Number of states that allow a woman to abandon her child post-birth, and not be financially responsible for that child in the future: 49. Number of states that allow a man to abandon his child post-birth, and not be financially responsible for that child in the future: 0.

[+][deleted] 14 years ago (132 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Alanna 36 points37 points38 points 14 years ago (36 children) | Copy Link

[–]GTChessplayer -5 points-4 points-3 points 14 years ago (35 children) | Copy Link

[–]ParadigmShift013 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ghebert001 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (33 children) | Copy Link

[–]GTChessplayer -4 points-3 points-2 points 14 years ago (32 children) | Copy Link

[–]Celda 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]GTChessplayer -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]GTChessplayer -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 14 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]GTChessplayer 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

So what's a fair trade for 9 months of female suffering? Over 200 months of male suffering, in the form of forced servitude, of course!

Except you forget that during those 200 months, the woman has the same "forced servitude". I call it consequences; it takes two to tango.

And that's the thing about an opt-out. In the details of an implementation, an opt-out could require a fee compensating a woman for the difficulties of pregnancy.

Not really. It might cover the finances of the medical procedures (insurance pretty much makes that moot), but that's it. The male still leaves the woman with 100% responsibility. There's no way for a woman to leave a man with 100% responsibility.

Beyond the biological differences, all of the burden is taken up by her choice. If she chooses an 18 year responsibility instead of giving the baby up for adoption, we should not incentivize that by letting the state force money out an unwilling father, especially when the kid is better off in an adopted family situation.

It takes two to tango. The father's actions are just as responsible for that life as are the mothers. The mother should not be forced to go through a medical procedure because the father can't pay.

The woman can never force a man to go through a medical procedure. She can only require 50% financial support; she's still responsible for the other 50%.

[+][deleted] 14 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]GTChessplayer -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 14 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]loose-dendrite 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alanna 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]GTChessplayer -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alanna 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

You have to give birth in order to have the adoption. She shouldn't have to be forced to go through any extra hassles because the father won't pay.

Once she's pregnant, her options are giving birth or abortion. Those are both medical procedures. Of those two, medically speaking, abortion is the lesser hassle. But either way, she's not being forced into a medical procedure by the man; she's being forced into a medical procedure by being pregnant.

If the father won't pay, that leaves 100% of the burden on the mother; abortion and adoption are all burdens.

We're not saying the father shouldn't necessarily pay anything; we're saying the father should not be chained to the woman's unilateral decision for two decades. I think this would be fair:

If the father and mother are in agreement, split all costs 50-50.
If the father and mother differ on what to do, the father pays half of what he would have if they'd done what he wanted to do, up to birth. So if he wanted to get an abortion, he pays for half of what the abortion would have cost and he's done. If he wanted to adopt it, he pays half of all her out of pocket medical costs up to birth. If he wanted to keep it and she aborts it, he pays for her medical costs up to the abortion, but not for the abortion itself.

Makes sense to me, anyway.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alanna 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Also, many people consider abortion to be killing a life. That's along the lines of saying: "well if she doesn't want to care for a 5 year old, she can just kill it!"

You can't completely dismiss the "abortion is murder" argument when arguing for abortion and then say it's valid for some people when arguing against analogous rights for men. Either it's murder, in which case it should be illegal, or it's not, and it's a personal choice each woman makes for herself. The point isn't any given individual's choices within their private moral limits, the point is what any given individuals legal options are. And abortion is a legal option to every woman in the United States through at least the first trimester.

She could, but there are emotional and mental consequences.

Again, every pro-choice person I've seen drags out the studies that there is no lasting emotional/mental damage from abortion. You can't suddenly co-opt pro-life arguments for specific situations if you don't acknowledge their validity in arguing against abortion.

The man does not have to make that decision, ever.

No, men just have to live with dealing with whatever is decided for them; the destruction of their unborn child (if they care about that sort of thing) or the burden of fatherhood (whether they want it or not). That's just a walk in the park, eh?

So either way, the man's decision still puts 100% burden on the mother

You're missing the critical piece: the man's decision puts 100% of the burden of the woman's unilateral decision on the woman.

[–]GTChessplayer -3 points-2 points-1 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

You can't completely dismiss the "abortion is murder" argument when arguing for abortion and then say it's valid for some people when arguing against analogous rights for men. Either it's murder, in which case it should be illegal, or it's not, and it's a personal choice each woman makes for herself.

None of the has to do with the fact that the father's opt-out leaves the mother with 100% of the burden. Getting an abortion or going through an adoption are both burdens.

Again, every pro-choice person I've seen drags out the studies that there is no lasting emotional/mental damage from abortion.

That's not true, at all. I've yet to see a single scientific study that says there's no emotional consequence to abortion. Long-term or short term is irrelevant; 5 years or 50 years is irrelevant. It's still something the father has to cause the mother to go through.

No, men just have to live with dealing with whatever is decided for them; the destruction of their unborn child (if they care about that sort of thing) or the burden of fatherhood (whether they want it or not). That's just a walk in the park, eh?

In the man's case, that burden is shared; if the man has to go through it, so does the mother. In father opt-outs, the father does not have to go through what the mother does.

You're missing the critical piece: the man's decision puts 100% of the burden of the woman's unilateral decision on the woman.

This is wrong. If a woman opts out, the man is left with 0% of the responsibility.

[–]Alanna 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

None of the has to do with the fact that the father's opt-out leaves the mother with 100% of the burden. Getting an abortion or going through an adoption are both burdens.

But you're not talking about a financial burden anymore. Adoption, in particular, is generally 100% free for the woman giving birth.

That's not true, at all. I've yet to see a single scientific study that says there's no emotional consequence to abortion. Long-term or short term is irrelevant; 5 years or 50 years is irrelevant.

I'm anti-abortion; I don't use this argument. But it's been thrown in my face more than once. I'm sure many many pro-choice sites could help you out there.

It's still something the father has to cause the mother to go through.

No one is advocating giving men the ability to force a woman to abort. Therefore, the man isn't causing her to go through anything.

In the man's case, that burden is shared

The burden of the abortion is shared when she decides to get one against his wishes? I seriously doubt that. And, no, the burden of unwanted parenthood is not shared if she decides to have and keep the baby against his wishes; by definition, she wants the baby. She cannot share his burden of being forced to provide for a child he never wanted.

In father opt-outs, the father does not have to go through what the mother does.

In all cases, regardless, the father does not go through what the mother does from conception and beyond. I'm not saying the fatherhood experience is more or less or better or worse than the motherhood experience (I suspect it varies by individual) but in no way can it ever be the same, ever.

This is wrong. If a woman opts out, the man is left with 0% of the responsibility.

Yes, but she got to make 100% of the decision; what if he wanted that responsibility?

[–]GTChessplayer -3 points-2 points-1 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

But you're not talking about a financial burden anymore. Adoption, in particular, is generally 100% free for the woman giving birth.

It's still a burden, and since it can't be placed on the father, biologically, it can only be compensated for financially. 18 years of servitude is fair.

No one is advocating giving men the ability to force a woman to abort. Therefore, the man isn't causing her to go through anything.

Either way, she has to go through something that he was 50% responsible for causing. If he opts out, she has to go through it 100%. If she doesn't opt out, he only has to go through 50%.

There is no way to make the man responsible for 100% of the burden. With what you're proposing, there is a way to make the mother carry 100% of the burden.

The burden of the abortion is shared when she decides to get one against his wishes? I seriously doubt that. And, no, the burden of unwanted parenthood is not shared if she decides to have and keep the baby against his wishes; by definition, she wants the baby. She cannot share his burden of being forced to provide for a child he never wanted.

It's shared, but more on the mother's side than on the father's, since she actually has to have the procedure done.

In all cases, regardless, the father does not go through what the mother does from conception and beyond. I'm not saying the fatherhood experience is more or less or better or worse than the motherhood experience (I suspect it varies by individual) but in no way can it ever be the same, ever.

There is no way for the mother to make the father go through 100% of the burden. With what you're proposing, you're making the mother go through 100% of the burden.

Yes, but she got to make 100% of the decision; what if he wanted that responsibility?

It's irrelevant; forcing 0% on someone is not the same as forcing 100% on someone.

[–]Alanna 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's still a burden, and since it can't be placed on the father, biologically, it can only be compensated for financially. 18 years of servitude is fair.

Well, hell, why stop at 18 years? Why not make it 25? 30? The rest of her life? I mean, in for a penny, in for a pound.

Either way, she has to go through something that he was 50% responsible for causing.

Originally, yes. By the time it gets to birth, it's more than 50% on her because she could have an abortion, legally, but did not (for whatever reason). After she's decided to keep it, it is 100% her responsibility; she had options to opt out and did not exercise them.

If he opts out, she has to go through it 100%.

Only if she decides to.

There is no way to make the man responsible for 100% of the burden. With what you're proposing, there is a way to make the mother carry 100% of the burden.

There is no way to make it exactly 50/50, either.

It's shared, but more on the mother's side than on the father's, since she actually has to have the procedure done.

I seriously doubt that an extremely pro-choice woman who sees absolutely no moral problem with abortion suffers more (unless something goes horribly wrong with the procedure, which is incredibly rare) than an anti-abortion man who has to live with the knowledge that his SO killed their baby.

With what you're proposing, you're making the mother go through 100% of the burden.

Because she has the power to choose whether she wants that burden or not. With what we propose, the man gets the same choice.

It's irrelevant; forcing 0% on someone is not the same as forcing 100% on someone.

No, but that doesn't make it equally bad under some circumstances.

[–]RAISEStheQuestion 28 points29 points30 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]PinkySlayer 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]aaomalley 6 points7 points8 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Alanna 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alanna 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]RosieRose23 15 points16 points17 points 14 years ago* (21 children) | Copy Link

If a man opts out of any financial burden for a child, the mother either has to abandon a wanted child or pay 100% of its upbringing.

If the woman opts out and abandons the child, the father does not have to pay for the childs upbringing.

Of course, if the mother wants to abandon the child, of course the father should have the first rights to the baby.

So, and I'm asking honestly, how do you reconsile that? It makes it seem like the woman is the only one responsible for a pregnancy.

For instance, my best friend was married and pregnant with her second child. He is in the military and she was a stay at home mom (which is what worked best for their family...they were both in agreement that she should stay home with the kids.) They tried for years to have kids. Their first, after many years of trying, was stillborn due to a defect in her uterus (bicornuate). She had surgery to fix it and then had her daughter a year and a half later. When her daughter was 8 months old, she got pregnant again, another planned pregnancy. Her husband wanted both of these kids. He was from a big, close family and wanted his kids to be close together. So it was not like she was pressuring him into having a baby. While she was still pregnant with their second daughter, some woman texts her and tells her that she has been having an affair with her husband, and gives her nasty details. She confronts her husband who tells her that its true and he kind of wanted her to find out because its a "weight off his shoulders now." So he leaves and she goes to stay with her parents for a while. They decided eventually to divorce. When she goes into labor, he comes to the hospital to see his other daughter be born...and is cordial. However, he does not come around after that. A few months later he gets in contact with her and tells her that he wants to terminate his paternal rights. He told her that his new girlfriend is pregnant and they both want a "fresh start," that having two families is too complicated for him and he wants to focus all of his energy on his girlfriend and their baby. He says that he never really felt connected to his older daughter (he did want a boy at first, but never showed any disappointment after they found out it was a girl) and he "only met the younger one once" so he didn't feel bad about abandoning her. So now my friend has no job and two babies to care for because her ex husband decided that he didn't want his old family any more.

So what should happen there? Does the fact that he tried for those children make a difference? That he didn't want his wife to have an abortion? How do you handle those cases? How would someone be able to prove that the man tried to have the baby?

ETA: I think that fathers rights are currently absymal. My husband is just as capable a parent as I am (more so in certain areas). I don't believe that my vagina somehow makes me better than him, and if we were to ever split there is no reason that I should automatically get custody because I am the mother. I just think there is a lot of crazy legal things that are involved here.

[–][deleted] 13 points14 points15 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Alanna 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Alanna 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alanna 24 points25 points26 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

So now my friend has no job and two babies to care for because her ex husband decided that he didn't want his old family any more.

Yeah, that's reprehensible. We're not talking about situations like that. Most of us are talking about an option men could exercise during the pregnancy and in the first few days after birth, analogous to the unilateral decisions a single woman can make with regard to abortion or surrender of her baby. We're not talking about men abandoning already established families they willingly created.

How would someone be able to prove that the man tried to have the baby?

He wouldn't have to-- women aren't required to prove they never wanted a baby before they're granted an abortion or put a baby up for adoption or surrender to a safe haven site. So I think it's fair to let the man exercise his surrender option at any point up until, say, the child is 72 hours old, or 30 days after notification of its existence (since some men don't even know they have kids until they're hit with the child support demand).

I just think there is a lot of crazy legal things that are involved here.

There's a lot crazy things currently going on in child support. Boys who are raped by older women required to pay child support. Men whose sperm was taken out of a condom or held in the mouth after oral sex and used to impregnate being held liable for the resulting children. Men whose ex wives illegally obtained IVF embryos being later successfully sued for child support for children he never even knew existed-- and had no reason to believe were even possible. Men who had contracts with surrogate mothers or acted as sperm donors having to pay child support.

What happened to your friend is awful. It shouldn't happen to anyone, and he should definitely pay child support. But in a case where a woman makes a unilateral decision to have and raise a baby, the man should not be forced to finance that decision.

[–]ottawadeveloper 12 points13 points14 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]RosieRose23 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I understand that, I am just wondering how the laws would be written.
And yes, I know these situations would be very rare, I just think this is an interesting topic.

Also (and I'm not saying this WOULD happen) Do you think that men would be less likely to use protection if he knew that he wouldn't have to pay child support?

Do you think that such a law would increase the amount of people on welfare? I know that the friend I mentioned above went on welfare for a long time (the only jobs she could find just barely covered the cost of childcare while she was at work). She did eventualy re-marry and her new husband adpoted her daughters, by the way.

Like I said, I'm actually interested in the topic. To be honest, I don't know how to feel about this. On one hand I feel like men should have the same options as women, but on the other hand I feel so bad for the children who didn't ask to be born and the women who would have to decide to give up or abort a wanted child so that they wouldn't have to raise them in poverty.

I do think that the current system is super unfair. I know a man who was forced to pay child support to his ex wife even though his son lived with him because he let her claim the kid on her taxes. So even though his son is in his 20s now, and never lived with his mom, he is still paying her back child support, which amounts to all but 150 out of his check every month. And all of your examples just make me sick (you forgot the story where a couple forced their sperm donor to pay child support http://ancpr.com/2007/12/03/lesbians-sperm-donor-must-pay-child-support-the-daily-mail/...on the other hand there is the story of the sperm donor who later made a custody claim http://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=&sc3=&id=101005)

Its too bad things can't just be simple.

[–]MDKAOD 7 points8 points9 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]EricTheHalibut[🍰] 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]strayclown 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]RosieRose23 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]IWatchWormsHaveSex 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Detached09 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]vinsanity406 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Celda 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]vinsanity406 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Bobsutan 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DougDante 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

""Why should women have a post-birth option to opt out that men do not?""

Well, that's the de facto truth but not the de jure truth.

The de jure legal situation is, "if one parent abandons their child, the other pays, if both do, the child is placed in an adoptive home and neither pays". This is in theory what we have now, but the de facto policies are such that dads sometimes have an extremely difficult time obtaining custody of their newborn children. See: Unwed Fathers: Preventing Your Infant Child from Being Adopted without Your Consent

Single fathers who are not a part of their baby's lives are not parents. (Now, of course, there are known scam-like situations where this is not really the case, but the general principle holds).

Unwanted children of single mothers are in danger of a variety of bad outcomes, including murder.

So, if there is no dad, and mom doesn't want the kid, it makes sense for the child to be adopted by a couple who is ready, willing, and able to provide the child a home.

Mom is always a parent by default. She birthed the kid, has default custody, by practice or by law, and she has a "fundamental liberty interest" in the "care and custody" of her child. (Troxel V Granville). We have a constitution. We don't just snatch children from fit and willing parents. (Again, in some situations, one may argue that the government does exactly this when dealing with fit and willing fathers )

So mom is going to raise her child as a single parent. OK. She'll probably need some help. Food assistance, Head Start, etc. Woah, this stuff costs money. You think we the taxpayers are going to let some sperm donor get away with impregnating women and wandering around the country while we pay for his kids? No way. Dad has to pay.

Dad wants to raise his kids? But the agencies involved have financial conflicts of interest which favor adoption. So excuses are made, cases are dragged out, and only the most persistent fathers obtain their children, sometimes after years of legal battles. Like the Vaughn adoption case in Ohio

The best way to make the situation more fair is to eliminate barriers for unwed fathers who want to keep their kids, and to respect their equal rights to raise their own children.

[+][deleted] 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]DougDante 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alanna 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]DougDante 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Alanna 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Celda -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]GTChessplayer -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Demonspawn -25 points-24 points-23 points 14 years ago (58 children) | Copy Link

Because abortion has nothing to do with biological control of one's body:

"This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. The detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent. (1)Specific and direct harm medically diagnosable even in early pregnancy may be involved. (2) Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. (3) Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by child care. (4) There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it."

Men have no same right to be free from a distressful life and future, apparently.

[+][deleted] 14 years ago (47 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]notcaptainkirk 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Demonspawn -15 points-14 points-13 points 14 years ago (44 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alanna 10 points11 points12 points 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alanna 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Alanna 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

But, instead, we treated women as little more than large children

My understanding is that a majority of the women who have been caught at this are teens. In other words, they are "large children." I could be wrong. The picture I always have of the safe haven surrender is the scared fifteen year old who was hiding her pregnancy under a baggy sweater the better part of the last year sneaking down to the hospital and fire station and quietly handing the baby over and disappearing again... I am not in any way trying to rationalize or excuse infanticide. I'm anti-abortion, for pete's sake.

It's ends versus means-- do the ends of punishing women who would kill their babies justify the means of the ones who would do so hoping they can get away with it? Even if you punish the mom, you still have a dead baby. Nobody likes dead babies. Hence, Safe Havens.

[–]SpawnQuixote 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Alanna 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 14 years ago (31 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Alanna 8 points9 points10 points 14 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alanna 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alanna 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]SpawnQuixote 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn 6 points7 points8 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]NBRA -5 points-4 points-3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Alanna 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Demonspawn -8 points-7 points-6 points 14 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 14 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Alanna 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

As much as I hate to agree with Demonspawn when he's spouting misogyny, in this particular case, he's got a point. Right now, we legally and socially compel men to pay for babies they generate, whether they like it or not. If men don't help pay for them, the government has to step in. Where do they get the money to do that? Children raised by single mothers are less likely to succeed in life, by just about every measure. So we're pouring all this money in, and the chance of getting a productive citizen who will pay it back, or at least pay it forward to the next generation, is substantially smaller.

I am a liberal because I've experienced first-hand what would have happened to me without a social safety net-- I'd be dead-- and I don't wish that on anyone. But there are also financial realities to this situation that can't be ignored, and there are no easy answers. But as a whole, more people in general taking responsibility-- and not blaming others for their own bad, poorly informed decisions (yes, Occupy Wall Street college students, I'm looking at you)-- would be a good thing.

[–]YHWH_The_Lord 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn -4 points-3 points-2 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]SpawnQuixote 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alanna -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Hypersapien 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alanna 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Hypersapien -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Alanna 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Offensive_Brute -4 points-3 points-2 points 14 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]KOAN13 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Offensive_Brute 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]eberkimer 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]KOAN13 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]eberkimer 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]KOAN13 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]eberkimer 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SnakeJG 9 points10 points11 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ZeroNihilist 7 points8 points9 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]NoSalt 18 points19 points20 points 14 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]Bobsutan 10 points11 points12 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Alanna 6 points7 points8 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]InfinitelyThirsting -13 points-12 points-11 points 14 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]InfinitelyThirsting 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alanna 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]InfinitelyThirsting 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SpawnQuixote 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]InfinitelyThirsting 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]EricTheHalibut[🍰] 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]castlecraver 32 points33 points34 points 14 years ago (50 children) | Copy Link

[–]rantgrrl 50 points51 points52 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]IWatchWormsHaveSex 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alanna 19 points20 points21 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

In theory, legally, either parent can surrender the baby. In practice, it's almost exclusively mothers, because they're the ones who are going to have physical possession of the baby in the first hours or days after birth. The mother can do this without informing the father she was ever pregnant, or, if she did, what became of the child; his consent is not necessary in practice, since they are legally not allowed to even ask your name when surrendering your baby.

In theory, if the father legally obtained the baby somehow, he could surrender it to a safe haven site; but if he did so against the mother's wishes, I'm sure he'd face kidnapping charges.

The point is that women have several legal, practical post-birth options if they do not wish to raise their child that do not involve any financial obligation to the child. Men have none that they can actually exercise.

It's another case of female privilege; she is privileged to have de facto possession/custody of the baby since she gave birth to it, and she is privileged to do whatever she wants with it without paternal consent.

[+][deleted] 14 years ago* (45 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 14 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Relax. First, notice all the personal attacks that your reply contains. If you actually care about the ideas you hold, and want to convince others of their merit, you should stop that.

Ok so there are two possibilities:

Women gives birth to baby and abandons it at safe haven without the father knowing, or without the father's consent.

In this scenario, the father can reclaim the baby. If it was done without the father knowing, most states will first make the police do a thorough investigation to see if there are any relatives (like the father), who are willing to keep the child. Note that if the father reclaims the baby, the mother is on the hook for child support.

Women gives birth to baby. Father and mother go home. Father then takes the baby to a safe haven without the mother knowing, or without the father's consent.

Exact same thing would happen. The mother can reclaim the baby, or the authorities will notify her to see if she wants to. Father will be on the hook for child support.

I will concede that it is easier for the woman to take the baby to a safe haven without the father knowing, as a result of being able to have possession of it first. Note that this would mean that the father was absent at birth. That is the only asymmetry here, and it's not that big of a deal because as I noted above, the father can reclaim the baby and the mother would be on the hook for child support.

[+][deleted] 14 years ago (32 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Alanna 10 points11 points12 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Alanna 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 22 points23 points24 points 14 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -21 points-20 points-19 points 14 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 11 points12 points13 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alanna 13 points14 points15 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]TOGTFO 6 points7 points8 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Offensive_Brute 7 points8 points9 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -11 points-10 points-9 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Offensive_Brute 8 points9 points10 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]PoundnColons 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]kragshot 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Celda 14 points15 points16 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Bobsutan 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Alanna 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]jumpup -7 points-6 points-5 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]memeofconsciousness 9 points10 points11 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]chavelah 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alanna 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]chavelah 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

An SS investigation often does a lot of good even when the mother can't or won't name a father. They don't just talk to the mother. They talk to her friends, family, teachers etc., and they can come up with a reasonable list of putative fathers if they try.

I think Safe Haven laws are aimed at any woman who might discard a baby for any reason, and crazed teenagers giving birth at prom are one of the target cohorts. But when it comes down to who actually DOES it (he fire-station thing, not the dumpster thing), my understanding is that their pregnancy has usually NOT been kept secret from their scary-ass family. Usually, there is another serious issue (addiction and incest are two major ones) in play, and often the mother is underage and trying to protect her "boyfriend" from being prosecuted for a statutory offense.

These are not criminal masterminds. If a social service agency wants to track down and DNA test putative fathers, they will. But they don't always, particularly if everybody involved in the situation appears to be an addict or a sex offense commiter/facilitator.

With a Safe Haven drop where the mother has signed relinquishment paperwork, proceeding to adoption is the easiest thing for "everyone involved." Fundamentally, social workers do not classify a noncustodial biological father of a child who comes into care as an "involved" party. Often they're right about that - and sometimes, they're wrong and they act very unjustly. My current foster kid thinks his father is God, and I've no information to offer to the contrary on that one :-(

[–]Alanna 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

An SS investigation often does a lot of good even when the mother can't or won't name a father. They don't just talk to the mother. They talk to her friends, family, teachers etc., and they can come up with a reasonable list of putative fathers if they try.

And underfunded and understaffed social services office really goes to all this trouble to track down a man that I'm willing to bet they believe won't care he has a kid or want anything to do with it? I'm sure they could, if they tried, but I doubt they try.

Also, parents surrendering babies at safe haven sites do not have to give their names. The babies are identified with numbers, and the parent is given a matching bracelet with the ID number (but is not obligated to take it) in case the parent changes their mind.

Fundamentally, social workers do not classify a noncustodial biological father of a child who comes into care as an "involved" party. Often they're right about that - and sometimes, they're wrong and they act very unjustly.

That's the problem. He should absolutely be considered an "involved" party, until he himself designates himself as otherwise.

My current foster kid thinks his father is God, and I've no information to offer to the contrary on that one :-(

Do you mean, literally God, like Jesus? Or just thinks his father is superspecial awesomesauce? Either way, that's heartbreaking. :( Kudos to you, though, for taking in foster kids.

[–]Celda 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alanna 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]chavelah 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]chavelah 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Offensive_Brute -5 points-4 points-3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 14 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Alanna 12 points13 points14 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Mothers can't give up their children for adoption either if the father is willing and capable of caring for the child.

Again, in theory, yes. In practice, they just adopt them out in Utah, and the biological father is SOL. Baby Emma is the most famous of these, but there are at least half a dozen fathers who have unsuccessfully fought to get their kids back from Utah adoptions.

In which case the father could give the child up for adoption with no financial responsibility for that child in the future. Which makes this entire post and subsequent thread totally meaningless.

If both parents want to give the child up for adoption, then yeah, everything is fine. We're talking about cases where one parent wants the kid and the other does not. Currently, women have many options they can exercise unilaterally, either legally or practically or both. Men have none; if the woman decides she wants to keep the baby and raise it, he is on the hook for child support, no matter what.

[+][deleted] 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Alanna 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 14 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Alanna 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

But, so can a man... provided he has full custody. Right? I'm not sure what I'm missing here.

That's true. But only extraordinary and rare circumstances would cause a man to be in legal custody of a newborn infant. Mothers have default immediate custody because they give birth, and, again, men only have an opportunity if they even know their offspring exist. I believe men have a right to know they have biological children. Don't you?

Okay, so this seems to be the main issue: "Five States also have provisions for a nonrelinquishing father to petition for custody of the child." In other words, the rest don't let the father take custody of the child after it has been given to a safe haven? That surprises me.

That is certainly an issue. The main issue is that women can do this, without ever telling the father, if he even knows he's a father, and free herself of any future financial obligation to the child. A man does not have this unilateral option.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn 7 points8 points9 points 14 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alanna 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

thedurka is right about the SCOTUS's process-- they don't take every case, they only take "landmark" cases that will set judicial precedents. If they don't want to set a national precedent for a case at that time, they'll decline the case. The National Center for Men may have actually thought he'd have a shot, or they may have just wanted the publicity that appealing to SCOTUS would generate.

Dubay was also short on money, so apparently the NCM wasn't willing to pick up his legal tab:

Undaunted by such reasoning, Feit [founder of NCM] asked Dubay to appeal his case to the Supreme Court, but the young man had had enough. Short of money and dubious about his prospects for prevailing, Dubay dropped out, which left Feit searching for a new plaintiff. Source (the primary source for your quote from Wikipedia)

Edit: seems I forgot the link.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alanna 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points12 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

If the man is aware of the child's existence, he can claim the abandoned child. He and the mother will still be the legal parents, and he will have shown greater concern for its welfare than the mother, so he will be awarded custody (I think abandonment might be the line where they'd side with Dad). He can then get child support from his wife.

Really, what's going on here is:

Number of states states that allow the parents (discounting those that are not aware of their parentage) to unanimously abandon the child and not be yadda yadda yadda: 49. Number of states that allow a subset of the parents (not unanimous) to abandon yadda yadda: 0.

That's the difference. The problem is just that the father is unknown and uninformed. And either way, the abandonment law isnt' for some high-minded moral belief that women should be allowed to abandon infants... it's simple pragmatism. Let's give scared new mothers a better alternative to infanticide, and thus prevent infanticides.

[–]Alanna 8 points9 points10 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]IWatchWormsHaveSex 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]sclaw 16 points17 points18 points 14 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alanna 23 points24 points25 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]drinkthebleach 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]falinski -7 points-6 points-5 points 14 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn 17 points18 points19 points 14 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]falinski -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alanna 6 points7 points8 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn 12 points13 points14 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Celda 11 points12 points13 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alanna 7 points8 points9 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ajleece 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kracus 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alanna 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]chavelah 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Alanna 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]nepidae 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]DevinV 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]virooso -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Tim-Tim -4 points-3 points-2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Tim-Tim -7 points-6 points-5 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]stinger503 -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ajleece 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alanna 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]stringerbell -3 points-2 points-1 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Alanna 8 points9 points10 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -13 points-12 points-11 points 14 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]Celda 13 points14 points15 points 14 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]chavelah -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Celda 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alanna 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]downvoteandmoveon 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Celda 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]chavelah 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alanna 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Celda 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Celda -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]420ish -9 points-8 points-7 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Comments