The point of my statement was that a woman could leave the father’s name off the child’s birth certificate, and then anonymously surrender the child to the state, and there’s not very much the biological father could do about it.
If the father actually has custody, then yes, he can pursue child support just as a mother could.
Because she can’t force him to have a vasectomy.
Sisu said it well, there are responsibilities and risks for both partners.
As long as you engage in behaviour where you know there is a risk (no matter how small), you have responsibility.
It seems that what we have now is the worst system, except for all the others.
Having a contract as detailed above, would be a better system.
Because the parents’ rights are superseded by the baby’s. What part of that are people having trouble with? Once a baby is born, it has nothing to do with what’s “fair” for the parents. Only what’s best for the baby. The parents can - to use the vernacular - go fuck 'emselves. It’s not about them or their “rights”.
He can’t force her to have a tubal litigation either, so it seems the law is quite fair in regard to those procedures.
Well, some of us think that’s crappy law that only contributes to the ridiculous climate of baby worship in this country. It should be changed. If they are going to require people to support children, they must allow people to consent to those children being born.
Well, the majority of Americans (I’m basing my arguments on US law, because I think that’s where the OP is based) think that’s a crappy attitude and have made laws that seem fairest to society as a whole - including the children who are the next generation of voters in that society. If the majority of citizens agreed with you and Borzo the law would change.
That’s democracy for you.
And your previous point, just makes my point even better - neither side can force the other into surgery, therefore if you engage in sex, both side are responsible for the potential outcome.
Agreed.
And it’s worth mentioning for the 57th time: Parent’s can completely surrender their obligations towards a child by giving them up for adoption. The best interests of the child is to have parents that want them.
Before a child is born, both parents should be allowed to consent to having responsibility/obligations towards it. I honestly can’t think of any logical or rational reason why a biological parent should not be allowed to decline this responsibility before birth.
There are NOT many couples willing to adopt anything other than healthy white newborns. Haven’t you ever heard of the foster care system? Do you know *anything *about any of this stuff? You talk like someone who was dropped on the planet a month ago, and just learned where babies come from.
This is an utter and complete lie. My boyfriend knows the exact risk of a child being born as a result of sex. For us, it’s zero. He knows this because we talk about it and he asks. He is responsible, and it’s served him well. If men refuse to make responsible decisions about who and how they fuck, well, they live with the consequences of that. Just like women do when they fuck a guy they don’t know and have issues later, ranging from STDs to pregnancy.
And again, only if both parents agree to surrendering the child for adoption.
Men can’t get pregnant and therefore have no rights to abortion. If a man was pregnant, he would have the right to choose a termination.
No-one has the right to insist on another’s surgery, whether to prevent or terminate a pregnancy.
You do have the right to decline parenthood, by declining the activity that leads to birth. That’s when your choice happens. No-one can legally force you into sex.
Just because men don’t physically take the birth control doesn’t meant that men don’t have the option to benefit from reliable birth control. Choose a partner that uses reliable birth control and you reap all of the same benefits.
Look, when it comes to preventing STDs, a condom is all women have. Female condoms are not widely available. We basically have to use condoms if we don’t want to get AIDS. Now, men have the most control over a condom. It’s not really that difficult to “accidentally” slip a condom off during sex without the woman noticing. Unless you a woman is extremely vigilant, there isn’t much she can do about that.
So do we throw our hands up and say “Well, gosh gee there is just no way for women to prevent themselves from getting HIV?” No, we want to live. So smart women always use condoms, try to have some inkling of their partner’s sexual history, and try to have sex with people they trust not to pull bullshit moves like slipping off the condom during sex. It’s not 100% sure, but with some care it can be pretty close to 100% sure.
Likewise, you are never going to get to 100% sure that you won’t have an unwanted baby, but you can, in all practical terms, get to pretty much that level.
Correct, it was not that long ago that women had no right to divorce without cause, but men did.
Also they had no right to the child and even in the case of death could not inherit property.
Even buying birth control was illegal, for unmarried couples it was illegal in parts of the US until 1972.
All of this is moving forward quite quickly if you think about it in context.
This is interesting. I - for the record - do not currently live in the USA. I can see how there might be less demand for black or latino newborns - though I have no info at the moment on what those numbers might be. For now, I will concede this point.
However, I still think it is more ethical to have foster-parents taking care of the child, then forcing someone to support a child that they never chose to have.
People should deal with the consequences of their actions… sure. In a general sense, that’s a reasonable policy.
What I find unreasonable, illogical, and irrational, is that the consequences of having sex with a woman can be 18 years of child support payments. This is a responsibility unique to the man, in the he has no way to surrender/abandon this responsibility after having sex. (The woman retains the right to surrender this responsibility after sex, and even after birth. There are some legal exceptions to this that others have pointed out above, but they are impractical and unenforceable.)
It would be more reasonable, logical, and rational, for the man to also have the right to surrender his obligations to this potential child before the child is born. I cannot find any reasons why this shouldn’t be available to men.
A woman can never be forced to have an unwanted baby. It’s impossible. (At least in civilized countries.)
A man, on the other hand, can most definitely have a baby that he never wanted.
I believe this is a problem. And this problem could be remedied if parents were allowed to surrender their parental obligations before birth.
They could call it the right to a pre-birth dead beat dad decision.
Or you could call it the right of a parent to consent to having a child that is to become their responsibility for the next 18 years.
As rat avatar said just above, women’s rights have progressed quite a bit. They’ve progressed to the point where they can no longer be forced to have a child against their will. This is a great step forward. Just because a woman had sex, doesn’t mean she is now socially, morally, or legally obligated to be responsible for the child that results from it.
Men, however, have been left behind. They do not enjoy this same right.
ETA: My argument isn’t specific to men or women. I believe both parents should have the right to surrender their obligations towards a child that has yet to be born.
Borzo, there’s already a shortage of good foster parents, in the U.S. and elsewhere. We can debate over whether or not your solution here is ethical, but it is certainly not practical.
Historically, you know, no good has come from forcibly separating children and the parents who wanted them. I mean, really, the idea of a mother or father torn away from their baby is so much more horrific than 18 years of payments. And children in long-term foster care or institutional settings do not do well.
Not reasonable, logical, or rational because such a surrender leads to too many kids with only half a support system. And, as I said above, society is not set up to raise these children en masse.
Just a thought about any pre-conception contract: it’s easy to imagine that one would or would not get an abortion–until you’re actually pregnant for real. Then what you thought you would do might just go out the window. Likewise, it’s easy to imagine that you would relinquish a child for adoption, until you actually have a baby.
It’s not. The consequence of having poorly protected sex with a woman who intends to carry a baby to term is the option to take full custody of the child and receive child support for 18 years, share custody of the child and neither pay nor receive child support, not take any responsibility for the day to day care of a child and pay child support, or mutually agree to put the child up for adoption.
It’s a fully preventable problem, and it has any number of solutions, most of which are not paying child support for 18 years.
Sure she can. Sometimes women don’t discover they are pregnant until they give birth. Sometimes women fall into a comas and end up carrying a pregnancy through it.
It’s rare, but so are the situations you are proposing.
In any case, a vasectomy has a 0.4% failure rate. A vasectomy+condom virtually eliminates your risk of having an unwanted baby. Whether or not you get a girl knocked up is 100% in your control. Just because you don’t like the birth control options available to you doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
I don’t like paying $30.00 a month for a pill that gives me mood swings, made me gain 10 lbs and makes me spot between my periods. But I don’t want to get pregnant so I deal with it.