I didn’t feel this way when I started this thread, but now: I believe it should. If the custodial parent doesn’t have the resources to support the baby, then by definition that parent is unfit. The baby should then be placed up for adoption.
Just to be clear: I would only apply this to newborns, and not to situations where a couple divorce with 3 kids that are 5, 7, 10 years old, for example.
But if a woman makes an independent choice & decision to bring a baby into the world - against the will of the biological father - and it turns out that she doesn’t have the resources to support that baby, then that baby should be put up for adoption.
I’d rather the baby be cared for by 2 caring parents with sufficient resources, than 1 parent with insufficient resources, and a 2nd parent who is now coerced into providing financial support for a child that they never consented to.
This makes sense for older children (non-newborns), I agree.
This is why I suggest adoption as the best solution. It would be the most economical, and would have the least economic strain on the state/society.
It seems to me, if you don’t want to sleep with people who don’t agree with you on unexpected pregnancy issues, then you’re smart. And if you have sex with people who you know don’t agree with you on how to handle unexpected pregnancies, then you’re an idiot. And if you have sex with people and you don’t know if they agree with you or not, then you take your chances.
So, you’re the guy who wants to tear babies out of their mother’s arms? Just so you don’t have to pay child support if you accidentally put your penis in a psycho bitch and she gets pregnant? How old does can this baby be before you want to rip it away from its mother?
It’s not our job to take away babies and find new parents for them just because one parent is a deadbeat. That should only happen when both parents are deadbeats.
Son, there’s no way you can accidentally get a psycho bitch pregnant if you don’t put your penis in her vagina. So if you’re that worried, stop putting your penis in the vaginas of random women.
Since this contract would involve both the man and the woman, I’m not sure what the problem is? The man gets to decide if he wants to be a father, and the woman gets to decide if she wants to be a mother.
To be fair to fathers, I’d allow for the opportunity that: The father wants the child, but the mother does not - but let’s say that for religious or health reasons (or simply for the benefit of the father), she does not terminate the pregnancy and wishes to give birth. The father would then get the baby, and the mother would have no legal obligations towards the child.
We should allow parent’s to sign away the child’s rights to support, yes. This should only be done before the child is born, however.
What about the child’s best interests, or the financial cost to society, you ask? Well, if the single-parent does not have the resources to support their child, then that child should be put up for adoption. This way, the taxpayer doesn’t have to foot the bill.
I agree that Lemur’s post is accurate, but I disagree that this is a simple issue. When a baby is actually involved, (post birth) the issue should be moot. The welfare of the child trumps the inclinations of the adults. However, the ethical issues are not so clear when we are not discussing an infant but a pregnancy in potential.
Biology is not equal here, so we have the issue of reproductive rights. Women will gestate the infant and thus it is sensible for them to have control over their choice to carry or abort any given pregnancy. However, it is inherently unfair to then assert that the male must go along with her decision. If she holds all the power, then she should bear the totality of responsibility for her decision. Both partners have equally valid views on the desire for children, family planning, etc…and both of their views should carry equal weight. The biological complication is poorly handled by the law here. A male should be able to state legally that he is against the continuation of the pregnancy, is not ready for children and that she is wielding her absolute choice against his express wishes. He also should be able to then secure a very limited support role or be allowed to “opt out”* provided the mother consents*. At this point, there is no child to support, and the mother can wield her choice freely.
Critics of this argument will present several rebuttals but I don’t believe that any of them hold water ethically if we wish to equally respect both individuals rights.
A child is better off with two support roles- True, but there is no child at this point. There is a fetus which may be aborted, or carried to term and placed for adoption. The desire to keep the child against the wishes of the father is solely the mother’s and that is biologically necessary pre birth, but ethically suspect after.
When you have sex, you assume the risk and responsibility for any children. This is just absurd. Humans have sex for recreation, social bonding, and other reasons, as well as to procreate. This is nothing but leftover puritanical baloney and should be scorned in a society that treats people as equal individuals.
Men can just wrap it up if they don’t like it.- See above. Women have birth control options available to them that do not directly affect their experience and enjoyment of the sexual act. It is unfair to men to call them whiners simply because they want to fully participate as well. The other option is usually sterilization. Until we come up with a cheap, reversible, widely available option for male sterilization, one comparable in price to hormonal female birth control, this argument is at best flawed. There are researchers working in this area, but progress is slow due to societal pressures.
Biology is unequal, but there is no reason that the law need be when there is not yet an infant to consider. Women are capable of making a life altering decision about their bodies and lives, and men should have the same rights. A child is a serious decision.
Or, we could just make the father pay the bill, and then the taxpayers don’t have to pay anything either.
A parent can’t sign away their child’s right to child support, because people are idiots and change their mind and different situations come up. You aren’t allowed to make those decisions for your child just because the child isn’t born yet. Or rather, you can make those decisions, but the rest of us aren’t bound to abide by those decisions.
Perhaps you’ve forgotten about the last few decades of feminism, and the advancement of women’s rights. To refresh your memory: “Her body, her choice”.
Tearing babies out of mother’s arms? Oh please… these mother’s were not *forced *to give birth - it’s not 1753 anymore, it’s 2012! They had the option to use birth control, they had the option to refrain from sex. They also had the option for the morning-after pill, and the option to have an abortion, and yes - they also have the option for adoption or anonymous surrender.
If a mother knows that she will be unfit to take care of the child, then she shouldn’t have the child in the first place. It’s irresponsible to inflict such a circumstance onto the child, but if she chooses to do so anyways, then the state should put the child up for adoption, yes.
Paying for a child (not an easy thing unless you’ve inherited millions) you never wanted for 18 years, having your life plans disrupted and in some cases permanently derailed if not destroyed, having your family endangered or possibly destroyed, is a considerably worse consequence of consensual sex than any abortion. Too many women want to put their babies above of the rest of a man’s family and it doesn’t work that way. Successfull families always weigh what is best for the group not the individual.
Outside of a serious relationship, it’s just not practical or reasonable to have this kind of contract pre-sex.
You can’t possibly be suggesting that at 2am, as 2 people are leaving a bar, that they go in and stop to see a lawyer, before going back to her place, and finally getting busy?
I see no drawbacks to delaying such a contract until after sex or conception occurs. Can you come up with any?
Men have the exact same right to abort or not abort any babies growing in their bodies.
Sorry, but babies grow in their mommy’s tummys, and all the laws in the world won’t change that fact.
And it is certainly true that if a man doesn’t want to support a child, there is absolutely no requirement for the woman to pursue him for child support. So yes, if both parents agree, then the man can ride off into the sunset without a backward glance.
As I said earlier, court ordered child support only occurs when there is a disagreement about how to handle custody of the child. I can knock up a psycho bitch tomorrow, and if she agrees to care for the child by herself, then I’m off the hook.
Except, she can’t commit today to never seek child support tomorrow. Child support belongs to the child, not to her. So she can not seek child support today, and the next day and the next day, and no one cares. But, if that mother needs social services we taxpayers shouldn’t give a rat’s ass what agreement the two parents made. And if the child needs child support, the fact that the non-custodial parent declined to pursue child support in the past doesn’t mean that we are going to respect that decision.
Child support belongs to the child. You don’t like it, don’t have children. You don’t like the fact that men don’t get to have abortions, then don’t have sex with women.
The notion that tying biology to parenthood is simply a puritanical vestige is nonsensical. You wanna know where babies come from? Fucking, that’s where babies come from. Yes, people fuck all the time without the intention of creating a baby. Well, so what? Fucking still makes babies. Say it with me. Fucking makes babies. This is a biological fact that all the laws in the world won’t change. Our laws deal with real life biological human beings that sweat and bleed and poop and fuck and squirt out babies.
We shouldn’t have a law where men can demand that doctors hold down a woman and suck out her unborn baby. We shouldn’t have a law where men can demand that doctors lock a woman up until after the baby is born. We shouldn’t have a law where one parent can absolve the other parent of the responsibility to care for a child and expect the taxpayers to pick up the slack.
And so, we have the sorts of laws we have now. Anything less would be tremendously unjust.
If you don’t like the fact that babies grow in a mother’s tummy, then you don’t have to stick your penis in there, and you won’t be responsible for creating a baby.
If you don’t know someone well enough to know what she would do in the case of an unplanned pregnancy, then you take your chances if you put your penis in her.
I see no drawbacks to discouraging people from drunken 2am hookups (which are just as likely to result in pregnancy as any other). Can you come up with any? :rolleyes:
Because you are aware of the risk of pregnancy before sex occurs, just like I am aware of the risk of a traffic accident before driving my car.
The contract must occur before the risk occurs. Nowhere else can a legal contract be applied retroactively, why should it be different for sex?
Being too drunk to drive does not absolve anyone of the legal consequences of driving - fucking drunk doesn’t absolve you of those consequenses either.
Only the woman is aware of the level of risk of pregnancy involved. The man is not aware of this level of risk. As a result of this, only the woman can make a choice based on informed consent of these risks. The man can never participate in informed consent, because the man can never truly know the level of risk involved.
The contract is not about conception, but about birth. The birth has not yet happened, and so it is not being applied retroactively. Also, at this stage, the fetus is not yet a person and has no rights.
Wrong. You are very well aware of the possibility of pregnancy. You have the choice of using several forms of protection ranging from blind luck to a full vasectomy. You are very well aware that it’s (currently, in your area) a woman’s right to chose what medical procedures she undergoes, abortion is not the issue. Strawman.
You are aware of the potential consequences before you have sex. You know that the only sure fire, 100%, snowball’s chance in hell way of avoiding pregnancy is to avoid sexual contact with women.
I’m not aware of the driving records of every other driver on the road. I still bear responsibility for how I interact with them.
Parents should be able to surrender their obligations for child support before the birth of the child. If only one parents wishes to do so, then that should also be allowed. Currently, both parents can surrender their obligations - and so I fail to see any justification for not allowing a single parent to do so as well.
Or you know… we could change the laws.
The fact that something is currently a law cannot be used as an argument for why it is morally or ethically right and should be law. That’s a little bit circular.
The taxpayer wouldn’t have to pick up the slack. There are many couples willing to adopt, as I’ve mentioned already.
A man is never aware of the level of risk of having a child as a result from sex. Only the woman is capable of knowing that level of risk. Why? Because it’s the woman’s body, not the mans. A certain level of risk always exists, yes, but only the woman can ever know what that is.
Um the father assuming he takes custody can pursue the woman for child support. There is no difference here except that women earn less and that is another whole pandora’s box!
What a load of BS, I could easily lie and say I have had the snip. There are risks in having sex, accept it and shag away.