Should Men be Allowed to Renounce Paternity?

[TarablyTired]

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?

No. I don't care what choice is made, but both parties are responsible for the pregnancy in the first place. Giving up a child shouldn't be done without consent of both parents, and an abortion or childcare should be paid for by both parents.

[Mannequin Harpsichord]

freeziereezie

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?

So the woman doesn't know until afterwards if she's going to get any support? She might've aborted or adopted it out if she knew she wasn't going to get any help ahead of time. The woman only gets until the 2nd trimester to decide whether or not to abort but he gets until whenever he feels like to choose?

[Wraith of Azrael]

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 the exact 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!

I'm saying No to the thread not the damn point she/he raised.

I'm sick of this ISSUE period, I debated for too long I don't really tolerate it much anymore.

[eaterofworldsjorm]

Mannequin Harpsichord

freeziereezie

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?

So the woman doesn't know until afterwards if she's going to get any support? She might've aborted or adopted it out if she knew she wasn't going to get any help ahead of time. The woman only gets until the 2nd trimester to decide whether or not to abort but he gets until whenever he feels like to choose?

Maybe she should of thought of that before she tried to trick a man into paying for her child by carrying it to term and not telling him?

[The New Wineskin]

TarablyTired

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?

No. I don't care what choice is made, but both parties are responsible for the pregnancy in the first place. Giving up a child shouldn't be done without consent of both parents, and an abortion or childcare should be paid for by both parents.

That is what the proposal is for; instead of denying the woman the right to keep the child is the father wishes not to, which is what appears to be what you're arguing - that the father's say has equal wait in the decision of the woman's body - both parties are given the ability to remove themselves from the child if they wish to do so. What you're arguing is that both parties have a say in the process of pregnancy, which is essentially what the original poster is trying to say as well. Or at least, that is what I go out of it.

[x-Garethp-x]

I believe so. I believe the guy should have up until three weeks before abortion is illegal to give up paternity, unless she only tell him after that point, at which point he should have three weeks to make up his mind. So that way if she tells him soon enough, he has to make his decision while she has time to abort, and if she doesn't tell him soon enough, he only has three weeks to decide, so he can't string her along

[Mannequin Harpsichord]

freeziereezie

Mannequin Harpsichord

freeziereezie

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?

So the woman doesn't know until afterwards if she's going to get any support? She might've aborted or adopted it out if she knew she wasn't going to get any help ahead of time. The woman only gets until the 2nd trimester to decide whether or not to abort but he gets until whenever he feels like to choose?

Maybe she should of thought of that before she tried to trick a man into paying for her child by carrying it to term and not telling him?

How is the man supposed to prove that she didn't tell him? How is the woman supposed to prove that she did tell him?

[The New Wineskin]

Wraith of Azrael

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 the exact 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!

I'm saying No to the thread not the damn point she/he raised.

I'm sick of this ISSUE period, I debated for too long I don't really tolerate it much anymore.

I've only seen three threads ever regarding this issue, including this one. Just because you are tried of an issue does not mean it is going to go away at your whim. If you have a problem with its existence, be mature and just not go to the post. It's that simple. The fact that you clicked on the thread to begin with shows you aren't, in fact, "sick of this ISSUE".

[eaterofworldsjorm]

Mannequin Harpsichord

freeziereezie

Mannequin Harpsichord

freeziereezie

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?

So the woman doesn't know until afterwards if she's going to get any support? She might've aborted or adopted it out if she knew she wasn't going to get any help ahead of time. The woman only gets until the 2nd trimester to decide whether or not to abort but he gets until whenever he feels like to choose?

Maybe she should of thought of that before she tried to trick a man into paying for her child by carrying it to term and not telling him?

How is the man supposed to prove that she didn't tell him? How is the woman supposed to prove that she did tell him?

That's why the fiscal abortion should be able to be carried out until a certain time after the birth takes place. It wouldn't be a get out of baby free card that can be cashed in at any moment.

If a woman isn't sure if she's getting support from the father, then she should have an abortion, or she should put it up for adoption. Plain and simple

[Belonging To Night]

not only should men be allowed to renounce paternity, they should be allowed to renounce it.

[Mannequin Harpsichord]

freeziereezie

Mannequin Harpsichord

freeziereezie

Mannequin Harpsichord

freeziereezie

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?

So the woman doesn't know until afterwards if she's going to get any support? She might've aborted or adopted it out if she knew she wasn't going to get any help ahead of time. The woman only gets until the 2nd trimester to decide whether or not to abort but he gets until whenever he feels like to choose?

Maybe she should of thought of that before she tried to trick a man into paying for her child by carrying it to term and not telling him?

How is the man supposed to prove that she didn't tell him? How is the woman supposed to prove that she did tell him?

That's why the fiscal abortion should be able to be carried out until a certain time after the birth takes place. It wouldn't be a get out of baby free card that can be cashed in at any moment.

If a woman isn't sure if she's getting support from the father, then she should have an abortion, or she should put it up for adoption. Plain and simple

Okay so here's a scenario. Woman gets pregnant and tells the father about it. He says to keep it, that they will get through this together somehow. The baby is born and suddenly the father is nowhere to be found. They go to court for child support and he claims that he was never informed about the child and asks for a financial abortion. How does the woman prove to the court that she did in fact tell him and that he should not qualify for a late financial abortion?

[x-Garethp-x]

Mannequin Harpsichord

freeziereezie

Mannequin Harpsichord

freeziereezie

Mannequin Harpsichord

So the woman doesn't know until afterwards if she's going to get any support? She might've aborted or adopted it out if she knew she wasn't going to get any help ahead of time. The woman only gets until the 2nd trimester to decide whether or not to abort but he gets until whenever he feels like to choose?

Maybe she should of thought of that before she tried to trick a man into paying for her child by carrying it to term and not telling him?

How is the man supposed to prove that she didn't tell him? How is the woman supposed to prove that she did tell him?

That's why the fiscal abortion should be able to be carried out until a certain time after the birth takes place. It wouldn't be a get out of baby free card that can be cashed in at any moment.

If a woman isn't sure if she's getting support from the father, then she should have an abortion, or she should put it up for adoption. Plain and simple

Okay so here's a scenario. Woman gets pregnant and tells the father about it. He says to keep it, that they will get through this together somehow. The baby is born and suddenly the father is nowhere to be found. They go to court for child support and he claims that he was never informed about the child and asks for a financial abortion. How does the woman prove to the court that she did in fact tell him and that he should not qualify for a late financial abortion?

She could always talk about the baby with him through text or email. Like, after she's told him, it's perfectly okay to mention the baby in email, which would be accepted as evidence

[Mannequin Harpsichord]

x-Garethp-x

Mannequin Harpsichord

freeziereezie

Mannequin Harpsichord

freeziereezie

Mannequin Harpsichord

So the woman doesn't know until afterwards if she's going to get any support? She might've aborted or adopted it out if she knew she wasn't going to get any help ahead of time. The woman only gets until the 2nd trimester to decide whether or not to abort but he gets until whenever he feels like to choose?

Maybe she should of thought of that before she tried to trick a man into paying for her child by carrying it to term and not telling him?

How is the man supposed to prove that she didn't tell him? How is the woman supposed to prove that she did tell him?

That's why the fiscal abortion should be able to be carried out until a certain time after the birth takes place. It wouldn't be a get out of baby free card that can be cashed in at any moment.

If a woman isn't sure if she's getting support from the father, then she should have an abortion, or she should put it up for adoption. Plain and simple

Okay so here's a scenario. Woman gets pregnant and tells the father about it. He says to keep it, that they will get through this together somehow. The baby is born and suddenly the father is nowhere to be found. They go to court for child support and he claims that he was never informed about the child and asks for a financial abortion. How does the woman prove to the court that she did in fact tell him and that he should not qualify for a late financial abortion?

She could always talk about the baby with him through text or email. Like, after she's told him, it's perfectly okay to mention the baby in email, which would be accepted as evidence

He could say that he doesn't use that email. Or if the woman is conniving could send the email purposely to an email he doesn't use. As long as he never responds to an email mentioning the baby he could claim he never received the email. But that is a good idea.

[x-Garethp-x]

Mannequin Harpsichord

x-Garethp-x

Mannequin Harpsichord

freeziereezie

Mannequin Harpsichord

How is the man supposed to prove that she didn't tell him? How is the woman supposed to prove that she did tell him?

That's why the fiscal abortion should be able to be carried out until a certain time after the birth takes place. It wouldn't be a get out of baby free card that can be cashed in at any moment.

If a woman isn't sure if she's getting support from the father, then she should have an abortion, or she should put it up for adoption. Plain and simple

Okay so here's a scenario. Woman gets pregnant and tells the father about it. He says to keep it, that they will get through this together somehow. The baby is born and suddenly the father is nowhere to be found. They go to court for child support and he claims that he was never informed about the child and asks for a financial abortion. How does the woman prove to the court that she did in fact tell him and that he should not qualify for a late financial abortion?

She could always talk about the baby with him through text or email. Like, after she's told him, it's perfectly okay to mention the baby in email, which would be accepted as evidence

He could say that he doesn't use that email. Or if the woman is conniving could send the email purposely to an email he doesn't use. As long as he never responds to an email mentioning the baby he could claim he never received the email. But that is a good idea.

No, but the email provider could check if he's read the email or not. They store if you've read an email and when you read it. Also, you can actually set an email to alert you when it's been read (I'm not too clear on how, but I've used it before), so you can actually get an email when they've read theirs

[Pseudo-Onkelos]

I agree.