Simple concept: Up until whatever point in pregnancy a woman is allowed to legally abort a fetus in a given jurisdiction, the father should also have the ability and the right to sign a piece of paper that disavows all connection with the child legally. No parental rights, no financial obligations.
I think if it were up for vote, I would vote in favor. But even while it solves some problems, it would create problems too. I note, for example, that it creates incentive for fathers to opt out early. Sure, it would solve the occasional bizarre problem where sperm donors get stuck paying child support for 18 years. Which is absolutely awful. This would solve that, yes. Sure, if you imagine the scenario of one-night-stand where the male had no intent to impregnate, but nevertheless conception occurred...woman decides she wants to keep it, man has no interest...yes, this would address those situations very nicely.
But imagine for example, a tentative couple, neither intended pregnancy, but pregnancy nevertheless occurred. She wants to keep the child, he's on the fence. It wasn't what he planned, it's not what he wants, but he still like the girl, no one is deceiving anyone, they still like each other...but she chooses to keep the child. The
safe decision for the guy to make is to sign the paper and walk away. Whereas he might have been willing to "give it a try."
So, yes. It would create some unfortunate results. It would also eliminate some unfortunate results. But on the whole I think it would be more fair and reasonable. I'd vote yes.
I think overall though, that this is a situation I'd rather the government not be involved at all. Male opt out sounds good, but what exactly is the problem that it seeks to address? I assume it's court ordered alimony and child support. So why not simply get rid of these things?
I think society sees a HUGE issue with the idea of a man telling the woman what to do.
We have all these problems with the man having a say, that's a clear indication that we consider this the woman's right to choose, not the mans.
I think this "equality" idea is frequently misapplied. Not all people, not all genders, not all races, not all situations...not all things are equal. Inequality is sometimes a fact of life that can't simply by legislated away. For example: women are naturally biologically capable of becoming pregnant and giving birth. Men are not. Complain all you want, make all the laws you want...doesn't change things.
I think this particular situation is one where
it's ok if things are not equal. If the one who is physically carrying a child inside their body has absolutely final say on whether there will be an abortion...I'm ok with that. If men get squeezed out on this one, well...too bad. Sometimes things are unfair. Sometimes we can make them more fair. And sometimes we can't make them more fair. And still other times trying to make them more fair can have terrible consequences. This might be the latter.
I think that woman having absolute final say on the abortion decision is ok. Yes, it's unfair. Yes, it's unequal. That's ok. Sometimes when things are unfair, we're on the "better" side of the unfairness and sometimes we're on the "worse" side of the unfairness. This is an unfair situation that favors women, and I'm ok with it favoring women.
And when someone has no right to choose, they shouldn't be forced bear the cost of someone else's decision for something they never wanted in the first place.
Agreed. 18 years of court-ordered financial liability for a decision made by somebody else is, in my opinion, unreasonable. And in this case it's an unfairness we can reasonably do something about.
Allow women the final say in abortion. And stop compelling, via threat of force, wage garnishment and jailtime...stop compelling men to pay for children they're not being a father for.
Author
Topic: Abortion father opt-out rule (Read 7838 times)