that has nothing to do with the thread. Women have control as to whether they will bear the child and can give it up for adoption. The op is discussing the same right for men.
Men should have the right to ‘abort’ responsibility for an unborn child, Swedish political group say
If I remember correctly, one time when this was brought up, at least one poster was adamant that that was unfair and that he would not in any way approve that. Why? Because coming up with that before sex would mean he would have less chances of getting laid (as some women would probably say “forget this”).
That kind of arrangement happens informally, but child support is still owed. The custodial parent can choose not to pursue it…so long as they never need anything like food stamps. The state doesn’t want to pay for kids if there’s another parent’s money out there, so it will file for child support over the custodial parent’s objections.
that’s not true. Men can get vasectomies BEFORE they have sex. Ergo, no problems. Bank some sperm for future children, go get the simple procedure done, and then you will never end up in this situation. Never understood why so few men do this, especially considering how often condoms fail.
A woman certainly cannot put a child up for adoption over the fathers objection. A woman who does not intend to care for her children is on the hook for child support, just like men are.
First of all a woman generally cannot give up the baby for adoption without the father’s approval. Also it has everything to do with the thread laws are instituted in order to improve society. How is society benefited by your decision to dramatically increase the likelihood that your child will be a poor depressed criminal?
If that were completely true then women giving up the child for adoption would be on the hook.
Clearly women are in the driver’s seat because many children are put up for adoption. What the op is discussing is the right for men to legally terminate their parental rights. In effect, putting their responsibility of the child up for adoption.
“Women” do not give their children up for adoption. Parents do. If one parent wants to give a kid for adoption and the other doesn’t, the adoption does not happen. Both parent need to sever parental rights in order for it to work. When only one parent severs parental rights, the other parent gets custody and the child is entitled to support.
Now there are cases where the other parent is not know and cannot be located, but there isn’t an easy way around that, and most men who don’t keep track of if their partners are having babies aren’t fighting to be single dads.
Can a woman have an abortion against the father’s will?
If it ever comes to pass that a man can get pregnant after a genetic contribution from a woman, I support his right to unilaterally abort.
they are now doing uterus transplants. A First: Uterus Transplant Gives Parents A Healthy Baby : The Two-Way : NPR
oddly the men don’t seem to want them.
FWIW sperm donors have been ordered to pay child support:
This would suggest an agreement signed by a couple before sex may not hold up in court.
There are various asian countries where getting a father to pay child support is basically impossible even thought there are some laws about it. These countries have lower crime rates than the US, faster economic growth and better societal cohesion, eg family and religion are both more important than the US. So it is not true that lack of child support is always bad for society.
In reality, it likely wouldn’t because child support is owed to the child, not the custodial parent. As it should be. Someone is going to end up paying for the kid, and the parents are almost always a better candidate than the taxpayer.
But in fantasy world where we are allowing people to walk away from their kids without consequence, I’m okay with that being worked out before the kid-making event happens.
Once you’ve already gotten what you want, I don’t think you get to say “Oh, by the way just letting you know you are on your own after this.” What’s so hard about getting it out there to begin with?
This. Neither men nor women can completely relinquish all responsibility for a child without the other parent’s consent.
But a fertilized egg or embryo or early-term fetus is not legally or biologically considered equivalent to a child. The only person who gets to choose whether to terminate a pregnancy before fetal viability is the person who’s pregnant. (And, as BrightSunshine points out, that’s the only person who is held responsible for the costs of prenatal care and delivery.)
Once a child is born, both parents are equally on the hook for supporting it or consenting to relinquish it to adoptive parents.
That position overlooks the third person involved, whose choices may ultimately be irreconcilable with those of the parents. Unless we’re willing to give kids the right to sue for back support later and let a court decide whose rights should prevail in a particular case, we’re not being pro-choice, we’re just sloughing the hardship off onto the party least able to fight back.
The Kansas case is not really relevant here. State law provided a specific procedure for sperm donation without parental rights, and the parties simply did not follow it. Society does make exceptions to the general rule of parental support in certain cases of assisted reproduction, but those exceptions involve clinical settings and have no applicability to a couple having sex.
Seems a case where the letter of the law was followed but not the spirit. Perhaps that is how things have to be but it seems abundantly clear the sperm donor in that case was exactly that and should not be on the hook for child support payments.
You’ve got the sequence of events mixed up. Parental responsibilities don’t come into effect until a child actually exists.
A man has no say in whether a woman’s pregnancy will produce a child, because it’s not his body. Likewise, a man has no responsibility to support a pregnant woman, financially or otherwise.
Once a pregnancy has produced a child, both parents are equally on the hook for supporting it (or agreeing to let somebody else support it and parent it).
Yes, but apparently all parties involved didn’t take proper care to establish that legally. On the other hand, it appears that that would have been a much more expensive route to take.
Ethically speaking, it seems clear to me that the people who should be responsible for the child are the couple who wanted to have it. It appears that the couple later separated and there’s no legal presumption of parenthood for the non-biological mother, who AFAICT was not married to the biological mother. It should be on both those women to support the kid they chose to have.
Yes, failing to support one’s children is clearly a sign that one considers family important.
A pregnant man has all the same rights as a pregnant woman.