Should men have the right to opt out of child maintenance payments IF they wanted an abortion and the woman decided to keep the baby?

OctoBerry · 2015-03-07T14:37:41+00:00

The father should be free of any payments what so ever and not be listed any where as the child's father. Have him considered to be a sperm donor with no connection tot he child in any fashion.

GenderNeutralLanguag · 2015-03-07T16:15:41+00:00

Yes. Men should be free to control their reproduction just as women are.

The courts have ruled repeatedly that women have the right to an abortion, and rightly so.

The courts have ruled repeatedly that a man can not force a woman to have an abortion, and rightly so.

The courts have ruled repeatedly that a man can not force a woman to bring a child to term, and rightly so.

These three presidents mean that it is the woman choice and ONLY the woman's choice to bring the child to term. A man should have the option to opt into the rights and responsibilities of fatherhood, but they shouldn't be forced upon him because she decided to use his sperm to make a baby.

chafedinksmut · 2015-03-07T17:29:52+00:00

Her body? Her choice? Her responsibility. Simple.

5th_Law_of_Robotics · 2015-03-07T16:57:45+00:00

I think they should never be opted in.

They should have to choose parenthood. Like women do.

chocoboat · 2015-03-07T16:09:52+00:00

Yes, but it should be handled a certain way (no allowing a man to say "btw, I wanted an abortion 9 months ago, so I'm not going to pay.... see you later").

The most fair way to allow men to opt out is with a Legal Parental Surrender contract that's handled just like a pre-nup. It states his desire to not become a parent, and that in the event of accidental pregnancy, she will have 100% of the rights and responsibilities for the child. Like a pre-nup, it's only valid if she agrees to sign it. And like a pre-nup, if she won't sign then it informs the man of something he ought to know.

With a LPS contract, everyone knows what they're getting into ahead of time, and it's fair for everyone. It avoids all the complicated messy situations like "what if she hides the pregnancy" or "what if he's hard to find and can't be informed about the pregnancy" and so on.

eletheros · 2015-03-07T14:30:23+00:00

Yes.

Goat-headed-boy · 2015-03-07T18:15:39+00:00

Yes. It would be a step towards equality.

TankVet · 2015-03-07T17:47:47+00:00

Yes, but I think it should have to be recorded formally, at an appropriate trimester of the pregnancy to allow for a safe abortion, and the woman should have to acknowledge that she understands that she cannot file for child support.

Do it, but do it right.

ProfessorCordonnier · 2015-03-07T23:26:27+00:00

Affirmative Consent, beeeyotches!

We've all learned that for woman consenting to one type of activity (say, fellatio for example) doesn't indicate consent for a related activity (like, penis in vagina intercourse.)

So how does a man's consenting to sex somehow turn into consenting to be a father/support provider for 18 years? Especially in a world that has cheap, reliable birth control?

2015-03-07T19:12:57+00:00

Something like this will never happen because politicians would be committing career suicide if they ever talked about this issue.

Senray · 2015-03-07T20:31:25+00:00

Yes!

2015-03-08T01:40:57+00:00

Yes, we call it legal paternal surrender.

2015-03-07T21:35:35+00:00

Yes. Only men who have agreed before hand should pay .

If she want to keep the child , she alone is responsible financially . She can have an abortion or give it up for adoption other wise .

kaosethema · 2015-03-07T21:46:38+00:00

YES!

apullin · 2015-03-07T18:12:40+00:00

This is a very difficult issue, and the biggest disservice to it is that it gets no discussion. Just like with the issue of legality of abortion, I listen to and can understand the motivations on both sides.

I know plenty of answers here will be short quips, probably "yes", but I won't venture that myself. I will just say: this is a "banned" topic, and non-discussion is a true pathology to a democratic, equal society.

What I was just considering recently: There is a lot of talk about "reproductive rights". Is it the case that men really don't have much in the way of reproductive rights?

The strict-liability theory of sperm is well known.
There is this issue of abortion, where there is unlimited liability with no representation.
There have been cases that set the precedent that any sperm produced during an intimate encounter is treated as a "gift", even if a condom is used, the material is discarded, and there is no consent given for it to be retrieved and be used for a pregnancy.
The only non-surgical form of birth control for men is 85% reliable for effectiveness when used correctly, whereas there are plenty of options for women that are > 99% reliable. It's great that those exist, but then all those contraception are put under the banner of inalienable "reproductive rights" and entitlements.

SimCity8000 · 2015-03-08T03:55:37+00:00

it's totally within the rights of the man and woman in this hypothetical situation to figure out an agreement like this without court intervention.

Mitchell78 · 2015-03-07T16:06:33+00:00

off course

OctoBerry · 2015-03-07T16:54:00+00:00

I think a common sense law would work this way:

The mother is obligated to inform the father of the pregnancy asap, and the father then has the option of opting out of fatherhood at any time before the third trimester plus maybe a one month buffer (equivalent of an abortion for the father, but the mother has an extra month to decide what she wants to do based on the father's decision for practical reasons).

If the father doesn't opt out before that date, he's on the hook for helping pay for delivery and care for the newborn, but he can still opt out at a later date. This is equivalent to safe haven laws. If the mother puts the child up for adoption the father should still be notified first.

So with this law in place, both men and women are in a position where they aren't forced into parenthood.

intensely_human · 2015-03-08T03:03:42+00:00

[permanently deleted]

uton_gili · 2015-03-07T20:15:02+00:00

Not as simple as that, but there should be a way to form a presex contract.

Capitalsman · 2015-03-08T05:29:32+00:00

He'd have to file a formal document somewhere during the pregnancy within the trimester periods when it's allowed to have an abortion I think, otherwise just saying that in court would be abused.

MRSPArchiver · 2015-03-07T14:16:54+00:00

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

cuntsgonecrazy · 2015-03-07T19:14:10+00:00

Yes. What you described is already known as the Male Abortion.

intensely_human · 2015-03-08T01:31:48+00:00

[permanently deleted]

2015-03-08T04:31:09+00:00

I don't think "if" should have anything to do with it. To legally mirror a woman's fundamental right to an abortion a man shouldn't have to prove anything.

If in an allotted time the man decides he no longer wishes to be a father he should be able to simply stop being one. I would set this time period from the moment of conception up to a year after legal notification of the child's birth.

If in the instance the child is born to impoverished circumstances, the father may be order to pay a nominal amount of child-support to help preserve the child's basic needs of clothing and food.

I believe the outcome of this concept would be 1) the higher use of birth control; 2) lower incidents of abortion; and 3) lower numbers of children being surrendered to authorities after birth.

iN00Briated · 2015-03-08T07:16:50+00:00

duganaok · 2015-03-07T18:38:07+00:00

I think that there is no right or wrong answer here and instead we should be focusing on better contraceptives and sex education for men. So this situation does arise in the first place.

KrisK_lvin · 2015-03-07T15:03:20+00:00

I think it's an interesting question, and while I'm sure this will be down-voted, I'm not sure what the answer is and am tending towards no.

There is (as far as I know) a lot of unfairness in the current system in countries where it exists, but I'm not yet convinced that this is the best solution to that problem.

On a practical level, how would a man legally prove to the court that he had discussed this decision with this partner well before the abortion limit? How messy, lengthy and expensive would it be if she made a counterclaim that the couple had no such discussion and that he's only saying it to get out of paying maintenance? How would he prove that his claim were true? (Lawyers would seem to be the major beneficiaries on this one)

What if at some later date the father regrets his decision, changes his mind and wants to make contact with his child? Would that contact mean he was formally acknowledging the child as his own and that he'd therefore have to start paying maintenance? From what date would it be paid? Back-dated to the child's birth? The moment of acknowledgement? Calculating the amount would probably require yet more legal processes (more legal fees too).

And who would pay for the child's maintenance? The state?

I'm open to being persuaded that this would be a good ruling, but can't yet see it myself right now.

gsettle · 2015-03-07T16:25:59+00:00

No. Just because there was a difference of opinions doesn't mean there isn't a human beings well being at stake here. But, sanity should prevail here. Women already are awarded far more than is necessary in custody cases in some instances. It would be much better if current law and rulings did not favor women.

rache-the-cheat · 2015-03-07T23:13:52+00:00

No I think the father should pay child support even if he asked the mother to get an abortion and refuses whether it be because it's against her belief system or she just doesn't want to put her body through that. If it were men that got pregnant the same would be expected for women.

2015-03-07T23:56:03+00:00

Absolutely not. Would you want to leave your own child without a father? Whether the man wished for an abortion or not is irrelevant once the baby is born. Take responsibility. If the parents are split, at least provide monetary payment to help that child grow.

chocoboat · 2015-03-07T14:48:32+00:00

No. If a child is born, the two people responsible should be required to support it. Rape being the exception.

If you fail to convince her to have an abortion, you lose.

Be careful where you aim that thing.

Diesel-66 · 2015-03-08T04:15:44+00:00

Of course he is responsible for the child. The child needs support

unklestinky · 2015-03-07T16:45:23+00:00

It's a pointless question. This will never become the default position in society.

FrenchmanThrowaway · 2015-03-07T19:12:54+00:00

While I do agree that men should have such a right, allow me to play devil's advocate for a second:

When having unprotected sex, you are making a conscious choice and should understand that your actions could lead to pregnancy. If you don't want that, then have safe sex. It's not a 100% guarantee I understand, but it's better than not wrapping up.

It's like the equivalent of buying a lottery ticket, losing and demanding your money back because you didn't really want the ticket in the first place.

Granted the situation becomes more complicated in cases where the man is raped, but at a basic level, a chosen action with a known potential consequence was voluntarily taken; you've opted in dude.

rg57 · 2015-03-07T14:56:27+00:00

It should be automatic.

MRMRising · 2015-03-07T17:57:07+00:00

[permanently deleted]

Arby01 · 2015-03-07T16:41:50+00:00

[permanently deleted]

Title	Should men have the right to opt out of child maintenance payments IF they wanted an abortion and the woman decided to keep the baby?
Author	mrw517
Upvotes	153
Comments	173
Date	March 7, 2015 2:16 PM UTC (11 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/2y8ob2/should_men_have_the_right_to_opt_out_of_child/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/should-men-have-the-right-to-opt-out-of-child.986488 https://theredarchive.com/post/986488

Comments