Discussed this a bit in the other financial abortion thread today, but didn’t want to distract too much from OP in case it was too derailing. Credit to u/speltspelt for even bringing this idea to my attention.

Essentially, the idea is before sex, both parties sign a contract in which they both agree to him waiving all parental responsibilities (and rights) before having sex. Every new partner would need to sign one and for continuing partners there would be a term limit on the contract at which time it would need to be renewed. Perhaps 6 months? Marriage, of course, is already waiving the ability to waive this.

Currently, according to many here, it’s unfair that women can abort, put their child up for adoption, or safe surrender, while men can be forced to be tied to a child—at least financially for close to two decades—they never wanted. Consent to sex =/= consent to parental rights and obligations.

In this regard, a jointly-agreed waiver allows men to take back control, as they now can enforce a prior agreement. If they choose not to enter into that agreement with a particular woman for whatever reason, they cannot say it wasn’t their choice. And as opposed to LPS after conception, this agreement allows her to enter into a sexual relationship with a man knowing full well what to expect in the event of pregnancy. If she’s pro-life and doesn’t want to raise his child alone, she can choose not to sleep with him, or make sure she's super-duper protected from pregnancy.

The key point here is that by entering into this agreement prior to sex, both parties know full well what they are getting into. Everyone knows what’s up before the problem of an unwanted child arises. They also have incentive to stay safe. If I agree to sleep with a man who I’ve agreed to allow waive his parental obligations in the event of pregnancy, I’m surely going to make sure I’m using adequate birth control. If he’s agreed to sleep with a woman who did not agree to his waiver, he will make sure to use adequate measures. So this also is sound policy in that it encourages folks to have safe sex—something LPS after the fact would not encourage in men.

And what every man wants to hear: it de-incentivizes reproductive fraud. What woman will poke holes in condoms or sperm jack if she’s signed a waiver? Even if she does, who cares? She can’t force his hand after she’s agreed to waive.

Credit to u/Entropy-7 (and others) for asking why not just have him sign a contract when he wants to opt in to parenthood? Why is the default “opt in” when it should be “opt out”?

Because if you want it to be fair and not lopsided in favor of men, you have to understand women cannot “opt in” to pregnancy. It can happen whether we choose it or not. That and parental rights vest upon becoming a parent, they are fundamental rights. They don’t vest only upon explicitly contractually choosing to become one. Her options (abortion, adoption and surrender) are all “opting out” as well.

Downside: it’s not sexy to pull out a contract and discuss this right before sex, it kills the vibe. However, it’s not easy nor sexy for a woman to exercise her reproductive rights either. LPS after conception is great for men because they can walk away, no consequences, no sacrifices. But it’s not great for women who then have to bear all of the consequences and sacrifices of sex after being inseminated. Anyone who wants this to be “fair and equal” can see that exercising your reproductive rights is neither easy, nor sexy, for either gender, but it’s still your choice.

So, CMV, do you agree this is the “fairest” option? If not, why do you think financial abortions, after conception, are more fair?

*Obligatory disclaimer: yes I realize this disregards the rights of the child/best interests of the child standard. This is a thought experiment, not necessarily a legal, fool-proof argument.