All of this is shoulda woulda coulda. What would prompt her to “find out” if she’s pregnant if she’s unaware of anything unusual in her body? Plenty of women have irregular periods due to PCOS or other conditions, and plenty of women are obese and don’t even appear pregnant until late. You can use the word “should” all you want (and I laugh at such earnestness), but the reality is you can’t legally hold someone responsible for diagnosing themselves with a medical condition, whether that be pregnancy or hypertension.
Having the default be that no man is held responsible for his offspring unless a paper is signed is a ridculous pipe dream that hasn’t a chance in hell of obtaining legislative approval in a civilized society. So if this is the best idea that you and others can come up with to get the justice you’re seeking, good luck and keep dreaming.
Life is unfair, so admitting this is just redundant. After all, it’s not fair that anyone of us were born without a say so in the process. It’s not fair that we will all die, whether we want to or not.
Let’s cry and poke out our bottom lips, why don’t we?
My wife would leave me if I served her with papers saying that I will not be fincanially responsible for our child after we mutally agree to get pregnant. And she would be right.
It couldn’t be secret. These things require service of process and courts will not let the man appear alone when he does this. the family court will want everyone there and make sure taht everyone understands what is going on.
I’m a man and I would never think of laying out my exit strategy in the event I ever wanted to abandon my wife and children. The man that I am today would want to shoot myself in the head (so at least my family would get my life insurance) before I became that man.
Marriage is a form of pre-sex agreement.
Outside of marraige, why should any woman assume that "“If I knock you up, you’re probably on your own, Babe,” isn’t the default?
And those cases that you are talking about that makes the plan so unworkable seem rare enough that the burden on the government would not be that great if the man decided he didn’t want the child within a reasonable period after he found out.
What makes you think these cases would remain rare if we allowed men to opt out? A woman who found out she was pregnant would have to be a fool if she notified the father of her pregnancy. It would always be in her best interest to simply wait until it was too late to get an abortion before letting him know.
What really grinds on me, in these discussions, is the assumption that the courts are cruelly unfair to men, awarding custody predominantly to the women. Grrr…
There is a very simple and obvious reason why the courts continue to predominantly favour the mothers for custody. Because before the marriage failed the husbands did too. Before the excrement hit the air cooling device, he was all okey dokey with her being the primary caregiver, perhaps even giving up working outside the home. In fact, he trusted her to feed, mind, and rear, said child, for anywhere from a few months to several years. Now that the marriage is over, she’s not a good choice anymore. Really? Unless she’s taken to crack whoring, she’s the one these children see as their primary caregiver. To take that away from a 2yr old, 4 yr old, 6 yr old, etc, while the family is splintering would be the very height of cruelty. Are you seriously advocating that your children would be better served by having their care taken over by strangers, while you’re at work?
A ten year old could reason their way through that much, crikey.
Yes, parents get screwed all the time, and sometimes it’s upside down to how it ought to be, but that’s the exception not the rule. Stop pretending it’s otherwise.
Because the guy would still get to opt out and she would be stuck with whatever the government will give her. Thats no different than what we have now if the woman doesn’t identify the father.
The topic of the thread is the dynamic before birth. Pregnant women who don’t want kids can get abortions, men can’t, thats kind of the central theme of the discussion.
The government would never sign up for this idea; that’s why this plan amounts to fantasy dreaming. That’s what yall don’t get. Your solution is against the interest of women, children, and Uncle Sam. The only group who would benefit are deadbeat dads. Why would any politician vote for this? They’d have to be insane.
Since I’m on the side of status quo, I really don’t have to make a convincing argument. The onus is on those who are complaining. And I’m sorry, but saying “It’s unfair!” isn’t going to change any hearts and minds. It’s just going to get you labeled a whiner.