You were right the first time. The default presumption is that the father is fit unless evidence is shown that he is not.
Oh, that’s clever. There are cites showing you’re totally wrong, but if you keep repeating yourself, they won’t show that any more. And, obviously, I should “try reading” the cites that show you are wrong, because only someone who did not read the cites could possibly know that they actually show you’re wrong and refusing to admit it.
Please, more empty snark and stubborn refusal to admit you made even a minor mistake. Next time, instead of bullshitting about me “not reading” the cites which show you’re wrong, why don’t you bullshit about me “not understanding” them instead? That way, you can keep bullshitting and you won’t even need to offer a cite showing you’re right. Brilliant.
Nope, still correct. I suppose if you weren’t so busy “popping off at the mouth” and “read the cite” and “comprehend” it, you might admit that you’re fabricating shit as fast as you can type. But then again, we both know what’s up here, and that you’ll retract mistakes at roughly the same time as the sun goes dark.
Of course, you “forgot” to quote any part of the cite you’re claiming bolsters your case, and you did it with maximum snarky obnoxiousness. Which is always a plus.
Here, why don’t you calm down and stop your current trend of behavior and try quoting the part of a cite you claim agrees with you. I know, radical.
You see, there are several problems with your silly stance of maximum snide vapid argumentation. First, the cite offered was in fact not the Supreme Court, but New York’s Supreme Court. Further, the NYSC’s are not higher courts, but trial courts roughly equivalent to district courts. Further the cites case has to deal not with notifying fathers that their parenters have conceived and are going to bring a child to term/adopt it out, but with standards for proving neglect. Further, the Santoskys were a couple and were denied custody of their children based on a pattern of neglect, not where one was giving up a child for adoption and the other tried to block it.
Or, ya know, just offer up some more obnoxious pablum about how folks are spouting off and didn’t read the blah blah blah.
I’m not sure who you think you’re fooling, but I suppose once you’ve backed yourself into a corner it pays to be as absurdly hostile as possible. What’ve you got to lose, eh?
While you’re at it, cite and quote something, anywhere, that says the state must notify the father. Or provide obnoxious bluster and refuse to cite your own claims. Your call.
Let me guess, not only will you refuse to cite that nugget, but you’ll switch the definition of “father” a few more times, right?
In other words, the mother can simply not notify the state, adopt out the child and the father’s wishes are never even considered, even if he might want to take custody of the child and raise his son/daughter on his own if he had been informed. Do you normally contradict yourself quite so freely, or only when you’re scratching your back with a nice corner?
That again is also not correct, multiple of my cites state there are no rules governing inter state adoptions. My cite also states that while the supreme court does uphold the father’s right it only does so if the father has established a relationship with the child, both during and after birth. The supreme court does not go on to expand what that relationship is or what the definition of meeting that standard is and it has heretofore been up to the states. Try http://cfpr.missouri.edu/punativefatherpolbrf.pdf. My cites have also shown that the only standard for notifying the father is that the act of intercourse is sufficient notification to the father that a child may exist, and it is his responsibility to find out. The state will not try and notify the father unless they know the father’s identity, and not every state will attempt to compel the mother to name him. Furthermore there is no federal rule governing interstate private adoptions.
Again, you only try and pick apart my cites (unsuccessfully) and you’ve not attempted to prove any of your own assertions. At best you’ve tried to piggy back on someone else.
Quote the relevant passage “son” or “read the cite” and “comprehend” it before “popping off at the mouth”.
You’re making an allegation about the contents of a cite. Have you forgotten how to use the quote tags or something? It’s <quote> “text” </quote> with the pointy lines replaced by bracke3ts.
What’re you, new here?
That’s precisely what I was talking about, though; that a biological father can take affirmative steps to prevent the termination of his rights and the adoption of his child. If a father takes no interest in the child and doesn’t bother to keep up with the pregnancy, then yes, he’s going to get defaulted in a termination hearing, same as with any lawsuit. My only point was that there are steps he can take to prevent that from happening. He can initiate a hearing to have his legal paternity adjudicated, or at a bare minimum register with the state’s paternity registry. “Notification” doesn’t necessarily mean actually informing the person of the proceedings, it can be as simple as checking the paternity registry to see if the father has registered, or putting a notice in back of the newspaper. If he hasn’t registered and has made no other attempts at establishing his paternity, he’s out of luck. If he does take those steps, he can contest the termination and adoption.
No there aren’t.
That’s a long way away from what I was suggesting.
On another note…
I would find it unconscionable for a father to force a mother to either carry an unwanted pregnancy to term or to have an abortion (in the event of a wanted pregnancy), either one, without her consent.
I would also find it unconscionable for a mother to adopt away or abort a child the father truly wanted to raise without his consent.
I also realize and recognize that those two positions are contradictory. A mother shouldn’t be allowed to abort a child the father wants to keep, but the father shouldn’t be allowed to force the mother to bear it just because he wants to keep it. I don’t presume to have an answer. It’s just something I think about.
He gave consent when he came.
Of course I can, if I want to discuss the merit of the concept rather than getting bogged down in details. If you don’t want to do that, ignore me.
No. I want to be able to make some kind of formal proof that the woman’s been informed of my not wanting to be a father.
Can involve the state, a private lawyer, an impartial witness, whatever. I just went with “go to the state and ask it to help me” because that’s what my culture tends to do. I realize the US culture works differently, so again, assume whatever you would accept as a reasonable procedure to establish that proof is what I’m talking about.
Nope. I want the state to acknowledge that I informed this specific partner of my reluctance, when the choice to end the pregnancy was still available to her (and I’d ask for the actual timeframe where the statement matters to be a few weeks shorter than that, so that she has time to ponder)
Now, I know there’s a “too late !” argument, but I consider that if I use a condom, it’s reasonable to expect my partner to figure out I don’t want a child, or don’t intend this specific coitus to result in a sprog if you prefer.
So, while I don’t think a pre-sex formal notification is practical for obvious reasons (though I do think a verbal one ought to be made), I don’t think a post-sex one would necessarily be OMG SO UNFAIR - it just needs to be restrictive enough to cover reasonable bases, while not letting irresponsible idiots and deceiving jackoffs off the hook. Requiring proof of birth control use for the notification to have any weight whatsoever would be one such reasonable restriction.
(Which raises a practical question : I don’t compulsively store and timestamp my used rubbers. Would a significant number of exs- testifying I used them consistently while with them constitute such proof, or give credence to my unprovable claim to do and have ?)
Yes, I get that.
Which is why in one of the first posts I made in the thread, I said her decision to keep it affected my entire life. Because my duties to a kid of mine are always there, and I’m forced (by my own morals) to make sure they’re happy, provided for, have a father presence etc… The duties are there whether I like it or not, or whether I don’t want to acknowledge them or not. Child support being a part of that, I have no beef with it.
Yet I think that if a woman makes the conscious choice to turn my entire life upside down regardless of what my opinion on the matter is, I should be compensated somehow. “I’ll take care of the kid, but *you *owe me big time”. Seems so unfair to you ?
I don’t like the double standard…I think the law should apply to everyone equally.
However, I don’t like some deadbeet “dad” spleefering his spunk left and right either “fathering” X-amount of kids. Guys like that should be kicked in the nuts.
Hmm what to do…what to do?
How about for guys who never want to have a child get themselves a vasectomy? Not a run of the mill, back-alley coat hanger one, but a really good one that can reduce the risk of pregnancy to ZERO thus eliminating the need for all of this drama, and courts and all the rest of it all.
Perhaps there could be some state-sponsorship of such procedures since it would be a Hell of a lot easier AND cheaper to do something like that and avoid all the costs attached to chasing down some deadbeet. The argument I see from father’s is “Oh ya I don’t wanna be a daddy” well if that’s true get snipped and end all the BS! Then go ahead and run around amok dunking and spunking. But use a condom you don’t want to get a STD.
How do you figure? Making parental rights contingent on one’s marital status is not substantially different than making sex contingent on one’s marital status. All you have to do is move the bar one pace to the left and the government is in our bedrooms.
Please review the post in which I quote the Roe v. Wade decision language exactly - it does not say what you and others think it says. It’s not about her body. It’s about her right to not be a mother.
I included that whole section to make sure no one went back and quoted it out of context.
Please read and digest all of it together and you will readily discern that what they are examining is whether it is acceptable to permit abortion throughout pregnancy, right up to the last minute. They conclude no, for reasons they explain. None of which has anything to do with whether the fundamental reasoning they used for why a woman has the right at all.
No, you got it exactly right. And that is why, if for some strange reason our offspring began growing in incubators when we didn’t intend them to, we would have the choice to “terminate” that growth, based on exactly the factors that SCOTUS cited.
So the man is required to permanently sterilize himself, or he is presumed to be accepting the burden of childcare? Is the woman obligated to do the same if *she *doesn’t want kids?
There has got to be some better way to avoid a double standard than that.
So you think you should be able to have sex with a woman, THEN tell her you won’t be responsible for any pregnancies, THEN somehow have the state ratify and document that, then run off into the sunset? And the woman has no say in this? No ability to be informed of this policy before sex, or opportunity to turn you down?
Oh, but you wore a RUBBER, you say. That should be enough to let her know you don’t want a baby. Well it’s enough to tell you that SHE didn’t want a pregnancy either, but she has no ability to opt out of it. She has to deal with one way or the other, and if she chooses to keep your child – YOUR child, the child – the CHILD is entitled to financial support from its father. Don’t try to fob off your responsibilities on me, the taxpayer. Support your own children. I’ve got enough of my own.
She didn’t turn your life upside down, YOU did. You didn’t have to put your sperm in her. It doesn’t matter what you would have LIKED the final dispensation of that sperm to be. you knew the risks when you fired your gun. The choice was yours and the responsibility for the consequences is yours. It sure as hell isn’t MINE, and I can’t see a single reason why the state and the taxpayers would have any compelling interest whatsoever in absolving all fathers of any financial responsibility for their children.
Let me know when your plan for equality overcomes the realities of biology and makes sense. Until then you’re only ranting and planning on trading what you see as an injustice for a greater injustice.
He can have a generous supply of his sperm frozen in case he changes his mind.
No. You don’t understand the decision. You think you do, but you don’t. There would be no privacy issues involved with incubators.
Yes, yes that’s exactly what I stand for, you caught me red handed by cleverly reading your own bias into what I wrote :rolleyes:
Mmmm pretty sure she has. Right to choose, and all that. I’ll cover every expense for the abortion, too.
Yup, that’s exactly what I’m saying. I shouldn’t care for my children, and the taxpayers oughta care for them.
And by that I mean “it’s the exact opposite of what I wrote”. But do keep speaking for me, I’m sure it’ll convince people you know what I think and say better that I do.