I've brought up the topic of Legal Surrender several times in this subreddit, and the main argument against it relates to social costs.
Essentially;
A woman falls pregnant and wishes to carry the child to birth. However, during the same period that woman is allowed to have an abortion, the man who helped create the fetus, chooses not to be the father.
If that man was exempt from paying child support to the mother once the child was born, it would be the tax payer that had to pay to support the mother.
I feel that this argument tends to avoid addressing the ethical and philosophical foundations of the debate. So I ask instead, if there were no social costs to the wider public for this matter, would you then support legal parental surrender?
edit: An example of this would be that if the mother entered parenthood, with full knowledge that she would enter it alone, she would not be eligible for Government Child Support.
[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Rockbottom503 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[+]Murdorkhan points [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link
I agree mostly except for e Woman. They fought and secured the right of sole responsibility of unborn children. Woman who can't support the child they decided to bring into the world should have the child taken and their wages garnished for 18 years.
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]deathdragon5858 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]truthenragesyou 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]MagicTampon 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]4man 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]DRU-ZOD1980 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link