The 'Miscarriages = Murder' topic got me thinking about something else peripherally related, but I didn't want to hijack that topic.

When a woman or girl falls pregnant, she has the option to terminate, adopt out, or keep the baby. If the last option is chosen, then the guy who fathered the baby is 'on the hook' for that baby (ie. to support it), whether he wanted it or not. This leads to all kinds of problems (from guilt tripping the pregnant party into aborting, or in extreme cases, beating the girlfriend to force a miscarriage).

Furthermore, if the couple split up before the baby is born, and the woman never tells the man about said child, at any later date, she CAN inform the father of the child, and PUT him 'on the hook' for supporting that baby, even if he did not know it existed for years.

I understand that the woman has the right to terminate any pregnancy - it is her body that is acting as the host, and to force her go through the rigors of pregnancy against her will is sadistic. Which, by the way, is why I am also Pro-Choice. This implicitly also denies the father the right to choose to KEEP said baby, because until it's born, the father has absolutely zero rights over the fetus.

However, if the FATHER wishes to terminate the child, and the mother elects to keep it, should the father be forced to pay for it for the next 21 years. In other words, should a mechanism be created in US law that allows for a man to, either before the child is born, or within, say, 3 months of learning of the child's existence, be able to elect to NOT be, in any sense, a father to the child.

When a child is adopted, the biological parents have neither any say in the child's upbringing or "benefits" of the child, but also have no responsibilities TO the child. This situation would be something akin to the father deciding to 'adopt out' the child solely to the mother, relinquishing all rights (including contact) for the child, but also absolving themselves of all responsibility (including child support).

Now the usual argument when this comes up is 'Well, he should have worn a condom' or 'he should have thought of that before!' But funnily enough, I don't see that charge leveled (except by the fringe crowd) at mothers who fall pregnant but do not want a child. Besides, birth control CAN (and does) fail. It doesn't fail often, but it CAN fail. And if the mother is a militant pro-lifer, then barring mishap that child will be born, and the father will be responsible for it whether he wants to be or not.

This is obviously a contentious issue, but I always thought it unfair (though understandable) that a father has absolutely NO choice as to whether a baby is born or not (while a mother can "back out" through an abortion, even over the father's objections), but if it IS born, they are responsible for it even if they don't want it unless the mother chooses to adopt the child out. I included a time limit (ie. up until birth or within 3 months of discovering the child's existence) so that this mechanism could not be used to escape child support after a divorce when the child is already, say, 5 years old or something.

Obviously, ideally every child would be born to loving parents who love both each other and their child. But the world is not made up of Partridge families - and the issues are more complicated when you factor in teen pregnancies and such.

While both prospective parents have an interest in the matter of childbirth, it's the female party who has the more compelling interest, obviously, and hence the matter, given that it's her body after all, should be completely up to her. Now following childbirth, if that's the road that's opted for by the girl or woman, then I think the matter of whether or not the child should be kept (or perhaps, like you said, put up for adoption) becomes indeed a 'collective decision', meaning that both parents should be involved and have an equal say, given that both parties have an equal interest at that stage. But no, I don't think you should just unilaterally be able "opt out" of like you said paying child support and such or that either parent should unilaterally be able to decide to put the child up for adoption. The disinterested party can leave the relationship if agreement cannot be reached, but paying child support if you do shouldn't be optional because the decision of the other party needs to be respected and the child has real needs.

Those are my thoughts.

Well, my parents pretty much agreed that my father would never have anything to do with me. It was rather ugly before I was born. It was one of those teen pregnancy situations where he didn't want to feel 'trapped' having to take care of me so my mother told him to not even be bothered with it. She never sought him out for child support and told him to never come looking for me if he wasn't going to help raise me. So I've never met the sperm donor the helped make me. ETA~ I did happen to meet a couple of my uncles when I was 12 and they were overjoyed to finally meet me! They are the only ones from that side of the family that I've ever met and it was only the one time, though.

My husband is much the same except his parents were married. His dad ran off and left his mom when she got pregnant leaving strict instructions that his son was to never be told where he was or who he was. He probably took off to New York because his dad was adopted and had family up there.

Two different men with basically the same arrangements made in the 70s without getting the law involved.

I believe that it's a woman's right to complete sovereignty over her own body, so it should be her right and her decision alone to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.

By the same token, I believe that it should also be a man's right to terminate any presumed legal obligation (on the woman's and society's part) to a pregnancy that the man didn't anticipate or want.

If the woman in question had any expectations of the man supporting her child, well, that's what marriage contracts are for.

-- Nephele

What's being proposed seems like legally sanctioning deadbeat dads. I've thought about it a good deal before. There are rare cases where men were mislead into thinking that their partner was barren or on birth control and it turned out she wasn't, she became pregnant and came after him for child support. This sort of thing is really selfish on the part of the woman, but we can't come up with a fair, generally applied way to just absolve one of the parents' legal responsibility for the child.

Unfortunately guys, it's just one of the risks we have to take when engaging in sex.

With easy and often free contraception, morning after shots, abortions etc. in the UK the choice (very few would not notice a pregnancy, so we'll leave that strawman out in the rain) to have a child is a deliberate act. I would be out of the loop on the creation of a new life, why should I then support the self centered actions of another? Your body, your choice, your responsibility. If I'm not part of the decision then I am a disenfranchised party who by definition cannot share that power. Sound familiar comrades?

Have a gander at this: http://www.craigslist.org/about/best/sea/274495936.html and this: http://www.tenetsofleykis.com/leykis_10 ... _sauce.php

All is fair in love and war as they say, and I'm too apathetic to really care anymore.

-LS

A deadbeat dad is someone who actually HAS been involved in their child's life, and then, after divorce, decides to NOT pay child support. That was the purpose of limiting this option to pre-birth or within a certain time of finding out about a child's existence if it was hidden from him (deliberately or through circumstance).

The issue I am raising is different. I am talking about a man having the choice to 'terminate' all responsibility (and parental rights) before the child is born. A woman can do the same by having an abortion - even if the father objects and wants to raise the child, this is an action that can be taken unilaterally. But it is accepted because to force a woman to go through a pregnancy she dos not wish to continue is cruel. But it effectively absolves the woman of all responsibility over the child by terminating it before it is born. Yet there is no mechanism for a man to do the same.

As for adoption, I believe that if at least one biological parent does not wish to adopt out the child, then the child cannot be adopted out (unless there is only one parent in the picture). But I'm not up on adoption laws.

From the No Good Deed Goes Unpunished department, courts across the country have been starting to require even sperm donors to pay child support. Here are a few horror stories from The Straight Dope.

And for a true horror story, read the case of State ex rel. Hermesmann v. Seyer (1993). You'll find it further down in the article I linked. Basically, a Kansas court imposed child support obligations upon a 12-year-old boy who had impregnated his babysitter. Never mind that this 12-year-old boy was effectively raped by his 16-year-old babysitter!

-- Nephele

This seems like "deadbeat dad" excuse to just take off. I agree their are some women who do lie about being on birth control or being barren, but you'd still have to prove that. I'm not that knowledgeable on court rules, but I don't see "She said she was on the pill" passing in court. Unless you have it in writing, but I doubt that's going to happen.

I'm sorry, but I had a boss tell me once if you want to play, you have to pay. Us men have to realize that if we get a woman pregnant we need to take care of our responsibility.

Then, of course, by the same logic, abortion should be illegal. After all, that is the equivalent for women, if you want to play, you have to pay. If you want to have sex, and fall pregnant as a woman, tough, you now have to have a baby and take care of it (or be responsible for it) for 21 years. Or are you suggesting different rules for women and men?

I absolutely agree that men need to take care of their responsibility. But I don't think court-enforced morality ever amounts to much.

Sure, the courts can order a man to pay child support. But if he doesn't want to have anything to do with his offspring, then he'll find ways to delay and dance around the child support payments -- or avoid them entirely.

And what about playing an active role in that child's life? Children need more than mere money – they need love and guidance. No court on earth can force a man (or woman) to provide those essential ingredients, if they're unwilling. Nor should any court. Better a fetus should be aborted, or a baby put up for adoption, then be subjected to an unwilling parent.

-- Nephele

Okay, I have been giving this subject some thought as I found it very capivating and this is my outlook.

First off I must say (and it is probably been made clear in the past) that though I am pro-choice in just about everything I do not agree with nor support abortion.

Now, moving on from that.

On the grounds that Prez stated :



On the grounds stated above, I do believe a man should have the right to terminate parental responsibility. The man did not ask for the child to be born, and had no control over the situation. At least if a woman decides to keep her child, she knows what she is getting into and agree has agreed to those terms by keeping the child. The father has made no such commitment as he had no part (other than conception) in the life of the child.

I believe that if a man had no knowledge of the child or has no wish to be a part of the child's life he should have the choice to either step up and be a man or he can walk away never to return.

I really liked the adoption point and I agree with that. If a mother is able to give up all rights and responsibilities to the child, so should the father have that same right when learning of the child's existance and blood tests confirm parentage.

If the mother gets pissed by this than it is her own problem because she chose to keep the baby and by choosing to keep it she should not be dependant on the father but indepenant on herself- especially if their is even an inkling that the father does not want the child. The mother should also understand that she had the ulimate choice to bring the child into the world so the father should have that right to walk away and never be a part of the child's life- like an adoption as Prez stated- giving up all LEGAL rights to the child soley to the mother.

Personally I'm pro-choice. It is a woman's choice to bear that child, but that doesn't mean the man just because he doesn't want the child he gets to up and walk away. We have too many absentee parents anyways without another excuse for them to get out of jail free.

Let's just say if the man wants the baby, and the woman doesn't. Does he have a legal right to make her keep the child full-term? If not then we do have different rules for men and women. Because right now a woman can get an abortion without the father's knowledge or consent. I don't think that should be a requirement, but if we let deadbeat dads just walk away, and then we stick the bill with the mother. She then has to take on everything by herself if she doesn't have anyone to help.

Even if she does have court-ordered child support from the father he doesn't have to pay. Yet in some states (in mine anyways) they have child support recovery units. Anytime someone that owes money for child support gets a job then that money is automatically withdrawn from their paychecks. Of course they can go jobless, and be homeless eventually. However it's still better than nothing.

-- Mon Mar 15, 2010 6:12 pm --



Unfortunately and this might depend upon your state, country. I'm speaking for my state if you don't pay they take your license away, and eventually you go to jail. For some people that is enough incentive for them to keep paying. Not for everyone of course.

An aborted fetus or better yet an adopted baby is going to be in a better place than one with unwilling parents. I agree with that, but just because you don't want to do something that doesn't mean you don't have to. I don't want to go to work, but I do. As do most of you as well. We all have things we do in life that we don't like, but we do them. As that is our responsibility. I'm so tired, and I'm not talking about personally of people just tossing out their personal responsibility when they no longer feel they need to answer to them.

I agree with you for the most part. I should have made myself clearer. I don't believe that the courts should enforce any legal responsibility upon the man for a pregnancy that he didn't anticipate or want.

Same as I don't believe that a woman should be obliged by any court of law to bear a child that she neither anticipated nor wants.

If a marriage contract was in place beforehand, then that's a different story. In such a case, the man has already duly contracted to assume responsibility for any resulting offspring.

But if there is no marriage contract in place, nor any emotional commitment on the part of the man, then I don't believe such a commitment should be coerced by the courts.

-- Nephele

What about if the child wants to know who their parent is later in life after the parent has signed away their rights willingly? Should a parent have a legal right to deny their offspring that knowledge? What if it is affecting the child mentally? Nothing to do with my situation, personally, just wondering. Should people legally be able to effectively erase something in their life even though they had a hand in it? I know that a woman can get an abortion, but what about the child that's already born that the father or mother is fully aware of?