Should Men be Allowed to Renounce Paternity?

[eaterofworldsjorm]

It just seems to make sense. If a woman doesn't want a child, all she needs is a surgery. But with the current system, even if a man doesn't want a child, if the woman wants to carry the child to term, it's out of his hands and he'll have to pay child support for almost 2 decades.

I don't think a man should have to raise a child if he doesn't want to as much as I don't think a woman should have to. It's not civilized.

[Old Blue Collar Joe]

freeziereezie

It just seems to make sense. If a woman doesn't want a child, all she needs is a surgery. But with the current system, even if a man doesn't want a child, if the woman wants to carry the child to term, it's out of his hands and he'll have to pay child support for almost 2 decades.

Actually, if the kid goes to college, it can run longer than 20 years. A man should be able to renounce paternity in about the same time frame as a woman. It should be required that, if she decides she wants child support, he is to be notified during the pregnancy, and he has thirty to sixty days to perform a 'fiscal abortion', signing away all legal rights, and leaving no recourse on her part.
Now, if he attempts to contact the child after this happens? He's on the hook.

[x-Kemetic Phoenix-x]

freeziereezie

It just seems to make sense. If a woman doesn't want a child, all she needs is a surgery. But with the current system, even if a man doesn't want a child, if the woman wants to carry the child to term, it's out of his hands and he'll have to pay child support for almost 2 decades.

I don't think a man should have to raise a child if he doesn't want to as much as I don't think a woman should have to. It's not civilized.

Agreed.
This should also be reversed: If a man wants the child, and the woman doesn't, it should work like a surrogate. He pays for everything, she has the child, she gives up custody, he keeps the child.

HOWEVER:
You can't renege in the event the kid becomes a superstar athlete, or something to that effect. You didn't raise them, you get no benefits.

[eaterofworldsjorm]

x-Kemetic Phoenix-x

freeziereezie

It just seems to make sense. If a woman doesn't want a child, all she needs is a surgery. But with the current system, even if a man doesn't want a child, if the woman wants to carry the child to term, it's out of his hands and he'll have to pay child support for almost 2 decades.

I don't think a man should have to raise a child if he doesn't want to as much as I don't think a woman should have to. It's not civilized.

Agreed.
This should also be reversed: If a man wants the child, and the woman doesn't, it should work like a surrogate. He pays for everything, she has the child, she gives up custody, he keeps the child.

HOWEVER:
You can't renege in the event the kid becomes a superstar athlete, or something to that effect. You didn't raise them, you get no benefits.

Um, no, that doesn't make much sense to me. You're still forcing a woman to give birth, which I'm not going to pretend like it's just some small thing. You can't just force someone to do something like that, it's ******** up.

[Iris Trip]

freeziereezie

x-Kemetic Phoenix-x

freeziereezie

It just seems to make sense. If a woman doesn't want a child, all she needs is a surgery. But with the current system, even if a man doesn't want a child, if the woman wants to carry the child to term, it's out of his hands and he'll have to pay child support for almost 2 decades.

I don't think a man should have to raise a child if he doesn't want to as much as I don't think a woman should have to. It's not civilized.

Agreed.
This should also be reversed: If a man wants the child, and the woman doesn't, it should work like a surrogate. He pays for everything, she has the child, she gives up custody, he keeps the child.

HOWEVER:
You can't renege in the event the kid becomes a superstar athlete, or something to that effect. You didn't raise them, you get no benefits.

Um, no, that doesn't make much sense to me. You're still forcing a woman to give birth, which I'm not going to pretend like it's just some small thing. You can't just force someone to do something like that, it's ******** up.

Obviously you couldn't force her to carry the baby for 9 months and give birth. She would have to agree with it. Odds are it won't be a common occurrence.

[Iris Trip]

As a man I would tend to agree. If I accidentally get a woman preggers and she wanted to keep the baby while I didn't, I don't really have any good avenues of action. It's all up to her then, regardless of my choice.

[x-Kemetic Phoenix-x]

Iris Trip

freeziereezie

x-Kemetic Phoenix-x

freeziereezie

It just seems to make sense. If a woman doesn't want a child, all she needs is a surgery. But with the current system, even if a man doesn't want a child, if the woman wants to carry the child to term, it's out of his hands and he'll have to pay child support for almost 2 decades.

I don't think a man should have to raise a child if he doesn't want to as much as I don't think a woman should have to. It's not civilized.

Agreed.
This should also be reversed: If a man wants the child, and the woman doesn't, it should work like a surrogate. He pays for everything, she has the child, she gives up custody, he keeps the child.

HOWEVER:
You can't renege in the event the kid becomes a superstar athlete, or something to that effect. You didn't raise them, you get no benefits.

Um, no, that doesn't make much sense to me. You're still forcing a woman to give birth, which I'm not going to pretend like it's just some small thing. You can't just force someone to do something like that, it's ******** up.

Obviously you couldn't force her to carry the baby for 9 months and give birth. She would have to agree with it. Odds are it won't be a common occurrence.

^^^ That's what I meant. Some women don't believe in abortion. (I support it/would get one) Some people don't find out they're pregnant until 5-8 months later, when abortion is not an option. Hell, a slim few don't even realize it until their water breaks. I was proposing a C.Y.A. policy in the event the above circumstances occur. Sorry I worded that wrong.

[TarablyTired]

About 99% of the time I'll say no to this question. Both parties chose to have sex, and-assuming both are of reasonable intelligence-know the potential outcome. There are a few gray areas because there are always gray areas, but when you're talking about consenting adults who make a decision to hook up, they should both be responsible for their choice.

[InariKistune]

He already can, it's called skipping town.

[The New Wineskin]

TarablyTired

About 99% of the time I'll say no to this question. Both parties chose to have sex, and-assuming both are of reasonable intelligence-know the potential outcome. There are a few gray areas because there are always gray areas, but when you're talking about consenting adults who make a decision to hook up, they should both be responsible for their choice.

You're against abortion and adoption, then?

[The New Wineskin]

InariKistune

He already can, it's called skipping town.

I think she meant the act of legally aborting his financial ties with the child.

[Mannequin Harpsichord]

What if the woman hides the pregnancy from the man? What if the man claims that he was never informed of the pregnancy even if he was?

[Wraith of Azrael]

Good god no. No, I will have no more of this, NO!

I JUST MADE A THREAD a couple of days ago on this exact ******** issue.

No more, or if you want post in my thread.

Me? I'm personally sick and tired of this debate and have had my fill of it.

My stance has been this at the end of it.

A Pre-sex contract between Man and Women which states that if a child is born of their sex he does not have to pay for it.

I originally had it court enforced (the court presides over the signing) but I found that the issue was that it cost too much.

So just have a document where a man can pick up and where both can sign.

If she doesn't agree to sign it, he knows that he needs to not ******** her.
If she agrees to sign it, then all is good and they can continue to have sex.

There DONE and DONE.

[eaterofworldsjorm]

Mannequin Harpsichord

What if the woman hides the pregnancy from the man? What if the man claims that he was never informed of the pregnancy even if he was?

Extend the "fiscal abortion" limit until a time after the child is born then?

[The New Wineskin]

Wraith of Azrael

Good god no. No, I will have no more of this, NO!

I JUST MADE A THREAD a couple of days ago on this exact ******** issue.

No more, or if you want post in my thread.

Me? I'm personally sick and tired of this debate and have had my fill of it.

My stance has been this at the end of it.

A Pre-sex contract between Man and Women which states that if a child is born of their sex he does not have to pay for it.

I originally had it court enforced (the court presides over the signing) but I found that the issue was that it cost too much.

So just have a document where a man can pick up and where both can sign.

If she doesn't agree to sign it, he knows that he needs to not ******** her.
If she agrees to sign it, then all is good and they can continue to have sex.

There DONE and DONE.

So, it's essentially the same thing, only the financial abortion is before and not after the pregnancy. Wow, and you seem to be implying that you disagree with the original poster!