Juridicial abortion for men

[kgambit]

kgambit, you make an interesting point about the custody taker having to bear significant costs. But this rather assumes a fair apportionment of custody. I know a LOT of dads who fight tooth and nail for contact after courts awarded custody to - and admittedly I'm biased since I know that dads - nutloop mothers.

 

On a practical note, given that depositions are usually given by representatives, how hard would it be to anonymise the two parties? No reference to mum or dad, just 'individual X'?

 

You rarely find an equal apportionment of custody between two parties.  Once divorced the two parties frequently live far enough part that "sharing" custody is far too disruptive to the child - think along the lines of school districts, daycare, friends etc.  I agree that it often means that the most suitable parent does not get primary custody, and no it isn't fair.   I like the idea of anonymous determinations but judges like to see the people they award custody to. 

[Walsingham]

I'm not really sure what looking at someone achieves. They might be wearing an inappropriate dinner jacket. But they could still be a good person.

[kgambit]

I'm not really sure what looking at someone achieves. They might be wearing an inappropriate dinner jacket. But they could still be a good person.

 

Perhaps they feel that it's their responsibility to get as much info as possible and hear from both parties.  Does it always make a difference?  Probably not.

 

"inappropriate dinner jacket" ... okay that is funny ..... 

Edited December 11, 2013 by kgambit

[Lexx]

Women should never be forced to an abortion, but I agree that men can be screwed pretty hard... Probably the best way would be - as said already - to allow the men to say nay when they find out that they are going to become a father. Still, this is problematic. This can turn into men saying nay right from the beginning, in any case, even if they might want the child / want to be the father, just to protect themself from a possible financial burden (for example, if both split up shortly after or whatever). Then you need people again who will decide if the nay-claim of the male part is valid or not... which can be really problematic and unfair. I mean, how would you want to judge that?

 

Long time ago I was reading about a practice of birth control for men that wasn't a vasectomy and apparently works way better as well. Some stuff will be injected into the spermatic duct, which then destroys all sperm on a nano-level or something like that. It holds on for around 10 years and can be reverted at any time. Also it's said to be pretty cheap, which is the reason why we don't see much advert for it - the industry would lose a lot money if this becomes more common. This, actually, seems to me quite a reasonable method for men who do not want children yet, but might want in the future.

 

Should check out if I can find any more information on that. Haven't read about it since years.

/Edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reversible_inhibition_of_sperm_under_guidance

Edited December 11, 2013 by Lexx

[Orogun01]

Women should never be forced to an abortion, but I agree that men can be screwed pretty hard... Probably the best way would be - as said already - to allow the men to say nay when they find out that they are going to become a father. Still, this is problematic. This can turn into men saying nay right from the beginning, in any case, even if they might want the child / want to be the father, just to protect themself from a possible financial burden (for example, if both split up shortly after or whatever). Then you need people again who will decide if the nay-claim of the male part is valid or not... which can be really problematic and unfair. I mean, how would you want to judge that?

 

Long time ago I was reading about a practice of birth control for men that wasn't a vasectomy and apparently works way better as well. Some stuff will be injected into the spermatic duct, which then destroys all sperm on a nano-level or something like that. It holds on for around 10 years and can be reverted at any time. Also it's said to be pretty cheap, which is the reason why we don't see much advert for it - the industry would lose a lot money if this becomes more common. This, actually, seems to me quite a reasonable method for men who do not want children yet, but might want in the future.

 

Should check out if I can find any more information on that. Haven't read about it since years.

/Edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reversible_inhibition_of_sperm_under_guidance

Apparently it is still being tested and there some risk involved. Vasectomy seems safer.

[Kroney]

Still, this is problematic. This can turn into men saying nay right from the beginning, in any case, even if they might want the child / want to be the father, just to protect themself from a possible financial burden (for example, if both split up shortly after or whatever).

 

The obvious thing would be, once they've decided not to take any legal responsibility for the child, then they forfeit any legal right to see the child at all.

[Walsingham]

 

Vasectomy seems safer.

 

 

Not a phrase I ever expected to see.

[Amentep]

 If a women cheats a man, by sabotaging the condom or something similar, there are no repercussions for her, but he is now legally bound to at a minimum financially support for the child.

 

No repercussions other than having to live with a fetus in her womb for nine months, deliver the baby and incur any medical costs related to same, plus financially and emotionally support the child for 18+ years compared to the guy having - at minimum - financially supporting the child for 18-21 years.

 

Seems an unusually broad (pun not intended) definition of "no repercussions".  Both parties get screwed, in several respects, in this scenario.

 

That said, you'd have a hard time proving intent in a case like this without the "condom buster" more or less admitting to it (or the busted-on-party creepily keeping each used condom 'just in case').

Edited December 11, 2013 by Amentep

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I keep all of my used condoms preserved just in case such a situation arises, doesn't everyone?

[Orogun01]

 

 If a women cheats a man, by sabotaging the condom or something similar, there are no repercussions for her, but he is now legally bound to at a minimum financially support for the child.

 

No repercussions other than having to live with a fetus in her womb for nine months, deliver the baby and incur any medical costs related to same, plus financially and emotionally support the child for 18+ years compared to the guy having - at minimum - financially supporting the child for 18-21 years.

 

Seems an unusually broad (pun not intended) definition of "no repercussions".  Both parties get screwed, in several respects, in this scenario.

 

That said, you'd have a hard time proving intent in a case like this without the "condom buster" more or less admitting to it (or the busted-on-party creepily keeping each used condom 'just in case').

 

Ok, then no legal repercussions. Plus, you bring an interesting point of whether that parent is fit since it only used her child as a way to get money and had no notion of what the consequences would be. The only reason that child is better off with a neglecting parent is that the system is so ****ed up that it seems like a better alternative.

[Kroney]

I'm not really sure what looking at someone achieves. They might be wearing an inappropriate dinner jacket. But they could still be a good person.

 

Respectfully, I disagree.

 

If, in the unlikely event, that somebody was to wear an evening suit to a court appearance I'd say that one simple proof of unsound mind alone would preclude them from being a responsible parent. And, in fact, an excellent candidate for chemical neutering.

Edited December 11, 2013 by Kroney

[Walsingham]

 

I'm not really sure what looking at someone achieves. They might be wearing an inappropriate dinner jacket. But they could still be a good person.

 

Respectfully, I disagree.

 

If, in the unlikely event, that somebody was to wear an evening suit to a court appearance I'd say that one simple proof of unsound mind alone would preclude them from being a responsible parent. And, in fact, an excellent candidate for chemical neutering.

 

 

I have it on good authority that Her Majesty's court officials often wear wigs and ornate robes. Hardly think that places them in a good position to judge sartorial elegance.

[Kroney]

Au contrare, famous for judging, are judges. Practically pro level.