Urgent help required 62

Sorry for taking so long to reply. We were away last weekend, so I haven't really had a chance to sit down to this properly until now.

them this a man

Ah. We're using the word 'responsible' in different senses here.

I'm using it, in this context, to describe someone weighing up the situation realistically and going with the solution that actually is best for all concerned. You're using it, I believe, to describe someone who is both capable in a general sense of taking good care of a child, and comparatively more capable of doing so than the mother in question. So, if this man can't do so, you would define him as irresponsible. Have I understood that correctly?

Which statements? The statements I've made are that there are potential biases in the research, and that these things are best decided on an individual basis anyway rather than collectively on the basis of statistics. These aren't statements that can be backed by research, since they cover more general issues of how to interpret and how, or whether, to apply research.

In that case, please give the grounds on which you disagree with my statements above.

a that

OK. You were using it in a slightly different sense in your original sentence, so either you've shifted your meaning or didn't phrase things as clearly as you meant to in the first place. My objection to the way in which you used the word originally was that it conveyed a sense of considering a child as an object, which is rather a dangerous way to think. This may not be the way you meant the word, in which case we're now down to a quibble over semantics which is best abandoned.

custody and

Oh, I get it! You're using the 'No True Scotsman' argumentative fallacy. This fallacy is a well-known form of circular logic that consists of making categorical statements about an entire group, then dismissing examples to the contrary by claiming that these examples aren't really part of the group. Thus, in the case of the example that gives the fallacy its name:

"No Scotsman would ever put sugar on his porridge."

"But Angus is a Scotsman, and he puts sugar on his porridge."

"Angus isn't a true Scotsman. No true Scotsman would ever put sugar on his porridge."

In this case, instead of defining "man" and "woman" in the biological sense, the way the rest of us are defining them, you're redefining them as being people who not only fall into the correct biological category but also fit your stereotypes of how men and women should act. So, if a man doesn't fit your ideas about how a man should act, you claim that he isn't really a man. This then enables you to retain your fallacious ideas about how men and women actually do act. After all, if you define a man as being someone who is not only an adult male but also (for example) responsible, then it becomes a tautology to say that men are responsible creatures. However, it brings you into disagreement with people to whom you haven't adequately explained your redefinition, who are thusly operating under the not unreasonable buttumption that you're using words such as 'man' in the more generally used sense rather than according to your own redefinition.

with

That's ignoring the fact that taking a child away from its mother is not a neutral act, but has some very marked disadvantages. In no particular order:

Firstly, it breaks the continuity of the child's upbringing, which can upset the child and cause insecurity. This is far less of a problem if it happens in the first few days of life than if it happens several months later, but not problem-free, even if it could always be guaranteed that custody transfer would happen that early, which would of course not always be the case.

Secondly, it's hardly conducive to increasing rates of breastfeeding. What if this woman not only shapes up and becomes a decent mother, but decides that she wants to breastfeed? If the child is placed with its father, then it's denied the chance of getting breastmilk with all its buttociated advantages (unless the woman chooses to pump and send her milk on, and how often is that going to happen?).

Thirdly, it's devastating to the woman concerned. (Incidentally, one result of applying this widely as a philosophy for deciding custody would be that the end rate would skyrocket, which may or may not be something you see as a bad thing.)

Fourthly - if you're going to decide child custody predominantly on the basis of statistical probability rather than starting with the presumption that children are better off with their mothers until proven otherwise, why stop there? Suppose this man was competent to take the child and really wanted to do so. According to the research you cited, two-parent families are better for a child than one-parent families. If the goal is to find the best person in the abstract, by making reference to study results rather than to the child in front of you, why not take him away from both parents and give him to a two-parent adoptive family? Where does it end? What if someone comes up with a study showing that people in some category that you happen to fall into don't make as good parents as people in some category that you don't fall into? Is it all right for someone to take your children and buttign custody of them to someone who, on paper and according to study results, would make a Better Parent? What kind of effect would that have on parents and children?

All the best,

Sarah