Replies

"But with the availability of artificial insemination, birth control, abortion, and the societal tactical nuke we call "divorce" - I'd have to say that women and men are equally "self-selecting" as single parents."

Thats a good point, but it still doesn't account for the default bias of babies and children going to moms and not the dads. A lot of women can't abort for one reason or another, religious, ethical, or just feel it is wrong. (There are twice as many abortion referrals than actual abortion, lot's of women back out, a fact the abortion industry doesn't want widely known).

Therefore, these "single-women" as a result of refusing to abort are still more likely than the father to end up as the sole custody parent than is the father. We're in a bind (those of us who are pro-Life) in demonizing "single-mothers" because one of the alternatives is abortion. We are in a "best option from a group of poor options" predicament. Since I believe most parents, even poor ones, want to do right by their kids, and are not out to intentionally hurt them, I don't think we have "probable cause" to take children from their parents.

If we demonize single parenthood enough, it may make people conceive more responsibly, or it may not and instead increase the abortion rate. This recently happened under "family caps" legislation. Unintended consequence? Maybe not so unintended if you ask me. (I don't know about you but I'm not comfortable with us solving social problems by violence against the unborn).

I do agree that there are more divorces than there needs to be and that there are probably way too many divorces for rather trivial reasons. I'd like to see that change. But why should it in a society hell-bent on personal gratification above all else? If you look at our culture carefully all these are inter-related. The cheapness of "life", abortion, and abdication of one's responsibilities to one's kids and to the larger community are like the last puzzle pieces that fit perfectly in a very disfunctional puzzle.

In any case, why not have mandated joint physical custody for all kids regardless if the parents are married, divorced, or never-married? Why do we have to make it a zero sum game where one parent gets custody, or gets stuck with custody and all the obligations? The simplest, cleanest, most logical approach is: Two people create a new person, two people are obligated to care and nurture and support that new person. It's plain, it's simple and there is no ambiguity. A simple concept that even the most dim-witted can understand.

But like I said, I'm willing to try it the other way and see if father's can do a better job. I'd rather shoot for both parents having the obligation, but hey, I'm willing to experiment. Let's give OOW newborns and kids of divorce to the dads' sole custody and see what they can do. How do we get started on this?