If a female can terminate her maternity at any time during pregnancy, shouldn't a male be able to resign his rights to paternity at any time during pregnancy as well?

hardwarequestions · 2012-07-16T07:23:43+00:00

What you're referencing has come to be known as Legal Parental Surrender, or Legal Paternal Surrender, and is very popular among the MRM.

monkey_poop · 2012-07-16T07:29:22+00:00

[permanently deleted]

Ihmhi · 2012-07-16T12:34:42+00:00

Yes, he absolutely should be able to.

I learned recently that some women think this is an actual thing already (or rather, some women I spoke to implied it was easy for a man to "give up parental rights"). I do believe you can give up paternity (or even maternity, after birth) as long as the other parent is willing to allow you to. But there is no provision for unilateral parental surrender.

SpermJackalope · 2012-07-16T10:37:08+00:00

[permanently deleted]

Hypersapien · 2012-07-16T14:49:08+00:00

I wouldn't say at "any" time. It should be limited to give the woman enough time to get an abortion if she needs to. I do think that the man should be responsible for paying for half the abortion if they choose this route, however.

Of course, if the man isn't informed of the pregnancy until after that time has passed, then he shouldn't have any financial responsibility anyway.

kmmeerts · 2012-07-16T17:46:22+00:00

Wow, hadn't thought about that. It's amazing how many double standards I subconsciously use.

I'm going to use this line. It's not very offensive and I think it could really make people think.

rogersmith25 · 2012-07-16T14:00:26+00:00

I've read that the 3rd unnamed part of:

A woman's body, a woman's choice...

should follow

a woman's responsibility.

This of course is a very unpopular opinion among the mainstream, but the logic does seem at least reasonably sound; I would love to hear to some dissent though. If it is 100% the woman's choice and she has every method of birth control at her disposal, if she bears all of the health risks, and therefore has the exclusive right to decide whether to carry or abort the child, then it can be argued that the child is entirely her responsibility, as well.

Of course, I think that this attitude would be fairly counter-productive to society since it is best when both parents are invested in the child; however, termination of pregnancy isn't in the best interest of the child either... If we are arguing strictly on "fairness", then I think this argument is sound.

UnoriginalMike · 2012-07-16T17:18:24+00:00

Under traditionalism this is fine. A woman was not capable of raising a family alone, so there were built in programs to help single mothers.

Times have changed, traditionalism is long gone.

TracyMorganFreeman · 2012-07-17T01:20:26+00:00

Here's the thing I've realized when people claim "both had a part in creating the child". Both the man and the woman helped create the fetus, not the child. The woman isn't allowed to abort a child, but is allowed to abort a fetus. By extension, the woman has full say in whether the fetus becomes a child, so the man really didn't help create a child.

It would be like saying someone and myself both worked together making some tires, and then they took the tires and added some parts on their own and then eventually made a car. I didn't help make a car, did I? Am I equally responsible for the maintenance of a car I had no say in being built just because I help make the tires?

2012-07-16T17:50:47+00:00

I've thought about this a lot and all I have come to say on the matter is. . .

Yes.

hillbillyx · 2012-07-16T20:42:27+00:00

Ya I've argued that the baby is 1/2 the fathers DNA so his consent is important. Nobody seems to respond to it though. I know if I was in the situation where some woman wanted to kill my baby. I would be furious. If she did it without my permission I would feel robbed and like I had a hand in a death.

Titan235 · 2012-07-16T10:38:43+00:00

I always loved the bilogy is unfair argument that feminist use. Such as her body her choice dont like it tough biology is unfair, but notice how if it is ever unfair aginst them then it is just discrimination.

FreddyDeus · 2012-07-16T14:12:52+00:00

Unfortunately you cannot have entirely equal rights in this area because women have wombs and men do not. So I believe we should attach rights to areas of responsibility.

Abortion: It is a woman's body and therefor I believe she has the right to unilaterally choose abortion. That's the way it is, we (men) can't have this choice because we don't have the necessary plumbing to be in this position.

Dominion over your body: Where men should be entitled to a comparable right is over their body, or more accurately, over their bodily fluids. No man should be financially liable for a child if, for example, a woman retrieves the contents of a condom and gets out the turkey baster. In fact, it might be reasonable to regard this is a criminal act comparable with rape and/or financial fraud (although it can't be fraud if he isn't legally liable financially). Of course, it would be just as difficult to prove this as it is date rape. But at least we would be treated to the principle of equality even if justice can't always be served. The same for lying about using contraception.

Adoption: If a woman wants to have her child adopted, the father should be legally informed and given the opportunity of full adoption (I know he's already the father, but he shouldn't have to live in fear of the woman deciding she's going to take the child back or start interfering in his and the child's life at some later stage).

Choice and Liability: If a woman chooses to have the child but does not want the father involved in the child's life, she by default revokes any right to financial or material support from the father. We could argue that she has to give the father the opportunity of participation, but realistically that would be very difficult if not impossible to enforce. No man should, however, find himself with 10 years of child support arrears to pay when he didn't even damn well know he had a child. A woman can either opt out of this, or is subject to statute-of-limitations (ie: a mother has, say, 12 months to involve a father before defaulting on her right to child support).

Equally, if a woman does want child support, the default position of a family court should be reasonable access to the child. There is no reason why this shouldn't be a default of 50-50 custody, although subject to individual arrangements. The greater the custody of one parent over the other, the greater the child support.

Responsibility: Let' not forget that both women and men are jointly responsible for either unprotected sex or are both equally unfortunate after a catastrophic failure of the contraception. This is why I do not generally believe a man can financially recuse himself from the child's life with the exception of the circumstances mentioned above.

These are just a few examples of how horribly complicated this is, but how men could be treated with a great deal more equality than we currently are. Obviously, you ain't all gonna agree with me on this, and the fact is that whatever position one takes, there are both good and bad arguments. It can never be as equitable as we would like.

Darumana · 2012-07-16T11:46:11+00:00

The problem in my opinion is that the father doesn't have the same kind of risks in this period as the mother. I know that with modern medicine, these risks are reduced, but nevertheless they are still there. That is why in my opinion it probably wouldn't be really as fair as it sounds at first.

rightsbot · 2012-07-16T07:14:16+00:00

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

amishbreakfast · 2012-07-16T15:32:07+00:00

Consider these two facts:

People don't like paying taxes.
People hate "deadbeat dads".

If a woman decides to mix up a human cocktail with his DNA, and she can't pay for the kid, someone will. That responsibility will either fall on one dad or millions of taxpayers.

It's not an easy sell for politicians.

monkey_poop · 2012-07-16T12:06:23+00:00

Holy shit, some of these suggestions are nuts. I do have to disagree with this though, we can always just use a condom. The only person i would consider having sex with without a condom would be a woman i had been seeing for more than a few months, even if she said she was on the pill. and if it where a one night stand sort of thing then there is no way in hell i am going bareback even if she claimed to be on the pill.

The issue i do have in this matter is that the woman can lie to us about the child's father and once we sign the birth certificate and find out later that we are not the father we are still responsible for that child. That is a huge issue, because i think i would be disgusted if that where to ever happen to me. I think there needs to be some law to protect us from that, and hold the woman liable to some degree for expenses and time and emotional investments we had devoted and individual especially if we do not find out until years later. I think that is the real travesty.

I am completely happy with the whole paternity thing as it stands because we have a choice to put on that condom or not. If she wants to have sex without a condom, i am getting the hell out of there. We are taking that risk every time we have intercourse. paternity laws are the real scary thought, not the whole giving up rights to the child because she can only do that after the child is born by putting it up for adoption, if she did not get an abortion.

What i am trying to say is that they are the ones that go through pregnancy, not us. It is a condition they have a right to decided if they want to endure or not, and i do not think it is fair to say we want no part of it, when we partook in the sexy fun time. There are risks and that is it.

I do feel that if it where the way OP said a lot more unprotected sex would be occurring because we could just say. "oh well i dont want to be the father" Just because some of us are rational humans, it does not mean all of us are, and you would have those assholes impregnating for the fun of it.

Infidelity is the real issue, because we can get boned hard there, there are plenty of precautions we can take to prevent the pregnancy. I think OP comment is a selfish non issue that makes us look bad.

Male rape would be the only exception I could think of that would allow us to relinquish all claim to the child if we so desired, because that is not consensual.

TL;DR Disagree with OP, we can wear a condom. Infidelity should be a much bigger issue than it is for men who turn out not to be the real father. Male rape is only exception i can think of. fighting for this makes us look bad and the consequences outweigh the benifits

nexire · 2012-07-16T17:45:54+00:00

I never thought that was even an issue. While you can't argue that biologically-speaking women have more at stake in regards to the actual pregnancy, as the biological father there shouldn't be any reason why he isn't able to "terminate" his connection to the fetus.

chavelah · 2012-07-16T08:22:47+00:00

[permanently deleted]

papadopus · 2012-07-16T07:24:33+00:00

[permanently deleted]

2012-07-16T23:48:52+00:00

I've been thinking this for so long but everyone always ate me up for it.

The logic is "Men had the chance to use condoms" and I'm like "sure because there are definitely no contraceptives for women..."

Digi2112 · 2012-07-16T14:19:56+00:00

What I keep hearing and reading is the claim that it is the women's body so it's her choice. This makes little sense to me since it takes a man along with a woman to create another human being. How can this newly forming human being be solely a part of the women? It is an example of feeling overriding logic.

puppetry514 · 2012-07-16T15:21:13+00:00

Semi related to this: why is abortion legal but you can get charged with killing an unborn baby if you kill a pregnant lady? Seems like a double standard if I ever saw one. Killing the unborn child is cool if the mother does it, but anyone else can get charged with it.

dannyigl · 2012-07-16T17:46:36+00:00

As formal as this sounds, I think it should be said.

I believe men should have the option of having a legal form that will allow them to not have any financial obligation to a child in the event of a pregancy. The woman would have to sign it of course. This protects the man and the woman is aware of the risks. I don't think it should be a default option though, because in the event of an accidental pregancy, both parties are responsible because both parties are involved.

Men and women both have reproductive options. Yes, women have more, but there is always condoms, vasectomies, and choosing to abstain. No one is forcing you to have sex with this woman.

If a woman doesn't sign this contract, she probably doesn't care about being careful about having a child and you shouldn't take having sex with her lightly.

p0b · 2012-07-16T22:13:15+00:00

Absolutely agree. This is one of the most disgusting double standards that exists in society.

dannyigl · 2012-07-16T19:54:33+00:00

i'm sorry but no, that is so fucking irresponsible. If you don't want a kid there are a shit ton of ways not to get a girl pregnant. I understand accidents happen but you are still accountable, and yes a woman get majority control in this instance because it's her body that is most affected. you guys are constantly bleating about the differences between men and women and how how we should be treated differently because we are in fact different and this is just one of those times. just be responsible if you don't want or can't afford a kid.

SilencingNarrative · 2012-07-16T16:57:38+00:00

I love the phrasing you used. By using the terms paternity and maternity, you argue strongly for the asymmetry, and thus injustice, of the status quo.

Personally I think that a woman, when getting pregnant, has made a promise to make a good faith effort to bear the child of the father, unless they both agree that she should get an abortion.

It is well understood that some mothers and fathers get excited about the fetus long before it is viable, and are devestated when they lose a fetus. Regardless of whether you think that a woman automatically makes such a promise, there should be some way for a man who knows that he would feel that way to hold a woman to a freely given promise like that.

I don't often get any sympathy for this argument, however, except from people who are pro-life to begin with.

NWOslave · 2012-07-16T17:52:45+00:00

That's not very PC thinking. Look at Sandra Fluke, a $1000.00 a year for womens contraception, which means men pay half, $500.00 a year. The rally cry is, "Stay out of my uterus," for the man, however, for the wallet of the man it's, "Stay in my uterus."

DarthMarge · 2012-07-17T09:57:32+00:00

[permanently deleted]

FlyingSkyWizard · 2012-07-16T15:40:23+00:00

OK, this is not a popular opinion around here, but here's the big question - Why is a woman free to terminate her pregnancy?

IMO the right to abortion is part of the right to bodily integrity, ie: nobody can force you do do anything with your body against your will.

Pregnancy is something happening to the woman's body, and thus her right to bodily integrity is soveriegn.

Legal liability wise, we can discuss that all day, which is where financial abortion comes into play.

Darkling5499 · 2012-07-16T10:14:14+00:00

nope. why? her body, her choice. /s

2012-07-16T18:18:19+00:00

Short answer: No. Deal with it. Man up. You made your bed, now lie in it.

What a crock.

a_weed_wizard · 2012-07-16T16:21:56+00:00

[permanently deleted]

PigeonsBiteMe · 2012-07-16T20:55:17+00:00

No, I don't feel that men should be able to do this. This goes against my egalitarian beliefs because men could this much more easily and would not be restricted by trimesters or health.

Instead, I feel that both parents must consent to an abortion in order for it to be legal to get one, of course barring health risks.

craigske · 2012-07-16T18:46:27+00:00

Sure. Until the child is born and has individual rights regardless of the parents.

Apples and oranges.

lupistm · 2012-07-16T17:42:50+00:00

The only way this would work would be to force abortion, a surgical procedure, on the woman. That doesn't sound like equality to me, it sounds more like a disgusting violation of her rights.

At the time that conception occurs, both man and woman have equal control. If there's an unwanted pregnancy, both parties are equally to blame. She is not ruining the father's life, the father is.

ShetlandJames · 2012-07-16T11:22:04+00:00

So... should a guy abandon a woman and her baby when she's pregnant is what you're asking?

therealxris · 2012-07-16T17:06:13+00:00

When the first part of your argument is flat-out false, it's really hard to take you seriously. I understand what you're going for, but you need to build the argument and a sound base. Otherwise you will be shrugged off.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_termination_of_pregnancy#United_States_2

(for the record, it's the "at any time" portion that is false.)

If a female can terminate her maternity at any time during pregnancy, shouldn't a male be able to resign his rights to paternity at any time during pregnancy as well?

Comments

1 - Abortion deals with a fetus, while "LPS" or "financial surrender" deals with a child. They are incomparable.

2 - State and federal laws make accessing abortion, both physically and financially, extremely difficult for women.

3 - While many MR advocates claim that a woman deciding to birth/parent the child is "forcing" a man into a situation he doesn't want to be in (i.e., fathering, child support), "LPS" or "financial surrender" simply shifts the burden of being forced into an unwanted situation onto women.

4 - Logistics make this legally impossible. The disclaim would have to be early in pregnancy in order for abortion to still be on the table, and it is difficult to establish paternity at that time.

6 - Good luck getting any such law on the books. No state is going to agree to let potential fathers cut and run, severing any financial ties to their children, at great cost to the state and taxpayers.

8 - Many in the MR community seem to take issue with "safe haven" laws, but those laws apply to both parents, not just the mother.