I've always believed that misguided feminism has caused family laws to be so ridiculous. I found that I agree with this article which argues that forced fatherhood is damaging to a family. http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/12/is-forced-fatherhood-fair/ And here is the dumbest comment I saw, so if this is going to be your argument, please refrain from saying anything:
Men should be free to give up their parental rights the same way women can in an adoption setting. People might not like that because it means more women will have abortions when faced with single parenthood but it is only fair. A woman does not even need to inform her partner that she is pregnant with his child, she doesn't even have to tell him she's giving it up for adoption or having an abortion. She has multiple outlets for ending her parental rights yet he does not. Of course the state doesn't see it that way, they don't want to be responsible for financially supporting the child so they put it on the shoulders of the father even if it has been proven that he is not the biological father of the child. http://www.ksfamilylaw.com/other/051409-kessler_wsb.htm I think it is archaic to treat women as if they are unable to work and to financially provide for a child they wanted. Now the problem is with men who promise to be there for the woman and swear they will be a family, but then when the child is born he ups and disappears from their life. Cases like this need to be taken seriously. If he had promised and swore up and down he would take care of her and the child then he needs to pay for that because her outlet from parenthood (abortion) has long since passed and she may not be willing to give the child up for adoption.
It's called common sense. Basically, if you don't want to risk being a father, don't have vaginal sex with a woman. Forced fatherhood is the natural consequence to that. The only thing that makes it "unfair" is that woman have choices to give up a child for adoption or to have an abortion. It's fair, because she is the one forced to bring the baby to term, or face the physical/emotional consequences of having an abortion.
There is no such thing as forced fatherhood, unless someone has found a way to force a man to get an erection and repeatedly put it in a woman's vagina against his will. It's too bad that we live in a society where men don't want to own up to their responsibilities...eh?
This is the CORE issue... Peter Pan syndrome...men are maturing emotionally at a very slow rate these days.
I'm stating the obvious but that's only because some of you seem to miss it: Sex isn't only meant for reproduction nowadays. With reasonable precautions, two people having sex don't expect to have a child. To say that in order to avoid accidental pregnancies men should stop having sex altogether is unreasonable. Another argument is that: I agree, they should be the ones to decide whether they want to keep it or not. However, when the pregnancy is accidental, or when women have used "trickery" to get pregnant, then why not have both of them sign a contract stating whether they want the child or not to determine financial responsibility? I realize that this way women will be "forced" to get an abortion if they cannot afford to have the child; but how is that worse than having the man suffer for 18 years for an unwanted pregnancy? And why keep the child when you cannot afford it?
However if you're mature enough to have sex, you're also mature enough to know birth control does not always work and that un-intended children are conceived every day. You gonna play, you have to pay.
What you're saying suggests to me that it should be taken on a case-by-case basis, such that fathers who bail out despite promising to be there and support a child must pay, while those who never wanted to be a father could get away from that.. Thus, we'd be talking about loosening the laws to make them more equitable for both sexes. The problem and solution both seem quite simple to me.
If that's the logic that ought to be used legally, then when a pedestrian is hit by a car and ends up dead or handicapped he/she (or his/her family) shouldn't be able to sue the driver because "accidents happen" therefore the victim knew the risks so he/she should have stayed home in the first place. And the list of similar examples goes on and on...
Trickery is almost impossible to prove or disprove. Any rational adult realizes that conception can fail. I know a handful of people that are the result of contraceptive failures. I think it is people like you, who don't recognize the probabilities of contraceptive failures are the unreasonable ones. You fail to recognize basic science. The best rule is to never have vaginal sex with someone that you don't think (at least at the time) you can stand having an 18-19 yr long relationship with, if only financial.
I suppose you mean "contraception" Let the judicial branch determine that. As for the rest of your argument, you're just saying the same thing potter said, only you're elaborating. I already have given my response to that.
To me it is quite simple. Biologically, a man is half the equation genetically. But only infintesimally as much a part of growing the fetus- and lets not talk about who has to actually risk health, pain and body morphing that child birth entails. The reason I don't think that the man gets to decide about whether or not a woman has to bear a child is because the man doesn't have to grow that fetus or birth that child. But the man contributed half the genetic material- and the reason the man will be financially responsible is because someone has to be responsible for paying for that child- and both of them should be responsible for paying the cost of that child- they owe it to that child. So the answer is- as a man- no one can 'force' you to be a father- but if you decide to have sex- you may become a father- and then you should step up and pay for your child.
Essentially this yes. It would also reveal women who use trickery and deception to get a man to impregnate her when he was intending to avoid pregnancy. Deception should never be the cause for bringing a child into this world from either end of the scope, both men and women.
More like a woman pricking holes into the condoms or having sex with a drunk man and convincing him to ejaculate inside when she is ovulating, so I suppose yes, date rape can be involved. Deception is certainly involved when a man is taking measures to avoid pregnancy and the woman intentionally thwarts them. Also the state forces men to be fathers and refuses to allow them an option to sign away their parental rights, even to children who have been proven to not be biologically theirs.
Agreed; but for the millionth time, contraception isn't always effective. Irrelevant; I never suggested that.
So don't get drunk............. - - - Updated - - - When you were taught about the birds and bees, were you also taught about responsibility?
It's not about being equitable to both sexes, or either, but to the child. As for being in a relationship where your female partner might be so duplicitous as to sabotage contraception, then there's an easy conservative answer. Just say no!
while I cant see how anyone could give up their child unless the most dire of circumstances I do agree, it seems weird that if both agree to give up their parental rights, there is no problem with it, but if only one does it's a problem maybe we could allow the remaining parent to decide to allow the ending of parental rights if the other party wants it
