Should men have "the right to choose"?

Post Reply New Topic

I was wondering what people on this board would think of this scenario. Since a woman in the United States can legally terminate any obligation to a child via adoption or abandonment in a safe haven, do you think a man should have the legal right to sign a legal document and have no further obligation to a child he fathered? I mean, have no obligation to pay child support to a child he produced. What do you think should be the legal responsibilities of men and women toward children they produce?

My concern is what kinda example does that set for the children that will grow up and feel like their father washed his hands free of not only responsibility as a parent but also helping provide for their future in the present and future. I don't think that a parent (let alone father) should be left to have to choose to no longer support a child they helped bring into this world unless that child is legally adopted out and an arrangement made that the biological parent signs over any rights and responsibilities, financially and otherwise to the child.

The money is to help support the child that person brought into this world. For some children, that's the only tie of anything left to support from the other parent. It's one thing to adopt the child out, it's another for a family to dissolve and leave the child stuck between two parents or even one parent because the other walks away and doesn't want anything to do with them.

I on the other hand have an overactive imagination How horrabull Are there not an tendensy towords doner sperm?

I think our society ought to have a greater sense of obligation and a greater willingness to support parenting in general.

Possibly under different cultural circumstances I would find equal rights to parental termination compellingly necessary. It does have a certain ring of justice about it. . .

However, right now things are too unfair in the other direction- moms end up giving up kids their dads don't support because they can't afford to care for them.

Parenting is at least a two parent endevour if it's to be done well.

If we had better options for a) adoption b) birth control and c) single parenthood, as well as much better protections for abortions in cases where it really should be an option (rape, incest, danger to the mother) I wouldn't support abortion rights as thuroghly as I do either.

if you dont want to have kids or the responsiblity of them, it isnt that hard to put a rubber on

hmm, tough question. i dont believe in abortion however i do believe in adoption. if a father wants his child placed for adoption and the mother refuses (assuming parents are split up) then i feel the father should not be forced to support. this hits close to home for me. my sister's father is clearly uninterested in her and tries to make trouble with DHS because i live with her and have AS. i have assumed many financial and "parenting" responsibilites to my sister (she is half my age). i think men who father more than one child then desert the mother ought to be castrated! other than the scenario mentioned above, men should not be able to shrug responsibility without penalty.

See Ur this.point; using System
But then there sounds controle
I think thay chastratet skizofrene's back in the '70
What gives him the right, what gives her
She means neutral sex
A- tomic toxic temonolegi
Im unfit for work
So I live of a pension
Im a psy'ñerd
Bone 2the finger
Tip apon tip

Absolutely not! Men who father children should be held responsible for them. It makes me angry that men can father kids and not suffer consequences, while the mother has to deal with the child whether she wants to or not. I just learned this past week that one of my ancestors was born out of wedlock, and his father went to court and paid a large sum of money to never have to deal with him again. Shortly thereafter, the child's mother died of a broken heart and the child was raised by caring family members. So now I have a personal reason to believe that men should be held accountable for fathering kids-if you don't want kids, take steps to not have them!!

I think people should think before they act.

Last edited by void on 22 Sep 2007, 6:22 am, edited 1 time in total.

If the termination is not happening then the father has a responsibility to pay for child support at the very least, that should be enforced by the law. I think this topic it confusing because it is equating pro-choice with not paying child support.

I'm pro-choice. Emphasis on choice, I'm not saying I would do it myself but there should be that option.

Should the father have more say on whether a woman keeps a baby? That is a really hard question. It is easy to say yes they should but there are some problems with that especially if the guy has been non-compliant from the start want to have the baby but doesn't want to take responsibly for it. Then again it could just as well be the other way round. The woman does carry the child and take the risks that go with that. I think I’m more comfortable with the idea of the mother aborting a child you may think you want than forcing someone to have a child they don’t want.

From the ‘day after’ pill perspective I don’t think there is any qualms, that is the woman’s choice I don’t think it would be fair to prevent them from having it.

Maby the question shut bee, shut there bee a letter of unsutability

Not that I think, get the joke, that people are cappabull of thinking there actions, simply fate is
Shuttent I've been born, what about that toon, condition red, sex in bed, wonder way2go

As Vs. Nt ::
using System;

namespace[Alfa] class[submit]
{++}
///=o =O0<mae>
\\\ || ||
--------------

Last edited by Autisttypid on 22 Sep 2007, 7:40 am, edited 5 times in total.

Still I don't think what was suggested will happen. The main thing is enforcement of the child support legislation.

They have been doing something in the UK, as the child support agency essentially fell apart and was unfit for purpose. That was to name and shame father and also mothers who did not pay child support. The criticism is that not all cases are clear cut. Some of them claim they have been taken advantage of or directly targeted because they would have to pay out. Not taking sides but I can believe it in some cases. I think if I was in that situation I would probably set up a trust fund for the kid only, and send them some cash to live on. Not surplice that could be skimmed off them unfairly. That would be a temporary measure till it was sorted out. I couldn't envision a situation where I had a kid where I would want to have access and to share the guardianship. So it is only from being denied that would i be in such a situation.

true but why did you take down the cartoon I liked that

I didn't think before I acted and it was demeaning to a group of people.

That's why I liked it

The laws that allow a woman to abandon a child in a safe haven are meant to prevent that child from being tossed in a dumpster or left in a toilet somewhere, not to give the mother an easy way out. The laws are for the best interest of the child. Similarly, child support enforcement is to protect the best interest of the child. So while one thing lets a parent out of responsibility and the other locks them in, the primary goal remains the same.