It should be legally valid to contractually agree, before birth, that the woman (or the man) will take full responsibility and care of a baby without bothering the other party. Thus a woman can get the child she wants from the father she wants without needing to lie about birth control.

FreddyDeus · 2011-04-23T12:36:45+00:00

Your premise is ill-conceived on quite a few levels.

Women can already have a child fathered by a particular man without bothering him. It's a choice women have. Men largely don't, but women do.

Just because a guy can contractually disassociate himself from parental responsibility does not, by any remote fucking stretch of the imagination, mean that guys are suddenly going to be happy leaving a trail of offspring in their wake. So there's still a motive for a woman to lie about contraception.

Contractual removal of responsibility doesn't mean that guys are suddenly going to acquiesce to wives' or girlfriends' demands to have children. So there's still a motive for a woman to lie about contraception.

And most important of all, of course, is a woman's ability to screw a guy out of 16-18 years of child support. Why would a woman with that agenda bother signing such a contract as you suggest? There's still a huge motive, in this situation, for a woman to lie about contraception. No contract for the guy means nearly two decades of child support for the woman.

The kind of contract you suggested would be beneficial in genuine, above board, sperm donation cases where a friend is willing to help out another friend, but wants protection under the law.

The rest of it, frankly, still allows unscrupulous women the upper hand. They ain't gonna limit their options by signing a contract that works wholly against their interests.

chavelah · 2011-04-23T13:00:05+00:00

I have not noticed that "Well-off, capacitated, dedicated potential mothers" are having a lot of trouble finding men to willingly impregnate them. Maybe I am hanging out with the wrong crowd.

Human-Stupidity_com · 2011-04-23T13:38:39+00:00

How can the mother legally sign away the child's rights? Men pay support for the child, not the mother. Allegedly.

galimi · 2011-04-23T18:25:54+00:00

I can haz child support?

LOL

DougDante · 2011-04-23T13:01:54+00:00

if dads and moms don't care for their children, the state, meaning the taxpayers are forced to foot the bill. Other taxpayers don't want to pay for someone else's "valid contract" to dump a bunch of kids on welfare and not pay for them. I think in roughly half of all child support cases state agencies actually get the support.

YIdothis · 2011-04-23T22:52:37+00:00

Downvoted.. Eugenics, really is not a legal obligation in terms of men's rights. This removes the right's of men to their children more than increases them. So, No.

Comments