Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Chongara wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:


Life's hard then you die. Too many sperm donors and not enough men who act like men.

What exactly does a man act like then, Frazzled? Follow every woman he has sex with around, hiding in her bushes and watching for baby-bump even as she shoos him away? As the police drag him away for harassment should he go "We totally did it like 2 months ago, I'm pretty sure there's a small chance she might start showing soon guys! I totally have the right to be all up in her business because I stuck my dick in her once!"

You're just throwing around meaningless platitudes that don't even sound cool. Get some perspective and grow some empathy man.

Not meant to sound hostile to any posters here. Its...complicated. I've been on the other side dealing with losers who wouldn't act as a father so I am at best...biased.

I can only do so much. I did just get back from St. Croix, but I'm here to help!

Kronk, the only person besides the President who has a government jet standing by to take him to safety, so that we can repopulate the US and get that GDP back up to speed in no time.

Kronk - a-ah - saviour of the universe
Kronk - a-ah - he'll save everyone of us
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
Kronk - a-ah - he's a miracle
Kronk - a-ah - king of the impossible

He's for everyone of us
Stand for everyone of us
He'll save with a mighty hand
Every man every woman
Every child - with a mighty Kronk

Kronk - a-ah
Kronk - a-ah - he'll save everyone of us

Just a man
With a man's courage
He knows nothing but a man
But he can never fail
No one but the pure in heart
May find the golden grail
Oh oh - oh oh
Kronk

 Frazzled wrote:

 Chongara wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:


Life's hard then you die. Too many sperm donors and not enough men who act like men.

What exactly does a man act like then, Frazzled? Follow every woman he has sex with around, hiding in her bushes and watching for baby-bump even as she shoos him away? As the police drag him away for harassment should he go "We totally did it like 2 months ago, I'm pretty sure there's a small chance she might start showing soon guys! I totally have the right to be all up in her business because I stuck my dick in her once!"

You're just throwing around meaningless platitudes that don't even sound cool. Get some perspective and grow some empathy man.

Not meant to sound hostile to any posters here. Its...complicated. I've been on the other side dealing with losers who wouldn't act as a father so I am at best...biased.

Dude, I'm on that damn side too. I don't even have any clue what my father looks like, save the what traits I clearly didn't get from my mother and he certainly knew about me. I've been there sitting in class as the only kid in 2nd grade without somebody to make a father's day card for. It's no excuse to be pompous and willfully insensitive about the ignoring fact that sometimes a dude can dealt bad hand, things can go wrong in ways beyond his control, or that he can even royally screw up in real ways that wouldn't make him inherently a bad father.

 Chongara wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Chongara wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:


Life's hard then you die. Too many sperm donors and not enough men who act like men.

What exactly does a man act like then, Frazzled? Follow every woman he has sex with around, hiding in her bushes and watching for baby-bump even as she shoos him away? As the police drag him away for harassment should he go "We totally did it like 2 months ago, I'm pretty sure there's a small chance she might start showing soon guys! I totally have the right to be all up in her business because I stuck my dick in her once!"

You're just throwing around meaningless platitudes that don't even sound cool. Get some perspective and grow some empathy man.

Not meant to sound hostile to any posters here. Its...complicated. I've been on the other side dealing with losers who wouldn't act as a father so I am at best...biased.

Dude, I'm on that damn side too. I don't even have any clue what my father looks like, save the what traits I clearly didn't get from my mother and he certainly knew about me. I've been there sitting in class as the only kid in 2nd grade without somebody to make a father's day card for. It's no excuse to be pompous and willfully insensitive about the ignoring fact that sometimes a dude can dealt bad hand, things can go wrong in ways beyond his control, or that he can even royally screw up in real ways that wouldn't make him inherently a bad father.

I'm sure in some instances that is correct. Its an indicator, not definitive.

 Frazzled wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
But he also knew she was pregnant. What if someone doesn't?

Its an indicator they are not mentally of physically capable of properly raising a child.

I don't think they're even remotely related.

In what way would it indicate they are?

It indicates their lifestyle is transitional and not an indicator of stability for raising a child.

It would tend to indicate they are younger and not as well off financially.

It would tend to indicate they make poor life choices, especially when near something called "jello shots"

It would indicate they are in non-stable transitional relationships.

Immediate indicator that this is not going to be a two parent household and thus substantially higher risk for poverty and crime factors. (and that I AM GOING TO END UP PAYING FOR BABY)

Exactly what could be drawn that indicates a positive for raising a child?

 Frazzled wrote:
In what way would it indicate they are?

It indicates their lifestyle is transitional and not an indicator of stability for raising a child.

It would tend to indicate they are younger and not as well off financially.

It would tend to indicate they make poor life choices, especially when near something called "jello shots"

It would indicate they are in non-stable transitional relationships.

Immediate indicator that this is not going to be a two parent household and thus substantially higher risk for poverty and crime factors.

Exactly what could be drawn that indicates a positive for raising a child?

This is all reaching man, reaching pretty hard. All it tells you is that one time they had sex with someone they don't see regularly and the person chose not to, or could not inform them of their pregnancy. You've just picked a grab-bag of potentially negative character traits and thrown them out there like you can actually prove a connection.

These are specifics, you're making strong discrete claims here. Show me some numbers that can can clearly correlate being unaware of a pregnancy with these specific things, controlled for all potential confounding factors. You're making a strong assertive claim, so back it up with some evidence.

A good buddy of mine was married to a rather... umm, plump woman. She was around 7 or 8 months pregnant when she found out.

I later found out, when he got remarried, that he had gotten a divorce (hey now... we were stationed together in Germany, and haven't really been able to talk much since we each left there).

I then found out through our mutual friends the stories surrounding that divorce. As in, she wouldn't take care of the kid, change diapers, etc. One day, he came home for lunch, discovered that the kid hadn't been changed since it went to bed the previous night. So he changed his son, and took him to work with him for the day. No calls, no text, no questions when he got home. Nothing. She was absolutely oblivious to the state and location of her child.

Sad thing is, it took letters from his company and battalion commanders, squad leader, platoon sergeant and 1st sergeant all extolling his virtues for a judge to even CONSIDER allowing this "evil man" to have custody of his son.

To me, it isn't just the adoption thing that is an issue. It's pretty much EVERYTHING regarding a "man's rights" to his child/ren

 Chongara wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
In what way would it indicate they are?

It indicates their lifestyle is transitional and not an indicator of stability for raising a child.

It would tend to indicate they are younger and not as well off financially.

It would tend to indicate they make poor life choices, especially when near something called "jello shots"

It would indicate they are in non-stable transitional relationships.

Immediate indicator that this is not going to be a two parent household and thus substantially higher risk for poverty and crime factors.

Exactly what could be drawn that indicates a positive for raising a child?

This is all reaching man, reaching pretty hard. All it tells you is that one time they had sex with someone they don't see regularly and the person chose not to, or could not inform them of their pregnancy. You've just picked a grab-bag of potentially negative character traits and thrown them out there like you can actually prove a connection.

These are specifics, you're making strong discrete claims here. Show me some numbers that can can clearly correlate being unaware of a pregnancy with these specific things, controlled for all potential confounding factors. You're making a strong assertive claim, so back it up with some evidence.

I hear you. Argue against it. Support the argument that someone in a hookup has an increased chance of not having these things?

They are not married.
They are not in a serious relationship
These indicate less stability.
These indicate the child is going to be in a one parent household. A one parent household usually means they are what we call ed.

not a lot Einsteins looking to buy a house an start a family with 2.4kids and a dog hooking up with someone they met at Vinnie's Icehouse.
Doesn't mean they won't be ready in the future, just not now.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
A good buddy of mine was married to a rather... umm, plump woman. She was around 7 or 8 months pregnant when she found out.

I later found out, when he got remarried, that he had gotten a divorce (hey now... we were stationed together in Germany, and haven't really been able to talk much since we each left there).

I then found out through our mutual friends the stories surrounding that divorce. As in, she wouldn't take care of the kid, change diapers, etc. One day, he came home for lunch, discovered that the kid hadn't been changed since it went to bed the previous night. So he changed his son, and took him to work with him for the day. No calls, no text, no questions when he got home. Nothing. She was absolutely oblivious to the state and location of her child.

Sad thing is, it took letters from his company and battalion commanders, squad leader, platoon sergeant and 1st sergeant all extolling his virtues for a judge to even CONSIDER allowing this "evil man" to have custody of his son.

To me, it isn't just the adoption thing that is an issue. It's pretty much EVERYTHING regarding a "man's rights" to his child/ren

That is an issue. Inversely once they have rights, even if they are scum it is almost impossible to get them out of the picture.
there are almost no good ending s in family law. Estate law on the other hand.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Chongara wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
In what way would it indicate they are?

It indicates their lifestyle is transitional and not an indicator of stability for raising a child.

It would tend to indicate they are younger and not as well off financially.

It would tend to indicate they make poor life choices, especially when near something called "jello shots"

It would indicate they are in non-stable transitional relationships.

Immediate indicator that this is not going to be a two parent household and thus substantially higher risk for poverty and crime factors.

Exactly what could be drawn that indicates a positive for raising a child?

This is all reaching man, reaching pretty hard. All it tells you is that one time they had sex with someone they don't see regularly and the person chose not to, or could not inform them of their pregnancy. You've just picked a grab-bag of potentially negative character traits and thrown them out there like you can actually prove a connection.

These are specifics, you're making strong discrete claims here. Show me some numbers that can can clearly correlate being unaware of a pregnancy with these specific things, controlled for all potential confounding factors. You're making a strong assertive claim, so back it up with some evidence.

I hear you. Argue against it. Support the argument that someone in a hookup has an increased chance of not having these things?

That's the thing I don't have to, because I'm not claiming that. I don't have to show anything to prove "Hey may or may not doing Jello Shots " because it is making no concrete assertions about the truth. What I've been saying is functionally equivalent to "I have no evidence either way, nothing has been shown to support any claims about the specific implications of being unaware of a pregnancy. Though I can point some plausible counterexamples to to the scenarios you've laid out"

You are claiming (among many other things), that It indicates he is more likely to being doing jello shots that's a definitive concrete claim and it requires evidence to be anything but hot air. To say nothing of the next link you'd have to prove: That consumption of Jello Shots is a meaningful predictor of parenting ability, though we're so far from that point we can ignore it for now.

Thats cool. It would be helpful to reflect on some sort of data indicating these sperm donors lead to being better fathers. Simple logic dictates a higher incidence that they won't or can't be at this juncture. Elementary Dear Watson!

Not addressing the wimminz but I'd make similar arguments.

EDIT: Again this is not saying they can't be good parents or there are exceptions. I'm saying only that these are indicators.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
A good buddy of mine was married to a rather... umm, plump woman. She was around 7 or 8 months pregnant when she found out.

I later found out, when he got remarried, that he had gotten a divorce (hey now... we were stationed together in Germany, and haven't really been able to talk much since we each left there).

I then found out through our mutual friends the stories surrounding that divorce. As in, she wouldn't take care of the kid, change diapers, etc. One day, he came home for lunch, discovered that the kid hadn't been changed since it went to bed the previous night. So he changed his son, and took him to work with him for the day. No calls, no text, no questions when he got home. Nothing. She was absolutely oblivious to the state and location of her child.

Sad thing is, it took letters from his company and battalion commanders, squad leader, platoon sergeant and 1st sergeant all extolling his virtues for a judge to even CONSIDER allowing this "evil man" to have custody of his son.

To me, it isn't just the adoption thing that is an issue. It's pretty much EVERYTHING regarding a "man's rights" to his child/ren

Had a trooper, who against the advice of our 1SG and me (the CDR) married a local seeking an ID card and ride to the Big PX as we were leaving (this was in 98-99 time frame). They had a kid who the troop adored and wife saw as a impediment to shacking up with her boy friend (a Panamanian cop). She basically kicked him out of the house and he was staying in the barracks and the kid was not being taken care of unless my troop grabbed her and brought her to the barracks for a night (but of course he could not take care of her during the day...) My 1SG and I played REALLY dirty on this one. Story ended with the young lady and her BF getting evicted from post by some MPs with a MEAN canine unit in support after a certain trooper and his daughter caught a MAC flight to Ft Riley where he signed in and received a compassionate reassignment.

 Frazzled wrote:
Thats cool. It would be helpful to reflect on some sort of data indicating these sperm donors lead to being better fathers. Simple logic dictates a higher incidence that they won't or can't be at this juncture. Elementary Dear Watson!

Not addressing the wimminz but I'd make similar arguments.

If your assertion is "Was unaware of pregnancy at time of birth" -> "Couldn't or wouldn't be a good father if given the chance" is still a specific claim that requires evidence.

Obviously "clear deadbeat" scenarios exist and hell I'm the product of one. However you're seemingly arguing that "clear deadbeat" should be the default assumption and using broad unsupported claims to do so. It's weak, really, really weak

Had a trooper, who against the advice of our 1SG and me (the CDR) married a local seeking an ID card and ride to the Big PX as we were leaving (this was in 98-99 time frame). They had a kid who the troop adored and wife saw as a impediment to shacking up with her boy friend (a Panamanian cop). She basically kicked him out of the house and he was staying in the barracks and the kid was not being taken care of unless my troop grabbed her and brought her to the barracks for a night (but of course he could not take care of her during the day...) My 1SG and I played REALLY dirty on this one. Story ended with the young lady and her BF getting evicted from post by some MPs with a MEAN canine unit in support after a certain trooper and his daughter caught a MAC flight to Ft Riley where he signed in and received a compassionate reassignment.

You're awesome.

Obviously "clear deadbeat" scenarios exist and hell I'm the product of one. However you're seemingly arguing that "clear deadbeat" should be the default assumption and using broad unsupported claims to do so. It's weak, really, really weak

I am not arguing they are deadbeats. I am arguing it is an indicator that they are not at the point in their lives where they can provide a stable household for that child. They could in the future, just not now.

Two college kids may be awesome parents in 5 years, but not at the time they have the dorm hookup.

 Chongara wrote:

If your assertion is "Was unaware of pregnancy at time of birth" -> "Couldn't or wouldn't be a good father if given the chance" is still a specific claim that requires evidence.

I think there's also something to be said for the localities where there are laws that the mother does NOT have to put a father down on the birth certificate. I would think that, in those cases, even IF the "sperm donor" wanted rights, he wouldn't get any, because he's not listed as the father.

 Frazzled wrote:

Obviously "clear deadbeat" scenarios exist and hell I'm the product of one. However you're seemingly arguing that "clear deadbeat" should be the default assumption and using broad unsupported claims to do so. It's weak, really, really weak

I am not arguing they are deadbeats. I am arguing it is an indicator that they are not at the point in their lives where they can provide a stable household for that child. They could in the future, just not now.

Two college kids may be awesome parents in 5 years, but not at the time they have the dorm hookup.

These are still specific, concrete claims that require evidence. If you want to speak to specific cases you've dealt with that's fine, however you claim to be trying to address the general case but are not doing so in any way that is credible.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Chongara wrote:

If your assertion is "Was unaware of pregnancy at time of birth" -> "Couldn't or wouldn't be a good father if given the chance" is still a specific claim that requires evidence.

I think there's also something to be said for the localities where there are laws that the mother does NOT have to put a father down on the birth certificate. I would think that, in those cases, even IF the "sperm donor" wanted rights, he wouldn't get any, because he's not listed as the father.

She could also willfully, in an honest mistake, or under duress put down the wrong father.

I'm arguing logic. Logically these are indicators. They are not indicators of other things. If you disagree thats fine.

We all know single parent households do worse than family units on average. I could cite a bunch but frankly don't need to.
Thats what this leads to.

 Frazzled wrote:
I'm arguing logic. Logically these are indicators. They are not indicators of other things. If you disagree thats fine.

If you're using logic you should be able to easily outline the logical argument you're using and the specific evidence that supports your position. You've done nothing of this you just keep insisting that your position are true because they're clearly true.

"I assert that people are more likely than not to die when dipped in lava"
"Here is every record of people being dipped in lava. Note they all died"'

That is a assertion with supporting evidence, it's a valid claim that can be supported within a logical framework.

Your arguments have been more akin to:
"I assert that people who are unaware of pregnancy have less self control, because being unaware of pregnancy is an indicator they have self control"

We all know single parent households do worse than family units on average. I could cite a bunch but frankly don't need to.
Thats what this leads to.

A) This is a lot less true when you control of socioeconomic status.
B) This "worse off" is a far cry from "unfit". If everyone who would make for a somewhat worse off household than the best circumstances available via adoption is necessarily unfit (" prima facae evidence he wasn't worthy of being a father"), it'd demand that we start confiscating babies from any less-than-ideal home and redistribute them until the demand from parties looking to adopt babies reaches zero.


EDIT: And just to be clear: I'm on your side in terms of not making it easier to just hand over a kid to anyone who is claiming to be a dad. I'm just offended at how piss-poor your arguments for it are.

There are a whole host of problems with parental rights. Deciding how a child should best be raised involves a hell of a lot of factors and a whole host of subjectivity. That's near impossible to get right, before you layer on that the procedures and processes of government and legal institutions.

The end result of all that, typically, is that no-one comes out of a custody dispute thinking they were treated well. If you miss one thing you were after you think the courts were biased, and even if you get everything you wanted then you resent the lengthy and expensive process you had to go through to get what you wanted.

That's just life, unfortunately. But I think too many people come out of that process convinced the courts are against them, or against people like them. This means many men and women leave the courts system believing the system is biased against their gender. And unfortunately that political conviction makes resolving the issues harder, not easier.