A member of an opposition sub posted some interesting concerns about financial abortion. I wanted MR's thoughts.

Senray · 2014-07-04T01:17:56+00:00

The writer seems to be confusing voluntarily surrendering parental rights with what is commonly referred to as a restraining order, and not understanding that the proposed option is before the child is born. Financial abortion is the option for a man to voluntarily surrender parental rights and responsibilities before a child is born. In that scenario, the father has no legal relationship to the kid, nor does anyone in his family.

trthorson · 2014-07-04T02:50:35+00:00

Writer raises a couple decent points. But I'm still 100% in favor of it. I'll go over my thoughts.

I'm a product of two families which, with only 11 aunts/uncles/grandparents, there have still been 8 divorces. Yet, I'm still too ignorant on the subject to know the current precedent with many things.

First, the ones that I personally have answers for:

Father who doesn't stay away can have restraining order placed just as if he were a random guy.
Paternal grandparents have no rights.
Father can "see child a bit when he/she's young" in the same way that any random person can be allowed to (that's key - he has to be allowed to now - he has no rights to see child). But "just be a legal father a little bit when young"? No.
Unlimited separations just like unlimited abortions.
Already is government compensation for single mothers (I'm shocked at the writer having the gumption to say there isn't).
Yes you can "disown" your kid in the traditional sense but, no, where the idea came from that this would be applied to that... I'll never know.

Then the whole last paragraph: This isn't a restraining order. This is a surrender of rights as well as obligations. That means that if the mother wants the father in the house to help pay for things - he can be. Think of it like downgrading relationship with child from father to random person. The father can still stay with mother, but the second she doesn't want him there - he's out.

Now, onto the couple things that were brought up that I'm less sure about:

What if the child wants to find the dad?

This is under the assumption that the mother doesn't want the child to. Now, I think the best course of action would be to treat him like any other random person: mother can file restraining order. I'm still not confident with this solution, but it's the best I know of.

How about if there's more than one kid in the family ,but the father only wants to surrender one.

I'd say take the same approach as above. My mother and her boyfriend are good examples of how this would be done, I think: They live together, and one of my siblings is still at home. Her boyfriend's daughter just graduated.

My mom's boyfriend isn't related to my youngest sibling. He has no parental rights over him and also no technical responsibilities. In practice, he cares for all of the kids, but legally speaking he is not obligated.

The issue comes with this: what happens if the father doesn't feel that same responsibility (which is almost certain to be the case if father legally surrenders)? Legally surrendered kid (Kid A) is hungry, but dad only made food for Kid B (not-surrendered). Both have soccer practice, but dad only wants to drive Kid B.

While these situations wouldn't be illegal even if the father hadn't surrendered, I can see this still being an objectively worse situation than if he at least was the father legally speaking. CPA can go after fathers for neglect - I don't believe they can go after someone just living there.

So that would undoubtedly create some shitty situations for the kid. I don't think they outweigh the good, but it's a cost worthy of mentioning.

-one MRA's thoughts.

eyenot · 2014-07-04T22:41:31+00:00

All but the last of the concerns raised are not anything unique to legal paternal surrender. They apply just as equally to a mother/father giving up their child for adoption, which is already legal/practiced. So, in each scenario, just replace "father who exercised paternal surrender" with "mother who gave up her baby for adoption". Then whatever answer we have for that scenario today is what we'd have for a father who exercised paternal surrender in the same scenario.

DougDante · 2014-07-04T11:05:42+00:00

I'm against voluntary parental surrender. It's unworkable and bad for children.

chocoboat · 2014-07-04T02:30:53+00:00

First, please don't use the words "financial abortion", it's a terrible term. Legal Parental Surrender is the best phrase for it.

To answer the questions posed that person's post...

1) If the father changes his mind later, too bad for him. Choices have consequences. A woman who gives her child up for adoption doesn't have the right to take the child back 4 years later... that doesn't mean we should ban adoption.

Like any man who is legally unrelated, he may contact the parent(s) and ask to talk to the child, and they may or may not allow it. He has the same legal status as any random man on the street.

2) Grandparents do not have rights or responsibilities in any situation, whether LPS takes place or not.

3) If mom dies or goes to jail, the same thing happens that would happen to a child with two dead parents - he goes to the nearest family member willing to take him, or he goes into foster care or something like that.

Once again, the biological father has NO rights. He's basically a sperm donor.

4) If the child wants to find the dad, he is free to attempt this. Same situation as a sperm donor, where the name of the sperm donor is known to the mother and child.

5) LPS can never be used after birth. Like opting out via abortion, a man can only opt out before there is a living child.

Let me be clear, that is a huge huge HUUUUUGE misconception on the part of the questioner there. Absolutely no one is advocating for men to be able to choose to have a family, and then years later walk out without paying for it.

LPS is for the man who does not want to become a father at all, but does not personally have the option to choose abortion. It's to prevent him from being forced into fatherhood against his will. If a man chooses to have the children, he is responsible for paying for them until they're 18, without exceptions.

Now, let me explain about how I think LPS should work... I think there are all kinds of complications and potential unfair situations with allowing the man, upon finding out about the pregnancy, getting some legal paperwork done and then filing it. What if the woman doesn't tell him of the pregnancy and hides it from him? What if the man doesn't notify the woman of his LPS papers in time for her to make a decision on abortion? There are a hundred ways for problems to arise.

I believe LPS should work like a prenuptial agreement before a marriage. The man gets the legal paperwork and presents it to the woman, explains his wishes to remain child free, and in the case of an accidental pregnancy then he will not be legally responsible for any child. This must be done BEFORE any accidental pregnancy happens.

And, like with a prenup, the women is completely free to not sign it. If she won't sign, meaning that she refuses to continue the relationship unless she retains the ability to force him into legal parenthood, then the man may want to consider ending that relationship.

With a pre-emptive contract, there is no possible way for this to be unfair to anyone. The man can't be forced into parenthood, the woman only gives up her rights if she chooses to sign it. No one is being forced into anything.

If the woman does get pregnant and does choose to have the child, she has the same status as a single mother whose husband died. She is on her own, and must pay to raise the child on her own. There is government assistance (food stamps, welfare etc.) available if she is struggling to do it by herself... but no individual can be forced to contribute towards raising this child.

I have discussed this form of LPS before with a couple of feminists who abhorred the idea of "financial abortion" but even they agreed a prenup-like contract would be fair to everyone (though they mentioned the social safety net to help single mothers in financial need should provide more than it currently does).

tallwheel · 2014-07-04T04:20:44+00:00

Great. Now you've got me posting in that new sub. Why do I have a feeling I'm going to regret this?

NWOslave · 2014-07-04T01:18:12+00:00

Abortions and financial abortions. And this is it? The top of the civilized heap? The age of enlightenment? What a filthy, degenerate, pathetic society this is.

Title	A member of an opposition sub posted some interesting concerns about financial abortion. I wanted MR's thoughts.
Author	SoldierofNod
Upvotes	4
Comments	24
Date	July 4, 2014 12:54 AM UTC (12 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/29sf99/a_member_of_an_opposition_sub_posted_some/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/a-member-of-an-opposition-sub-posted-some.998382 https://theredarchive.com/post/998382

Comments