|
It's funny how moral systems work. Obviously what you say is the system we have democratically chosen to use, and yet you get downvoted seriously ... So people want this system, even to the point they're willing to destroy people's lives over it (mostly, but not exclusively, men's lives), and yet they consider it offensive if one points out the nature and consequences of this choice. There are other consequences too: obviously it is easy for the man to avoid this responsibility: simply lose your job. There's a legal saying "you can't force blood from a stone". In other words, if this man wants out from under his responsibility, he is guaranteed to achieve that, laws or no laws. And yet that, too, people are unwilling to consider and I'm sure is offensive to bring up too. If you think it through, you'll realise that this system gives the power to the person willing to do the most damage to the other and the child and because of the preexisting conflict encourages exactly that. This guy can cause repossession of the house, take away 2/3rds of the woman's income, and have child services take the child away. And there is absolutely nothing any additional laws or judgements can do to prevent this, in other words, the judge, any social help and/or the police are totally powerless to do anything about it. Obviously if this guy plays hardball negotiation, if he is willing to use the child to get what he wants (just like the woman was using the child in the court case), he will obviously win such a negotiation, especially if he can fall back on his parents for living expenses. He is threatening, after all, to damage himself, and her only recourse ... is to damage him. In other words, she has no recourse. The judge has no recourse. Social services have no recourse. They will lose if he presses through. You don't believe this will be the result? Ask child protection services for their "most common problem". This is it. I'll get downvoted as well I think. |