early on their marriages because it's "too hard", or "I don't love you anymore", or other such claptrap. It is very confusing and damaging to the children. Not to mention a poor example on how to maintain any kind of good relationship.I agree that some people give up on a relationship too easily, especially when there are children involved. I disagree, however, that they should stay together "because of the children". I believe that it is far healthier for children to understand that sometimes people are better off apart with a chance of forming happy, healthy realtionships with others than to live in a house where the parents really can't stand each other but feel that they have to force themselves to stay together for social appearances or "for the kids". In these families the children know there's something wrong - they are more perceptive than most people give them credit for. There is no love in the house and that is not healthy for anyone. I have seen it firsthand over about 7 years with friends of mine, so I think I have some idea of what it's like.

In Australia, the only consideration is "what is best for the child?" Custody tends to be shared and residence is usually decided between the parents if they can be civil or by the courts if they can't. I have several friends who have residential care of their child but custody is shared.

One thing that nobody has addressed so far is the assumption on the part of society that if a man leaves a woman, he is also leaving his kids, but if a woman leaves a man, she takes the kids or is considered "unnatural". SOmetimes I joke with my husband about breaking up (not likely :D ) and leaving him with our kids - he just laughs and continues the joke, but if I ever did it, he's be flabbergasted.

As far as I am concerned, children should be absolutely sheltered from any hostilities between their parents. People who quiz their kids on the other parent's doings or bitch about the other parent or try to manipulate children into preferring one parent or another are reprehensible. If you want to know something, ask the other adult. If you can't be civil, do it through lawyers, but KEEP THE KIDS OUT OF IT!!!!

One more thing that I'd like to mention. A few people have asked "What is wrong with 50/50 division of residence?" Sounds like a fair idea, but I've read somewhere (I will try to find a link) that children in 50/50 residence splits have issues with permanence and the concept of "their own safe home".

My situation is similar, yet not stereotypical: My 16 year old's biological father and I split up 14 years ago and shared custody amicably until he repeatedly chose heroin over his daughter. I bent over backwards trying to accomodate and be nice for years. It got to the point where my only request was that he not use while she was there, but even that was too much for him. I set up counselling sessions which he didn't show at. Finally, I cut off all contact with him until he cleaned up. He then showed up at her little brother's (by another mum) birthday party and terrified her so thoroughly that overnight she went from "Where's daddy?" to "I never want to see him again." I'm not sure but I think he tried to get her to go with him. This was when she was 8. Since then she has never asked to see him and is actively against the idea of associating anything to do with her with anything of his. For some considerable time, she has not wanted to go into our city centre in case he sees her and approaches her. She is even formally changing her surname to my husband's as she considers him to be her dad, as does he. I have always kept her out of the animosity between her biological father and myself. I have never badmouthed him in front of her and I have not allowed others to do so. She has made up her own mind about him based on what she remembers and the choices she knows he made.

That's one other thing - why is it that the general depiction of a stepfamily is so negative? Surely a group of people who want to care for each other regardless of parentage is a good thing? Among people I know, who you choose as your "tribe" is more important than who your blood relatives are. I myself don't see any of my aunts, uncles or cousins (we have less than zero common ground, so why fake it?) but I have a large and supportive "tribe" who are there for each other and consider all the kids to be "our" kids.

Seems healthy to me...

I'd also like to add that just because somebody is a child's father it doesn't make him a dad.

Bad for the perpetuation of the species, though.
In the larger scheme would that be a bad thing?

I just wanted to add that the above post may seem like I am supporting the concept of "the mother gets the child". Not true. My first, last and only consideration is what is best for the child. I know great mothers and wonderful fathers, shocking mothers and appalling fathers. I don't believe you can apply a "one size fits all" approach to custody.

things are changing.

in most US states, there is an assumed equality of parenting between fathers and mothers. its rare that they dont get joint custody of their children. THEN the practical considerations of where the child will live is decided. for most cases, its best for a child to have one primary residence where they LIVE. not a one week here one week there to be fair to the PARENTS. its better to be fair to the CHILD and assess which parent has the best home environment for the kids.

sure it sucks for the parent who doesnt get the kids full time. gee maybe you should have kept your marriage together. its not like MOST marriages fail because of abuse. they fail for lack of committment. missing out on time with your kids is the price you pay for failure. the parent should pay the price, not the child.

yes there will always be horror stories--judges who have an irrational prejudice against one parent, lies told against one parent that get believed by the court, circumstances changing that arent taken into consideration- - but its important to have equality of LAW then work on the individual reactions to the new reality of fathers being good parents too.

Fortunately, all of my own children were grown by the time my marriage went to hell in a handbasket. Makes a really good argument for knowing who you're having kids with though, don't it! :)

Coming back to the abortion topic mentioned briefly on the first page, what do you guys think about father's rights when it comes to abortion? Personally, I think they should at least be told no matter what the woman decides to do... fathers have a right to know that they fathered a foetus, for however short a while.

Coming back to the abortion topic mentioned briefly on the first page, what do you guys think about father's rights when it comes to abortion? Personally, I think they should at least be told no matter what the woman decides to do... fathers have a right to know that they fathered a foetus, for however short a while.

I believe that the father should be told. However, making a law that forced a woman to do so would violate her privacy rights.

I also believe that the father should have some say in the decision on what to do. However, as it is the woman's body that is affected, the woman must have the final choice.

Coming back to the abortion topic mentioned briefly on the first page, what do you guys think about father's rights when it comes to abortion? Personally, I think they should at least be told no matter what the woman decides to do... fathers have a right to know that they fathered a foetus, for however short a while.
do you really want to turn this thread into an abortion debate?

a quick explanation as to why its woman 100% and man 0% in the legal decision....

of course a man has an interest in his own unborn offspring.. but if you gave him a ...say...49% of the decision as opposed to a 51% for the woman (because after all its her body) then she still have 100% of the decision eh?

things are changing.

in most US states, there is an assumed equality of parenting between fathers and mothers. its rare that they dont get joint custody of their children. THEN the practical considerations of where the child will live is decided. for most cases...


If it is changing, it is not happening quickly enough. Most women still get custody regardless of the difference in living conditions. The woman could have a cheap apartment in a bad neighborhood and no income other than the child support, and the woman will still get custody regardless of the fact that the man lives in a house in a good community and brings in $100,000 a year. I work with children, and I know of way too many of these situations.

Coming back to the abortion topic mentioned briefly on the first page, what do you guys think about father's rights when it comes to abortion? Personally, I think they should at least be told no matter what the woman decides to do... fathers have a right to know that they fathered a foetus, for however short a while.
I tend to agree with that, however I definitely would prefer you use some term other than "foetus," such as "unborn child," "baby," etc. Language has a big impact on perception and "foetus" is too clinical, IMHO. :)

I tend to agree with that, however I definitely would prefer you use some term other than "foetus," such as "unborn child," "baby," etc. Language has a big impact on perception and "foetus" is too clinical, IMHO. :)

So you would rather use emotive language that is actually unaccurate?

So you would rather use emotive language that is actually unaccurate?

Inaccurate**

You made me do it!

If it is changing, it is not happening quickly enough. Most women still get custody regardless of the difference in living conditions. The woman could have a cheap apartment in a bad neighborhood and no income other than the child support, and the woman will still get custody regardless of the fact that the man lives in a house in a good community and brings in $100,000 a year. I work with children, and I know of way too many of these situations.
what does money have to do with it?

if a woman is staying at home with her children (living off child support) as opposed to the man who is working 60 hour/week in order to make that kind of money why SHOULDNT the children live with the mother (other things being equal)

Because I said so.

I think there has been an unfair siding with the mother in many of the cases, though I think there is a trend starting to keep both parents involved.

In Iowa they prefer joint custody. If a judge rules anything else, then he must state the reasons behind it, and they have to be legitimet reasons.

People mentioned what if one parent lives in another city. Then find out which school system is better and is perferred, and during the school year, the child stays with the school city partent, with chances on weekends and holidays to go to the other parent, and then in Summer reverse it. That way both parents get to see their child, and the child gets to be with both parents.

Though I think parents should stay in the same city, unless there is no way at all to stay in the same city, by moving away they are showing they care more about their lives, then staying close for the sake of a child. Not always, but still, its not the best statement to be made. "I want to be a part of my child's life, but I really want this better job instead"

I think there has been an unfair siding with the mother in many of the cases, though I think there is a trend starting to keep both parents involved.

In Iowa they prefer joint custody. If a judge rules anything else, then he must state the reasons behind it, and they have to be legitimet reasons.

People mentioned what if one parent lives in another city. Then find out which school system is better and is perferred, and during the school year, the child stays with the school city partent, with chances on weekends and holidays to go to the other parent, and then in Summer reverse it. That way both parents get to see their child, and the child gets to be with both parents.

Though I think parents should stay in the same city, unless there is no way at all to stay in the same city, by moving away they are showing they care more about their lives, then staying close for the sake of a child. Not always, but still, its not the best statement to be made. "I want to be a part of my child's life, but I really want this better job instead"

one of the more positive things that has been happening lately is that the non-custodial parent can sue to prevent the custodial parent from moving the child out of state and away from the other parent.

for example in REAL life if rachel wanted to move to paris with ross's child, ross would sue her ass so she couldnt take his kid out of the country.

what does money have to do with it?

if a woman is staying at home with her children (living off child support) as opposed to the man who is working 60 hour/week in order to make that kind of money why SHOULDNT the children live with the mother (other things being equal)

The average person works 8.5 hours a day, the average child is in school about 6.5 hours a day. Therefore the average child only has to go without his working parent for 2 hours a day on average.

Living conditions matter a great deal. Studies have shown that if you are being raised in a low income, high crime neighborhood you are 10 times more likely to become a criminal yourself.

Therefore, the living conditions are far more important than whether the parent works or not.

The average person works 8.5 hours a day, the average child is in school about 6.5 hours a day. Therefore the average child only has to go without his working parent for 2 hours a day on average.

Living conditions matter a great deal. Studies have shown that if you are being raised in a low income, high crime neighborhood you are 10 times more likely to become a criminal yourself.

Therefore, the living conditions are far more important than whether the parent works or not.

Though the way a child's parents look at things and treat the child should matter too. Studies have shown that when people are always told they are going to fail, or not pass the grade and othe negitive comments, their IQ will drop, but when they are told they can do it, and told they can be what they want...all that positive stuff, then their IQs rise.

I think each factor should be taken into the picture of things. Money, Size of the home, siblings, Work, and attitude.

So you would rather use emotive language that is actually unaccurate?
Nope. I just prefer to think of all living things, whether born yet or only in the incubation stage, as part of all that is living.

Well if they live in seperate cities they are both selfish and the kid should be given to welfare. :p :p
I sincerely hope you jest about this! :(

Nope. I just prefer to think of all living things, whether born yet or only in the incubation stage, as part of all that is living.

But the accurate term is foetus, not "baby" or "unborn child". Why do you wish to intentionally be incorrect in your speech?

Though the way a child's parents look at things and treat the child should matter too. Studies have shown that when people are always told they are going to fail, or not pass the grade and othe negitive comments, their IQ will drop, but when they are told they can do it, and told they can be what they want...all that positive stuff, then their IQs rise.

I think each factor should be taken into the picture of things. Money, Size of the home, siblings, Work, and attitude.

I agree with you completely. All of those things should be taken into account. But they should be weighed equally. Whether you are a man or a woman should not be taken into account.

But the accurate term is foetus, not "baby" or "unborn child". Why do you wish to intentionally be incorrect in your speech?
Oh? Who said?

The average person works 8.5 hours a day, the average child is in school about 6.5 hours a day. Therefore the average child only has to go without his working parent for 2 hours a day on average.

Living conditions matter a great deal. Studies have shown that if you are being raised in a low income, high crime neighborhood you are 10 times more likely to become a criminal yourself.

Therefore, the living conditions are far more important than whether the parent works or not.

i could not disagree more

not that its a working/nonworking issue. after all a majority of parents of both genders work outside the home these days. but the amount of money each earns should not be a factor as long as the child can be provided with safe and secure living conditions.

i could not disagree more

not that its a working/nonworking issue. after all a majority of parents of both genders work outside the home these days. but the amount of money each earns should not be a factor as long as the child can be provided with safe and secure living conditions.
I agree. The focus should be on the child, and the child, and the child ... period!

Thankfully, I have very little experience in these matters, although I did see a film once called 'Kramer vs. Kramer'. Anyone else see that? It was made a while ago tho, I seriously hope things have changed since then.
Fathers for Justice are, regardless of their beliefs, really cool. I mean, why not give a child to a bloke who stands on palaces dressed like Superman? It's a sign of supreme class.

Mikorlias of Imardeavia

i could not disagree more

not that its a working/nonworking issue. after all a majority of parents of both genders work outside the home these days. but the amount of money each earns should not be a factor as long as the child can be provided with safe and secure living conditions.

Actually you do agree with me. My concern was over living conditions, not money. I was illustrating an all too common occurrence where the child is given to the mother who lives in a low income, high crime area and has no money but what she recieves in child support, while the father is making good money and living in his own house in a good neighborhood. Obviously there is something there.

I tend to agree with that, however I definitely would prefer you use some term other than "foetus," such as "unborn child," "baby," etc. Language has a big impact on perception and "foetus" is too clinical, IMHO. :)
if it makes you feel any better, 90% of abortions don't happen to fetuses, they happen to embryos.

Actually you do agree with me. My concern was over living conditions, not money. I was illustrating an all too common occurrence where the child is given to the mother who lives in a low income, high crime area and has no money but what she recieves in child support, while the father is making good money and living in his own house in a good neighborhood. Obviously there is something there.
yeah im sure we do

these days fathers are MUCH more involved in parenting than they were when i was growing up

when my neice had her first child, her husband was SOOO insulted when they asked who would take care of the baby when she went back to work. he is a teacher and she would be going back to work while HE was off work for the summer. the suggestion that he wasnt going to be caring for his own child pissed him off to no end.

i guess most judges are OLD and not in touch with the way fathers do their jobs these days.

if it makes you feel any better, 90% of abortions don't happen to fetuses, they happen to embryos.
Marginally better, but still too impersonal and clinical for my preferences. If we are going to have abortions ( and I truly see no hope of elminating them in the near future ), then let's at least be honest about what we're aborting. Nothing involving the taking of life should be easy or comfortable.

Nope. I just prefer to think of all living things, whether born yet or only in the incubation stage, as part of all that is living.

And how do you define "living things"?

The only thing that makes an embryo any more of a living thing than a tumor is potential. Is a cancerous mass also a living thing in your eyes?

And while you may believe that an embryo is the exact same thing as a baby, this is inaccurate and you certainly shouldn't be telling other people to use it. I could refer to the elderly as dead, but I would be inaccurate if you mentioned the elderly and I said "Would you please call them dead?"

Marginally better, but still too impersonal and clinical for my preferences. If we are going to have abortions ( and I truly see no hope of elminating them in the near future ), then let's at least be honest about what we're aborting. Nothing involving the taking of life should be easy or comfortable.

First of all, your terms are much more inaccurate than the clinical terms, whether you like them or not.

Second of all, anyone who would suggest that having an abortion is "easy or comfortable" is incredibly naive and needs to see a little more of the world.

Marginally better, but still too impersonal and clinical for my preferences. If we are going to have abortions ( and I truly see no hope of elminating them in the near future ), then let's at least be honest about what we're aborting. Nothing involving the taking of life should be easy or comfortable.
i am being honest about what is being aborted. embryos and fetuses.

it is not an unborn child as it will never be a child as it is aborted. if it is not aborted, then it can be considered an unborn child as the potential is still there, however, as the pregnancy gets terminated, that potential goes to 0 rather quickly.

the thing is that at that particular stage in development, we are discussing embryos and fetuses. we are not discussing babies, as it is not a baby until it leaves the womb alive.

And how do you define "living things"?

The only thing that makes an embryo any more of a living thing than a tumor is potential. Is a cancerous mass also a living thing in your eyes?

And while you may believe that an embryo is the exact same thing as a baby, this is inaccurate and you certainly shouldn't be telling other people to use it. I could refer to the elderly as dead, but I would be inaccurate if you mentioned the elderly and I said "Would you please call them dead?"
The comparison between an unborn child and a "cancerous mass" is specious and cannot hold up. Children have been born very prematurely and survived. "Cancerous growths" are a net drain on the physiology, yet many women not only thrive when pregnant, but actually become stronger as a byproduct.

The analogy between an unborn child and the elderly doesn't hold up either. Would you say that the elderly are "potentially dead?"

i am being honest about what is being aborted. embryos and fetuses.

it is not an unborn child as it will never be a child as it is aborted. if it is not aborted, then it can be considered an unborn child as the potential is still there, however, as the pregnancy gets terminated, that potential goes to 0 rather quickly.

the thing is that at that particular stage in development, we are discussing embryos and fetuses. we are not discussing babies, as it is not a baby until it leaves the womb alive.
I suspect that you are simply using terms which make it more comfortable for you to live with the fact of abortion, just as many throughout history have comforted themselves with the fiction that some of those they slaughtered were "sub-human."

The comparison between an unborn child and a "canderous mass" is specious and cannot hold up. Children have been born very prematurely and survived. "Cancerous growths" are a net drain on the physiology, yet many women not only thrive when pregnant, but actually become stronger as a byproduct.

The analogy between an unborn child and the elderly doesn't hold up either. Would you say that the elderly are "potentially dead?"

No embryo has ever been born and survived, nor has an early term fetus. Meanwhile, my comparison had nothing to do with how the mother's body reacts, but had to do with your assertion that an embryo is a living thing - aka, and organism. There is no criterion which an embryo meets to be classified as a living thing that a cancerous mass does not. Biologically speaking, an embryo does not meet the criterion to be classifed as an organism.

The elderly will likely be dead at some point in the fairly near future, just as an embryo/fetus, if a pregnancy is continued, will likely be a child. You are attempting to put a label on something which it only has the potential to become.

I suspect that you are simply using terms which make it more comfortable for you to live with the fact of abortion, just as many throughout history have comforted themselves with the fiction that some of those they slaughtered were "sub-human."

And you are simply using terms which make it more comfortable for you to believe what you do. Do you presume to believe that you are any different than Dakini here in your selective labelling?

I suspect that you are simply using terms which make it more comfortable for you to live with the fact of abortion, just as many throughout history have comforted themselves with the fiction that some of those they slaughtered were "sub-human."

Considering that many of us who are pro-choice are, in fact, opposed to abortion, this is a statement which is often wrong. However, I do not resort to the use of emotive terms to try and pressure someone into agreeing with my position.

yet many women not only thrive when pregnant, but actually become stronger as a byproduct.

Hoo Boy! Trust me, that depends on the pregnancy! Many women who go through morning sickness, carry twins, are at risk for eclampsia, need to go on hemoglobin therapy, have excruciating back pain, nasty bloating, need to go to the bathroom ALL the time, and so on and so on would disagree with that statement. How many women do you know go "Yay, I'm a month overdue, I get to be strong and pregnant for longer?"

Yes, I've seen some women thrive on pregnancy, but for the most part, they seem eager to get it over with.

Considering that many of us who are pro-choice are, in fact, opposed to abortion, this is a statement which is often wrong. However, I do not resort to the use of emotive terms to try and pressure someone into agreeing with my position.
As I have been at great pains to make clear, I am not "anti-abortion," I simply have personal problems with using terminology which makes it more comfortable to live with the fact of abortion. I obviously cannot control what term you or others may choose to use, but my personal preference as former child, current father, current grandfather, and one who believes that life, all life, deserves respect, nurturing and protection, is terminology which displays said respect, nurturing and protection.

This argument strikes me as very similar to others which involve "useful" terminology which serves to make unpleasant facts more palatable.

Hoo Boy! Trust me, that depends on the pregnancy! Many women who go through morning sickness, carry twins, are at risk for eclampsia, need to go on hemoglobin therapy, have excruciating back pain, nasty bloating, need to go to the bathroom ALL the time, and so on and so on would disagree with that statement. How many women do you know go "Yay, I'm a month overdue, I get to be strong and pregnant for longer?"

Yes, I've seen some women thrive on pregnancy, but for the most part, they seem eager to get it over with.
Most of my information in this area is personal/anecdotal, since I know of no statistics on the issue. My ex had five children and was stronger and even better looking as a result. My three daughters and one daughter-in-law had similar results. Yes, I have known women with whom pregnancy did not agree, but women have been having children since time immemorial and evolution would seem to dictate that women who thrive as a result of pregnancy would need to be stronger to care for their offspring. Then again, that might be too logical for some here. :D

Considering that many of us who are pro-choice are, in fact, opposed to abortion, this is a statement which is often wrong. However, I do not resort to the use of emotive terms to try and pressure someone into agreeing with my position.
Nor do I.

Then again, that might be too logical for some here. :D

Why do you always resort to flamebait?

*sigh* And we were doing so well at avoiding the abortion topic this time... :rolleyes:

try here guys, it's actually on topic in this thread:
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=389812

The analogy between an unborn child and the elderly doesn't hold up either. Would you say that the elderly are "potentially dead?"
statistically speaking, an elderly person is more likely to be dead one day than an embryo is to be a child one day. indeed, by your logic, all living people should actually be refered to as "undead corpses."

Why do you always resort to flamebait?
Please point out my "flamebait."

statistically speaking, an elderly person is more likely to be dead one day than an embryo is to be a child one day. indeed, by your logic, all living people should actually be refered to as "undead corpses."
"He's not busy bein' born, he's busy dyin'" Quote from a '60s song, I forget which or by whom.

Please point out my "flamebait."

Then again, that might be too logical for some here.

You mean to tell me this was an innocent comment, not meant to insult anyone here who might have disagreed with what you had previously stated?

"He's not busy bein' born, he's busy dyin'" Quote from a '60s song, I forget which or by whom.
pretty much. i mean, if the eventual status if an embryo is to be granted to it prematurely based on the fact that it will probably become a child at some point, then it is equally appropriate to refer to all persons using the same criterion. you are, sir, a member of the Undead Legions! there are billions of Undead on this planet as we speak!

You mean to tell me this was an innocent comment, not meant to insult anyone here who might have disagreed with what you had previously stated?
Actually, neither. Just another of my rather feeble attempts at humor. I did place a grinning smiley-face after it! :)

what the hell. What does abortian have to do with this thread? I though this thread was doing great in talking about issues, and getting multiple points of view that built on one another and allowed for a better understanding of the issue.

Its people like these morons that can't even keep with the issues. They have to turn to side issues which lead to other side issues, that bring them down farther and farther from the issue. Its why politics gets mudded down, because no one can ever just say, hey, lets get rid of this or lets pass a law that supports this, nots its always, Lets ban this, and while we are at it lets ban everything that could possibly be like it oh and toss in this thing, it needs banned too, or lets support this guy, oh and this guy too, hey, while we are at it, this gal should get some attention too.

Its kinda like when you stand outside in the sun and try to light a piece of paper on fire, it don't work too well unless you magnify the light and concentrate to one area at a time.

pretty much. i mean, if the eventual status if an embryo is to be granted to it prematurely based on the fact that it will probably become a child at some point, then it is equally appropriate to refer to all persons using the same criterion. you are, sir, a member of the Undead Legions! there are billions of Undead on this planet as we speak!
It's not my intent to "prematurely" grant a hypothetical "eventual status" to any unborn child. My only concern is that we as a culture not enter onto the slippery slope of using impersonal or clinical terminology as a way to become more comfortable with the elimination of anything living. This is the path to self-justification for immoral acts through desensitization. I am not saying that abortion is an "immoral act," only that this is an exceedingly dangerous path to take.

Even though it's a truism that words only have that power over us which we grant them, they can also be used to self-desensitize. My contention is that taking life, whether in war, by the execution of convicted murders by the state, or by any other means, should never be an easy thing. We should never become comfortable with the taking of life.

Some tribes of American Indians seemed to have a much better handle on this than more "modern" societies, even praying for the spirit of an animal they killed for food.

As to being a member of the "Undead Legions," life is essentially a circle, with its roots in inanimate matter and its temporary suspension in inanimation as well. In another thread, I stated that there is considerable anecdotal evidence for reincarnation, something which, to me indicates a continuous cycle.

It's not my intent to "prematurely" grant a hypothetical "eventual status" to any unborn child. My only concern is that we as a culture not enter onto the slippery slope of using impersonal or clinical terminology as a way to become more comfortable with the elimination of anything living. This is the path to self-justification for immoral acts through desensitization. I am not saying that abortion is an "immoral act," only that this is an exceedingly dangerous path to take.

Even though it's a truism that words only have that power over us which we grant them, they can also be used to self-desensitize. My contention is that taking life, whether in war, by the execution of convicted murders by the state, or by any other means, should never be an easy thing. We should never become comfortable with the taking of life.

Some tribes of American Indians seemed to have a much better handle on this than more "modern" societies, even praying for the spirit of an animal they killed for food.

As to being a member of the "Undead Legions," life is essentially a circle, with its roots in inanimate matter and its temporary suspension in inanimation as well. In another thread, I stated that there is considerable anecdotal evidence for reincarnation, something which, to me indicates a continuous cycle.
i suppose that is the distinction in our thinking; for me, abortion has absolutely nothing to do with the fetus, but is, instead, about basic human rights. no living human being has any claim to the body of another human being, and therefore if a woman wishes to end a pregnancy then she has the absolute right to do so in any situation she likes. whether or not the fetus dies is irrelevant to her right to end her body's involvement in the process. i don't see any slippery slope there at all, especially since the very concept of the slippery slope is a logical falacy :).

I don't buy into the who, reincarnation concept, at least not in most forms.

I can't see reincarnation as if we all had been something else once, then we would all have a deep down hold from killing anything, and the collective subconsious would slowly develop into an entire peace.

I can't see the part about humans having past lives because there are more people alive right now then have lived and died in the entire history of the world. So that would mean people would have to have a new source of souls, and then not everyone could have a past life.

I do think that memories can be passed, though there is no science behind it. Its why people in a family line all have simalar talents, as well as often times people will have dreams about 'past lives' in places that their family line has been.

what the hell. What does abortian have to do with this thread? I though this thread was doing great in talking about issues, and getting multiple points of view that built on one another and allowed for a better understanding of the issue.

Its people like these morons that can't even keep with the issues. They have to turn to side issues which lead to other side issues, that bring them down farther and farther from the issue. Its why politics gets mudded down, because no one can ever just say, hey, lets get rid of this or lets pass a law that supports this, nots its always, Lets ban this, and while we are at it lets ban everything that could possibly be like it oh and toss in this thing, it needs banned too, or lets support this guy, oh and this guy too, hey, while we are at it, this gal should get some attention too.

Its kinda like when you stand outside in the sun and try to light a piece of paper on fire, it don't work too well unless you magnify the light and concentrate to one area at a time.
Quantum physics, and beyond that M-Theory, has amply illustrated that the whole is not the sum of its parts, but indeed defines the parts ... "... there are no parts at all. What we call a part is merely a pattern in an inseperable web of relationships." - Fritjof Capra, "The Web of Life."

This application of systems theory to science applies to information as well, which the Internet illustrates. There is a "web of information" as well as a web of life.

In short, there truly IS no spoon! :)

i suppose that is the distinction in our thinking; for me, abortion has absolutely nothing to do with the fetus, but is, instead, about basic human rights. no living human being has any claim to the body of another human being, and therefore if a woman wishes to end a pregnancy then she has the absolute right to do so in any situation she likes. whether or not the fetus dies is irrelevant to her right to end her body's involvement in the process. i don't see any slippery slope there at all, especially since the very concept of the slippery slope is a logical falacy :).
What constitutes proof that a particular argument is in fact a "slippery slope" fallacy: Identify the proposition being refuted and identify the final event in the series of events. Then show that this final event need not occur as a consequence of the proposition.

I do not dispute the mother's right to end a pregnancy. I do, however, posit that using impersonal or clinical terminology for the unborn child results in a desensitizaion toward the termination of life ( or, if you will, toward the termination of "potential" life ), which tends to give permission to others who wish to further desensitize people toward the takiing of life in general.

Oh for fuck's sake people PLEASE take the abortion discussion to an abortion thread! There is even one relevant to this discussion (father's rights), so you won't get lost!

This is a functioning discussion of a non-abortion topic. Please don't fuck it up any more. Take your discussion to the correct thread. Please.

I posted it before and I'll try again.http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=389812

I can't see reincarnation as if we all had been something else once, then we would all have a deep down hold from killing anything, and the collective subconsious would slowly develop into an entire peace.

I can't see the part about humans having past lives because there are more people alive right now then have lived and died in the entire history of the world. So that would mean people would have to have a new source of souls, and then not everyone could have a past life.
I didn't indicate that reincarnation was the only source of consciousness, nor did I indicate that I consider anything dealing with consciousness to be a "soul." I merely hypothosized that reincarnation may exist, since there seems to be a considerable body of anecdotal evidence for it.

As to having a "deep down hold from killing anything," I think killing of whatever sort is learned behavior, so there may in fact be an inborn reluctance to take life.

We are getting into the realm of conjecture and belief here.

Oh for fuck's sake people PLEASE take the abortion discussion to an abortion thread! There is even one relevant to this discussion (father's rights), so you won't get lost!

This is a functioning discussion of a non-abortion topic. Please don't fuck it up any more. Take your discussion to the correct thread. Please.

I posted it before and I'll try again.http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=389812
Since you choose to ignore my post about the web of information, I'll do as you ask. Bye.

I didn't indicate that reincarnation was the only source of consciousness, nor did I indicate that I consider anything dealing with consciousness to be a "soul." I merely hypothosized that reincarnation may exist, since there seems to be a considerable body of anecdotal evidence for it.

As to having a "deep down hold from killing anything," I think killing of whatever sort is learned behavior, so there may in fact be an inborn reluctance to take life.

We are getting into the realm of conjecture and belief here.

I was merely making a statement, didn't really want to get into all the reincarnation and such, since it is in the realm of other things.

So will this discussion continue now, or did I chuck a wobbo for nothing? :D

As far as I can tell, the last aspect of this discussion was comparing the effects of poor (as in poverty) surroundings with a parent who spends more time with the child with living in more affluent surroundings with less contact time for parent and child due to work committments. Although the assumption that the mother would be the poor one and the father the affluent one irked me when I read it... I will try to use the word "parent" when I can, so as not to be accused of bias.

Personally, I am of the opinion that an environment that may lack in consumer goods but has an involved, loving parent is far superior to one in which the child has all the latest consumer goods, large amounts of pocket money and less involved parenting.

Just from my own experience, I have known kids that fit into both categories (I am a qualified Youth Worker, btw, and so have some knowledge of this) and in general - and yes this is a subjective generalisation - the children with lots of money and little parental involvement are a lot more anti-social than those whose parents have some idea of not only where they are, but how they think about things and what they feel. The poor kids tend to vandalise by tagging, the richer by more destructive methods. There is a high rate of hidden alcoholism among affluent kids because their parents tend to have bottles of spirits around the house. They also have a lot more money to spend on drugs. There is also the point that a work-oriented parent is less likely to notice indicators of substance abuse and more likely to deny it to themself (No. My life is perfect. There's nothing wrong with my parenting). An involved parent is more likely to have taken the time to discuss drug & alcohol abuse with their kids and to notice and question changing behaviour.

I am not saying that these scenarios are automatically the case according to the affluence of either parent, but I maintain that a nurturing, involved environment is preferable to one where long hours are worked and contact between parent and child is limited because of that.

All kids need someone to come home to, not an empty house where their parent gets home 3 hours later, exhausted from work. That's my opinion, anyway.

thats what i was trying to get at, kryo
money isnt what makes a good environment for a growning child. there are plenty of good parents in poor neighborhoods and plenty of bad parents in rich neighborhoods. what matters is what a parent DOES with his or her children

but anyway
in a split famiy EVERYONE loses something. even when you are the custodial parent, you miss out on certain holidays with your kids because they have to be with the other parent on those days.

interestingly enough many men dont become good parents UNTIL they get divorced. then they realize just how important they are to their children and they start spending real time with them.