Parental renouncement hypothetical.

IPGDVFT · 2014-03-15T14:56:10+00:00

too many men don't consider the consequences of sex or view them flippantly? Abortion is NOT birth control.

Before I address the main idea, there are many people that don't consider the consequences of sex. Don't just blame men on this.

Also, by definition abortion is a measure of birth control. It is controlling whether or not you give birth to a child. Now, is it a preferred method of birth control? No, and I doubt that there are many men that would see it that way either. There are huge emotional consequences for both the man and the woman in the case of an abortion. I'm sorry you didn't like the phrasing of "then just get an abortion," but people aren't always going to phrase things the perfect way especially in an online discussion. For example, you might be reading this as me being hostile and possibly with me using an angry voice. However, in person you would find that I'm just being direct while still just holding a conversation.

Now onto your idea. While I believe that this is possibly better than what we have in place now, there are some major issues that would need to be addressed first.

Now, I'm assuming that if they both signed the paper that they would be against having a child, and the girl got pregnant that she could change her mind and have a child. When you find out that you or the person you have sex with is pregnant, things can change quickly. It goes from a hypothetical to a reality, and things you believed before can change in a heartbeat. Because of this, would the male then be able to change his mind about being a father and how long would he have to do this (it's only fair since the girl can change her mind)? If this is the case, than this would be no different than what is often discussed in this subreddit but now the default is that the male is not responsible for the child by default.

The exact opposite of this also exists. What happens if the male and female both agree that they want a child, sign a legal document saying this, and then the female wants to get an abortion after becoming pregnant? Is she now legally obligated to bring the child to term, because she signed a contract? I think we would both agree that this should never be the case. But now since the girl can again change her mind once the hypothetical becomes a reality, shouldn't the boy also have this option?

The next issue becomes that people can't sign legally binding documents while they are intoxicated. If two people go out, get drunk, sign the document, and have sex (or rape if you're in California), then the document wouldn't be legal.

Finally, what happens if the legal documents haven't been signed? Are you going to make it illegal to not sign the documents before having sex? This is where a major issue comes in: motivation to actually sign. To show that both parties are aware of each others intentions, they both need to willingly sign the document (want the man to pay child support later on? Claim you signed under duress). Men will always have incentive to sign the document, because they're going to want to have some form of choice (as discussed earlier) about their responsibility for a child if pregnancy occurs. Women on the other hand will never have incentive to sign if the default of no contract is that the man has to pay child support. I would estimate that you would end up with the contracts not being used often. I know, guys should refuse to have sex with someone without the contract, but people should also get prenuptial agreements before they get married. If there was the same compliance with these legal documents as there are with prenuptial agreements then they would be used 3% of the time.

On top of everything else, this becomes a logistics nightmare. Contracts will be lost, overturned in court (happens with prenuptial agreements), deemed invalid due to the state of mind of the signer, or one could claim that the child was born from a separate sexual encounter with the individual than the one that the contract was signed for.

While I applaud anyone who searches for a method to give rights to men over their reproductive responsibilities, in this case there are to many issues for it to be an effective legal measure.

susansboyfriend · 2014-03-15T14:42:56+00:00

Personally I feel this is impractical

For one, 16 year olds having sex cannot sign your proposed paperwork

Also, having casual sex after meeting in a bar etc does not facilitate this method

I think that your idea is well intentioned but your premise and it's practicality are flawed

Celda · 2014-03-15T17:01:25+00:00

I agree, financial abortion (or whatever term you want to call it, the facts don't change regardless of the term) should happen before conception.

But it should be opt-in, not opt-out.

No woman is forced to birth a child, or (if she does birth the child) forced to raise it. She does not have to prove anything, or have signed any documents in order to eliminate parental responsibility.

Likewise, no man should be forced to pay for a child unless he has explicitly agreed to.

This way, all women would know whether their partner is willing to raise a child or not. No woman could be "tricked" by a man who says he wants to help raise a kid, since he would not have signed.

rightsbot · 2014-03-15T10:14:17+00:00

Post text automatically copied here. (Why?) (Report a problem.)

dejour · 2014-03-15T14:57:18+00:00

Like some of the other commenters, I don't think this is perfectly fair. That said, I think this is a lot better than what we have now. So I would support your system, and I commend you for thinking of it.

nick012000 · 2014-03-15T16:17:45+00:00

Abortion is birth control. Either become Pro-Life and fight to get it banned, or deal with it.

If you get pregnant, women can always get an abortion. Men cannot, and this is a fundamental unfairness in the system.

unclefisty · 2014-03-15T10:35:31+00:00

I think men should be able to relinquish paternity up until the point of viability of the fetus, assuming he has been notified of the pregnancy. Women can choose to end a pregnancy for any reason up to the point of viability so why should men only be able to end responsibility if they sign before hand?

heimdahl81 · 2014-03-15T19:07:54+00:00

That is one solution. I prefer another angle. I prefer that all individuals receive mandatory long term birth control at 16 (IUD or implant for women, vasectomy or Vasalgel when it comes out for men). Birth control for males and females is federally provided, as are abortions. Legal default is non-consent to parenthood. If the improbable happens and a woman gets pregnant and chooses not to have an abortion, that is her responsibility alone by default, although the man can op in to parenthood.

This would be as practically impossible and as ethically offensive to certain groups as your idea.

its-me-again · 2014-03-18T03:03:33+00:00

I think pre-sex contracts will be the next logical step if paper abortion for men becomes legal.

Karissa36 · 2014-03-16T15:15:44+00:00

As a practical matter, there is little point to having a woman state her views on abortion prior to pregnancy. Of course she can do so, but there is no guarantee that she will abort if an actual pregnancy occurs, and she cannot and should not be legally compelled to do so.

I don't believe that men will ever be able to relinquish paternity. The interests of the child will continue to control. However, I do find it revealing that so many men who support this idea also flatly reject the idea of having to confirm it with women before they have sex. Why all the opposition to doing so, if they are so sure their position is correct?

They are opposed to prior confirmation before sex because they know that, in many cases, any chance of sex will be gone. They want to maintain the facade of being a responsible person who would be supportive if a pregnancy occurred, instead of telling women that they intend to bug out if a pregnancy happens up front.

Considering all the howling and whining about how men are "tricked" into pregnancy, it is very ironic that these very same men flatly reject not being able to "trick" women into having sex with them by pretending to be responsible.

It's not burdensome at all to require men to state their position of non-responsibility for any pregnancy up front before sex occurs. Unless of course that position is something for them to be ashamed of, and they prefer to hide their true colors and spring it on a woman only if she happens to get pregnant.

Title	Parental renouncement hypothetical.
Author	GridReXX
Upvotes	4
Comments	55
Date	March 15, 2014 10:12 AM UTC (12 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/20h14m/parental_renouncement_hypothetical/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/parental-renouncement-hypothetical.1002733 https://theredarchive.com/post/1002733

Comments