Yes but if they do the mother at least knows about the child and can take action to find and recover it. A mother will know if her child is gone relatively quickly so she has a very good chance of getting it back. If she goes to a hospital and says I think my baby was dropped off here under the safe haven program in the last 2 days the hospital can easily find the baby. If a father goes to a hospital and says I think my baby was dropped off here under the safe haven program sometime in the last 5 years its doubtful they will find the child.
Yes but that requires that they know about the child to contest it.
All states should have this law in addition to a law requiring a reasonable effort to find the father of a child at birth.
All he has to do is say he wants it. He should also keep track of the women he sleeps with if such an eventuality is likely to keep him up nights.
I don’t think she should be able to sue him for support if it’s been more than, say, a year after the child was born. I’d be OK with relinquishing financial responsibility for a dude that isn’t informed he’s a father in a reasonable time.
Notice how you said "checkbook for the woman instead of the child. I find that very revealing.
When a guy has sex, he is accepting responsibility for any children who may be produced.
All they have to do is say something. Like I said, if he isn’t informed in a reasonable amount of time then I agree the woman shouldn’t be able to sue for back child support.
Yeah, right. :rolleyes:
I agree. If he isn’t told within a year or so of birth then I think he should be off the hook.
]
Me too. Can we also agree that when a man knows that he has gotten a woman pregnant that he has a moral and legal obligation to support his own child?
There was an oral agreement (contract) that the kid was going to go for adoption. One party has now backed out of that agreement, and wants the other party’s money.
Cite?
Or turn the child support industry on its ear. Hell, I’d even be happy if deadbeat moms (of which according to the Department of Health and Human Services there’s a higher percentage of than deadbeat dads) were tracked and hounded and jailed like the men.
Oh, yeah, back to the pitting for a minute. I first noticed you, hauss, because of your strong stance against abortion. Pro-choicers often accuse pro-lifers of being concerned with the child only when it is in the womb, and feeling and doing nothing for it once it is born.
This is the first time I’ve actually seen this hypocrisy in action. You didn’t want to kill your child, but to hell with it after birth.
I’ve got them. But I need to head to work, oh, about ten minutes ago, so it may take a few hours before I can find any to post. Google “putative father’s registry” or “safe haven father” if you don’t want to wait.
I bet I’ll even come up with a site on deadbeat moms who were punished.
Well, the Pennsylvania Save Haven site says that the mother can drop the kid off at a hospital.
What I want to see is, if we are going to put up pictures of deadbeat dads and ‘shame them publicly’ do the same for deadbeat moms. Prosecute 'em. Put 'em in jail. And since 46.9% of them totally default on child support, as opposed to the 26% of men who default totally.
It’d also be nice if they were ordered to pay support in equal numbers, but those stats are even worse. The scale is tipped to one side, and that’s not fair.
Hypothetical. A man lives in Chicago and has sex with two women. One moves to L.A. the other moves to N.Y.C. Is he supposed to fly there, track her down, and physically inspect her to make sure she isn’t pregnant? If he doesn’t do this does he forfeit his right to that child
Agreed
Agreed but he also gets the rights and privlidges associated with raising that child.
Exactly my point. You view men as the initiater in sex and that all men want it. This is not always the case.
Yes we agree. Why can’t we agree that he should have a right to know that he has a child? Why can’t we agree that the child has a right to have its father in its life?
I agree that a woman should make an effort to inform a guy that he’s a father but there are circumstances in which that may not be possible or practical. What if the GUY has sex with a woman and then disappears to another state? What if he’s abusive and she’s afraid to contact him? What if he’s a child molestor?
If she puts him up for adoption, the father will be sought out and have the opportunity to contest it or claim custody.
Then why don’t we force her by law to provide information to the hospital. She doesn’t have to pay a dime just give us a name. If she doesn’t have a name then give us all the information she knows about him. We as in the government will attempt to track down the father and inform him. If after a reasonable effort we can’t find him we shrug our shoulders and give her custody. If the father turns up later allow him into the childs life and start making him pay child support.
Try and track him down. Contact his former employer and see if they know anything. Check IRS records whatever. If they can’t find him see above.
If you can prove he is abusive and a threat then throw his ass in jail. If you can’t prove it then inform him of his child.
If you can prove it throw his ass in jail. If not he gets informed and we got about determining custody in the best interest of the child.
We should do that too but we should also inform him at birth.
On preview:
I assure you men can get it up and perform while rip roaring drunk. Maybe not all men can nor is it as well as sober but most can.
I know that I have touched on this before, but as this is a long thread I will reiterate on the chance that you missed it. In essence, the deal is that the Pro-life folks that are morally opposed to abortion are using terminology to be emotionally manipulative and attempt to frame the debate in their own terms. You can say “it was a child and you killed it” over and over as if it were some immutable fact as much as you want, but that will never ever make it a fact.
The jury is still out as to when that clump of cells becomes human, as opposed to a potential human. To state that it is a child as if this were some given fact is nothing short of propaganda and intellectual dishonesty.
I am not going to rehash my entire argument but referring to a fetus as a child or baby is common and perfectly legitimate. If you want to avoid the connotations that come with these words and use fetus and do the same with abortion its no skin off my back. But to unequivocally state that a fetus is not a child is incorrect.
I’m not really sure how I feel about the issue, or at least I’m not pasionate enough about it to jump in at this point. I did want to say something about this quote from page one, though. Terminating parental rights is not the same effect as an abortion. I know that might not really have been what you meant Q.E.D., but I thought I’d point it out. The two are only similar in that a person does not need to be a parent after the fact. The other effects of both are significant and very different.
I am not unequivocally stating that a fetus is not a child. I am saying that the jury is still out on the issue of when a fetus becomes a human and that the folks that are against abortion, by unequivocally stating that a fetus is a child, are being dishonest, emotionally manipulative and anti-intellectual.
You can argue common usage all that you want (as in asking a visibly pregnant woman when her baby is due) and you can cite dictionary.com all that you want, but in the end this is just sophistry. The bitter truth is that you are trying to frame the debate in terms that are favorable to your camp, and trying to distract everyone from the empirical truth. Shame on you.
You did not state a fetus is not a child but Diogenes did. Thats how this discussion began I took issue with that. If people want to refer to aborting a fetus thats fine. It is also fine if I refer to it as killing your child becuase using any common definition of child and kill I am correct.
