Re: If a man fathers a child through rape, should he have visitation or custody right
Our entire ridiculous and tyrannical child support regime has contributed dramatically to the number of children born out of wedlock and thus to the number of women and children on the welfare rolls-- all of which contributes to economic drain, criminal activity, and a general condition of moral degradation.
Whaaaaa? What does any of that have to do with not recognizing that a father is a father until a mother
decides he's a father? That kind of sentiment will only
further break down the traditional family. It will lead to MORE children born out of wedlock, and raised without fathers.
Are you seriously trying to argue that you don't see the difference between a few minutes of pleasurable exercise and the months of discomfort that it takes to gestate a viable child? A teaspoon of genetic material versus an infant's entire biomass?
I see a difference, sure. But not in any way that automatically qualifies one as a parent while disqualifying the other just by virtue of the fact that they have different biological contributions to conception and incubation. Your argument is that a father does not become a father until he begins doing fatherly things, but a mother is a mother before the kid is even born. Tell that to babies who are dumped in dumpsters immediately after birth, or born with birth defects due to drinking and drug use, or abandoned to be raised by grandparents or the foster system. My point is, going through a pregnancy and birth do NOT make a woman a mother, by the same token that busting a nut with a winning swimmer does not make a man a father. But like I said originally, I don't buy that argument in the first place. I think both mother and father are confirmed by DNA at the moment of conception, period, and neither one has more of an inherent right to parent that child than the other. I'm just looking for consistency in your argument, and I haven't found it.
I'm not saying that mothers are automatically better parents. I'm saying that a mother is a mother for nine months before it is possible for a father to exist at all-- and thus why the mother should have the right to decide for her child who will be allowed to be the child's father. I believe in equal parental rights between mothers and fathers, but it is only at that point that it makes any kind of logical or moral sense for a father to have any rights at all.
No, you do NOT believe in equal parenting rights. Are you listening to yourself? You believe men have ZERO parenting rights
unless "allowed" by the mother. How on God's green Earth is that equal, in your estimation? Oh, and the mother
already had "the right to decide for the child who will be allowed to be the child's father". She made that decision before, during, and after conception. Her choice is made, and his role as father is cemented by nature. Her choice in the matter is over now. The child is already half
him.
It's not his kid. Any more than if the child had been sired via donated sperm. It's her kid until she offers it to a man and he accepts-- only then is it their kid.
It IS his kid. For the exact same reason it's hers.
She didn't rape the kid, and by the time the father's a concern, she's been mothering it for nine months. Yes.
You can't be serious, man. If you are seriously THAT sexist, that you believe a
confirmed rapist, with all the disgusting, dangerous implications that come along with a person who would do that to another person, has more of an inherent right to parent a child than a normal, innocent man just by virtue of the fact that he is a man, then I will happily agree to end this conversation now.
