Well .. technically .. the baby is physically part of the woman. The mom's have the hardware for their child. The mom's are the ones the hospital hands them too. Unless she is a very unfit mom she gets the baby.
I can’t argue your technical points. Generally speaking, there are changes deeper than observable physical changes that can or are made to a mothers general physiology after childbirth, and in that and other senses we could say the child becomes a part of her. Of course, regardless of the impact on a parent- the child has parts of both parents.
I also cannot argue that the mother usually is given the baby first and the mother is often the one with the legal right to name the child.
It’s also true that a father may elect to or by some circumstance not be present in the child’s birthing process and can essentially not be there to “accept”or be accountable for the baby- an option mothers generally don’t have. So mothers generally carry most of the risks and all the physical risks directly in pregnancy.
However- the fact the mother is given the baby is a matter of culture and arguably an expression of traditional gender roles wherein a woman is seen or expected to be “nurturing” and be the primary care giver to an infant. Many mothers make the choice not to breast feed, and technology allows that choice- which means gender isn’t a determining factor in wether one can care for a newborn- so there isn’t any specific reason to give the baby to the mother beyond cultural values like a sense of ownership or duty to the child.
When it comes to the welfare of the child, how much a parent suffered yo get them into the world etc. are not relevant. Those things are issues of consideration to the parent and are framed in cultural ideas. If we ask for anything quantifiable which a mother can provide a father can’t in the sense of caring for a child, between two people with identical finances and identical circumstances- there isn’t. If we look at that which isn’t quantifiable but factual- we could argue that a mother does undergo hormonal changes which are tailored by evolution to promote bonding with the child and these COULD increase the odds of her caring about or being devoted to the child as a man, to our understanding, doesn’t experience direct physical and psychological changes to promote such bonding. We must rely on that which is culturally or personally instilled in him or upon his evolutionary drives towards the success of his genetic offspring. Between the two- the hormonal bonding of the mother is..
More consistent and profound in general. That said- there are also common effects and hormonal changes which can reduce the potential suitability of a mother like post delivery depression etc. it’s also true that while many mothers see the pain and effort etc. of giving birth as a reason to further invest in their children- many see it as a source for resentment or retaliation. When coupled with other factors of raising a baby, stresses and the very common impulse to harm or kill the child- an in depth statistical analysis isn’t perfect but would give us at least some numbers to attempt to quantify of these factors, wether a father or mother in GENERAL was the biological parent with the highest risk factors or success factors.
Of course the general doesn’t tell of the specific people involved. The question is, or should, really be who of the INDIVIDUALS involved seems best suited to entrust with what rights and responsibilities concerning the development and health of a child.
There are many mothers who simply don’t “bond” with a particular child strongly or at all, and many fathers who don’t either. That can get even more vague- is a loving parent who is poor going to provide a better home than a distant or absent parent who relies on child care while they work and makes lots and lots of money to care for the child? What is more harmful to a child- a parent recovering from addiction or a parent that doesn’t want them openly? Many questions.
It is sadly often impractical for a family court to really get got know each individual and their lives and personalities to even try to make such decisions. Most often it has to come down to what can be presented as a “snap shot” in court proceedings if an agreement can’t be made between parties.
Like social media- these “snap shots” can be deceiving- intentionally or otherwise. The life you see in the evidence before you can be very different than the actual life either parent lives or who they present may not be who they really are. It’s a flawed system and one that if it has gone to that system- things are either already messed up or likely about to be. That said- I can’t say I can support objectively any bias towards a mother when it comes to custody.
Whatever personal biases I may have do not apply universally. They are from my experiences in life and my perception of things. All I can say is that evidence needs to support the decision of who gets custody of a child or…
.. else the entire point of attempting to protect the child’s rights and future are moot.
Men and society have created systems and biases against women and that repress women. Nature dictates certain inequities between the sexes such as that a woman bears almost the entirety of risk and unpleasantness of gestation and birthing.
There are many places in society where we can use technology or leverage social constructs like law to try to mitigate natural inequities levied upon various people including women. Through social and legal change we can attempt to mitigate and eliminate those things that were created by humans which are unbalanced or unfair to women. When we are talking about a child and what is best for that child…. Tough shit. To speak plainly. The parents are adults and it isn’t their feelings or selves that need put at the forefront for protection in such cases.
Politics and gender and such- I argue they don’t belong in deciding the fate of a child, as much as it is humanly possible to remove or mitigate such factors. The primary concern needs to be the well being of the child. It totally would suck to push out a 10lb kid and go through all these complications and suffering and be told you have no parental rights or custody- but well… “I went through a lot” doesn’t directly translate to the child’s well being. At what point does it become some gruesome spectacle where each parent must complete escalating acts of body horror to prove they have suffered or are willing to suffer the most to keep the kid? And is the parent willing or able to take the most punishment naturally the best parent for the child at all…? Probably not. Who can fit the larger object into a body cavity or who can deal with diabetes aren’t really generally good tests if overall suitability as a parent.
That said- I will say this- the same gender inequity in society I spoke to earlier is one reason we do have to be careful in advocating a more “equitable” family court judgment system. Historically and statistically it has been tue that men often have things like higher earning potential etc. when things are “apples to apples” except for gender. Largely an effect of our social attitudes and sad history of how women have been treated and perceived. So it also isn’t as simple as examine the “hard facts” and letting those decide because we have to recognize that we still live in an age where statistics favor the father in certain areas like career and income.
Now in fairness, that’s changed a lot. We cannot assume that a man is the bolognese or sole earner in a house. We cannot assume a man has a “better job” or anything if that nature the same as we cannot assume a woman is better at “nurturing” or has some inherent special connection to the baby a man doesn’t. Women are increasingly gaining or eclipsing men at large in metrics like earning potential or formal higher education and achievement.
We do need to adapt or be open to adapting as trends and society change, but in general, there are still disadvantageous factors placed artificially in the oaths of many women to success or stability. Thusly we do need to be mindful in custody cases that this is considered because while the child’s welfare should come first, if a system would disproportionately award custody to men because of factors built into social bias or lingering effects of unfair practices- we do need to consider that.
All said and done- some things like an example of a parent who is able and willing to care for a child and one whom is literally a junkie- the junkie is probably not the best person to have parental rights until they get things together. Usually things are less obvious and much more “he said she said” than conclusive hard evidence. If we only look at the immediate welfare of that one child it may seem that regardless of external factors or reasons that the parent who has advantage should be given custody- but that ignores that the laws, attitudes, and precedents that child will live and hopefully grow up healthy and possibly someday decide to have a finally and then hopefully not find themselves in family court under.
Simply put the decision made today about how custody is decided will be the laws that child will love with and may have to deal with when they grow up.
So we can’t allow or create an overt bias that favors either gender without harming some child when they grow up and based on their gender may face unjust discrimination in a custody case. Ignoring how that impacts the parent- it impact the child and where a ge Fed bias exists we aren’t searching for the best parent but searching for reasons to conclude the favored gender is at such disadvantage to justify selecting a parent t other than the lfecgeres gender bias.
I also cannot argue that the mother usually is given the baby first and the mother is often the one with the legal right to name the child.
It’s also true that a father may elect to or by some circumstance not be present in the child’s birthing process and can essentially not be there to “accept”or be accountable for the baby- an option mothers generally don’t have. So mothers generally carry most of the risks and all the physical risks directly in pregnancy.
There are many mothers who simply don’t “bond” with a particular child strongly or at all, and many fathers who don’t either. That can get even more vague- is a loving parent who is poor going to provide a better home than a distant or absent parent who relies on child care while they work and makes lots and lots of money to care for the child? What is more harmful to a child- a parent recovering from addiction or a parent that doesn’t want them openly? Many questions.
Like social media- these “snap shots” can be deceiving- intentionally or otherwise. The life you see in the evidence before you can be very different than the actual life either parent lives or who they present may not be who they really are. It’s a flawed system and one that if it has gone to that system- things are either already messed up or likely about to be. That said- I can’t say I can support objectively any bias towards a mother when it comes to custody.
Whatever personal biases I may have do not apply universally. They are from my experiences in life and my perception of things. All I can say is that evidence needs to support the decision of who gets custody of a child or…
Men and society have created systems and biases against women and that repress women. Nature dictates certain inequities between the sexes such as that a woman bears almost the entirety of risk and unpleasantness of gestation and birthing.
There are many places in society where we can use technology or leverage social constructs like law to try to mitigate natural inequities levied upon various people including women. Through social and legal change we can attempt to mitigate and eliminate those things that were created by humans which are unbalanced or unfair to women. When we are talking about a child and what is best for that child…. Tough shit. To speak plainly. The parents are adults and it isn’t their feelings or selves that need put at the forefront for protection in such cases.
We do need to adapt or be open to adapting as trends and society change, but in general, there are still disadvantageous factors placed artificially in the oaths of many women to success or stability. Thusly we do need to be mindful in custody cases that this is considered because while the child’s welfare should come first, if a system would disproportionately award custody to men because of factors built into social bias or lingering effects of unfair practices- we do need to consider that.
Simply put the decision made today about how custody is decided will be the laws that child will love with and may have to deal with when they grow up.