To get back on topic, I hope they legally work out how this law should be implemented, and get rid of any conflicts with the “spirit” of other laws meant to keep battered women safe. It’s crappy that this woman is being put through this in the first place. I hope there are legislative changes for the better here, and that it sets enough of a precedent that it can be used in other states as well.
Unfortunately, that political party currently has control of Congress, the presidency, and probably the SCOTUS shortly. And that political party is furthering the Right to Life cause for all it’s worth.
Not that I believe for one second they think it’s “the right thing to do,” so much as it exerts further control over the citizenry.
And in the Pit, too! My apologies.
Wouldn’t that be nice? The not-so-nice thing, is that once his daughter reaches 18, there is nothing to keep his ex from cutting off contact with him, leaving the state, etc. and taking the youngest with her. I guess having some father for a little while is better than having no father ever. 
Aye, I can see what you mean.
sigh… I’m still dumbfounded that the judge felt it more important that the child “not be illegitimized” was more important than the child not be legally bound to a wife beating convict.
I don’t know about right now, but certainly up until very recent years, the pro-life Christian right was periodically up in arms about how ‘easy’ it was for social workers to ‘interfere’ with parents’ disciplining of their own children.* Falwell is on record as saying that children are their parents’ property. (I think of them more as a sacred trust.) Similarly, opposition to all sorts of government assistance to children in poverty has largely come from the right side of the political spectrum. And the bulk of the votes on that side comes from pro-life conservatives.
I’m not sure Reeder needs a cite for a quarter-century or so of recent history. It’s like needing a cite that the Civil War was about slavery. (Yeah, I know that we’ve debated that one here too, but it shouldn’t have been necessary: it’s as if those who contested the idea dug up a blatantly dead body that we only had to bury again.)
Reeder was not claiming that no pro-lifers care about what happens to the children after they’re born. That such pro-lifers exist is indisputable. But the politics of the past generation overwhelmingly suggests that they are the exception. The push for more restrictions on abortion, the push to spend less tax money to aid poor children, and the occasional efforts to try to make it more difficult to investigate and prosecute child abusers have all come from the same quarter.
I’ll take your word for it, I guess. My experience tended to the folks who weren’t as shrill (and, as such, are under-represented in the minds and eyes of those not familiar with the movement, of which I was once a part).
I trust you aren’t proffering Falwell as a mainstream anything
I think Reeder’s statement, when taken as a general indication of things, has some merit in the sense that folks who are so concerned about the first nine months ought to be more visibly concerned - and to the point of doing something about it - with the next 18 years. However, I disagree completely with the notion that pro-lifers as a generalization divorce themselves from the next 18 years of a child’s life and that implication is unnecessarily trite and inflammatory.
You’ve already noted the connection between the right-wing interference with social work. Do you think it is reasonably justified to say that those who are vocal in their opposal of any and all abortions are also those pushing for less tax money spent on the poor?
And, of course, nobody stands at the doors of soup kitchens or homeless shelters or battered women’s shelters or orphanages or those places asking if you’re pro-life. My hope is that what I know is being done in the way of charity work on the part of pro-lifers is not a data spike, so to speak.
When it’s a statement of opinion, yeah, I don’t think it needs a cite. Personally I don’t think that applies anywhere else but here, since this is the Land of Venting. People frequently exaggerate here, so I’m not sure why you would expect anyone to be able to prove what they’re saying.
Opinions sure as shit can cause for valid requests for cites when used to further an argument. The system of checks and balances, so to speak, that exists here in the form of the legitimacy of asking for cites is a good thing, IMHO, though I’ll certainly keep in mind your “statements of opinion don’t require cites” for any future disagreements;)
Actually, depending on local rules in the Family Court, and State Court rulings, that may or may not be true.
In California, I believe a father can sue for some form of custody based on his assumed status as a non-genetic father of a child. IANAL, though, so don’t quote me on that.
Sam
Lord love a duck. What frigging moronic judge. I hope that the various sane people of Washington remember this when it comes time for the asshat to be re-elected. There are times I really, really hate the necessity of insulating the judicial branch from popular opinion swells.
Personally, IMNSHO and IANAL, I’ll admit that the conflicting Oregon laws (No-fault divorce vs. the Universal child support law) seem to give the judge a legal leg to stand upon. Not enough of one for me to think that this judge is anything but an asshat, but enough of a fig leaf that he may be able to argue, on the basis of law, that he has interpreted potentially conflicting laws in a legal manner. Note, I do not support the judge’s actions on a moral level - just stating that law and morality do not always conincide.
<aside>
This kind of nonsense happens routinely in NY, alas, because there is no “no-fault” divorce category. When the Lunatic Fringe runs in 2006, one of my other platforms will be to work towards revising the divorce law in this state to change that. (Okay, I’ll admit it, I think it’s stayed on, in this day and age, because there are too many people in politics with a vested interest in keeping lawyers employed. Even though I think it’s been maintained as a form of subsidy for trial lawyers, I can’t prove it.)
</aside>
<hijack>
So, if it’s alright for Reeder to make sweeping claims about most pro-lifers I can make equally sweeping claims for most pro-choicers defending to the death the right of women to kill a perfectly healthy 8th or 9th month fetus as long as the head of the fetus hasn’t passed through the birth channel, even though this procedure represents only two tenths of a percent of all abortions, and most of those performed are done for medical reasons - dead fetus, grossly malformed fetus (excluding hydroencephally), or unacceptable risk of the alternatives (including c-section) to the mother. After all it’s the Pit and I don’t need a cite.
With such an emotionally charged issue, I really don’t think it’s unfair for people to ask for cites when deliberately inflammitory statements are made, even in the Pit.
</hijack>
Did anyone else notice that the woman in question wants to marry her boyfriend before the baby is born? Basicallly, this moronic judge is preventing this child from being born into a marriage between her parents. 'Cause, ya know, he doesn’t want her to be illegitimate. The mind boggles, frankly.
Yes. sigh Of course, even if she does marry the father of her child before the birth, the child support law is written such that her ex is going to be liable for child support until he proves he’s not the father.
As an intellectual exercise, I can imagine that the judge is making a point about how if a man is going to be held accountable for something he should have the legal benefits of that same condition. Doesn’t mean I don’t think he’s an asshat. Nor that I want to see him still on the bench. I seem to recall a proverb about interesting cases leading to bad law. This looks like someone is trying to make a point about bad law, and not giving a damn about the people being ground up in the cogs.
How bitterly ironic that this is exactly what the woman is trying to do:) I imagine this woman is probably more’n slightly in favor of taking a paternity test to prove she is pregnant not a third time by her abusive (current) husband but by her boyfriend would-be husband.
(irony and such not aimed at you)
Yeah! Fuck those people willing to help scared pregnant mothers with nowhere to go! Fucking fundamentalists should know that killing the baby is much better than finding a way to get that baby to a loving family that may never be able to have one.
You see, those “fundies” are of the same mind-set. They are there to inconvienence a pregnancy. Nothing more, nothing less. It’s punishment, I tell you, PUNISHMENT for a sinful life. :rolleyes:
If any Dopers here consider an abortion, consider my wife and I for parents. It’s unlikely we’ll get the $25,000 cash for IVF before being too old to be effective parents, and adoption is, at best, a gamble. Neither of us are a lesbian Holywood actress.
Yeah, I know, it’s not a human. It may be a cat or dog when birthed. Anything but human, right?
When you want to raise a child and put so much value on a child, you tend to have a different view on the “It’s a choice” argument.
I’m not sure that leftists, who advocate that poor women be publically subsidized baby factories, have much room to complain about quality of life for children, do they?
Aside from this, this particular judge is apparently on a number of committies and councils to address family law problems and or family problems - I don’t have the cites right now, but this is apparently just wacko even for him.
And he is not running for re-election. This is his last term apparently decided sometime before this case.
I’m not quite sure how this relates to abortion (since the woman in this case wants to give birth and raise her child), but if this judge is merely making a point about the stupidity of the law at the expense of the people involved, he needs a kick in the bum.
The solution to the current problem is that a man is considered the father of any child within the marriage and up to 300 days after *he last engaged activity from which a child could be conceived * with his former wife.
300 days after the divorce is the wrong cut off date, that is where the problem lies.
According to the article I linked, he’s retireing, but he might not be able to if the Appeals courts send the case back to him…
Um. duffer? No one said fundie. And, if you want to help scared, pregnant mothers with no one else to go, why insist on cutting the funding to PP? They do more there than perform abortions, y’know. It’s called “family planning” for a reason. No, it is NOT just a pseudonym for “get your abortion here!” No, it isn’t. There are social workers there who are more than willing to help scared pregnant women in the area of adoption, if that is their choice. And yes, it is a choice.
I realize this is a very personal issue for you, and I know the process is frustrating. But reeder’s point is valid. Forcing a woman to bear a child conceived through rape or incest, or one she is physically unable to carry to term without endangering her own life, is nothing short of forcing a woman to become … what were Liberal’s words? “A publicly funded baby factory.” Oh. Except, the government wouldn’t want to pay for it. Make sure she has it, yes, but she has to pay for it, too. After all, it’s her mistake, she should pay. Right?