Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[GavJ]

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. Possibly allow the abortion window to extend a week longer or something if an opt-out has been signed, to avoid weird games of chicken.

Why? Equal rights for men and women, of course. Currently, both sexes have equal rights BEFORE sex: both can demand contraception, both can abstain.
But only women have rights AFTER sex to determine the legal and financial fate of both partners.

This would allow women to maintain choice over their own bodies, but not the futures of unwilling partners any more than those partners have choice over theirs.

Discuss.

[Tawa]

In concept, it is beautiful.

In practice, it would make a hell of a lot of problems.

Like communism.

[Reelya]

I've read feminist writers supporting opt-out for men.

After all, a woman doesn't "consent" to becoming a mother by agreeing to have sex, right? Similarly, a man agreeing to have sex shouldn't be seen as consent to become a parent either.

Once pregnant women have choices: abortion, or carry the baby and either adopt it out or raise the child.

I think society sees a HUGE issue with the idea of a man telling the woman what to do. Tell her to get an abortion: you'll get crucified. Tell her to keep it, not much better, now you're trying to tie her down with your patriarchal bullshit. Tell her to adopt it out: you're just heartless. 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. 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.

[Mr. Strange]

+1.

But what about those cases where father is contacted after birth?

[freeformschooler]

If a woman gets an abortion then how does that affect either of them financially or legally (necessitating this law)? Is there some weird law requiring fathers to pay for half the operation? If not, how does a dead baby affect the father?

[Reelya]

This isn't about "real" abortions. a "paper" abortion in this sense is legally not accepting responsibility for the embryo.

These days except for screwed up countries or weird religions no woman has to carry a baby to term without wanting to. Our society is geared for the mother to make this choice, not the father.

Personally I think we need better societal care rather than foisting child support payments on some dude because his sperm made the egg. Children are everyone's future and society should support that. Child support is just a stop-gap.

[Bauglir]

This concept seems horribly named.

[Graknorke]

Isn't this already a thing? I thought it was.

[penguinofhonor]

If you keep the rest of the system as-is, this is bad for the child. The child support money would have to come from somewhere else. I'd support this if that problem was solved, which I'm sure there are numerous ways to do.

[Reelya]

Kind of related, high-earning women start sounding like MRAs when they have to pay alimony or child support.

[GlyphGryph]

I disagree with the time span. If this happens, a man should be obligated to sign off such responsibility as soon as possible, preferably within a week of being notified of the pregnancy.

The reason for this is both for practical and ethical reasons: In order to make an informed decision about her own abortion, a woman needs to know whether she will be bearing the burden alone or sharing it. Abortions are safer when done earlier, and there are many months of planning and lots of possible investment when intending to carry to term. For the good of the woman and the possible child, the man should make such a decision early enough in the process that the woman can respond safely and with minimal investment if he decides to withdraw support.

[Frumple]

Isn't this already a thing? I thought it was.

Sorta'. I'm about 90% sure there's some kind of legal agreement the parents can enter into in which total fiscal responsibility is assumed by one of the parties in question. It just requires agreement between the parties instead of one doing so unilaterally.

Which is arguably understandable, considering that one party's bodily autonomy is involved and the other's kinda' isn't.

[GavJ]

But what about those cases where father is contacted after birth?

That is a good question that definitely needs addressing. And as mentioned, earlier abortions are safer. So fine, I think it would be fair to give a man ~ 1 month of time to decide (and to receive correspondence, etc.) after notification.

If your notification comes at 27 weeks, and a month is too long to hear back before you have to make an abortion decision, then tough luck... don't be irresponsible and wait 5 months to inform the father. Inform at 1 month or right when you find out, and you can abort the next day if you really want (or earlier!), but you can do so as early as 2 months WITH full knowledge of the financial ramifications, guaranteed. Still quite early and safe.

If you wait until after birth? He still gets 1 month to decide.

If a woman gets an abortion then how does that affect either of them financially or legally (necessitating this law)? Is there some weird law requiring fathers to pay for half the operation? If not, how does a dead baby affect the father?

There's a potential argument to be made for damages to the father of aborting his fetus, but this is sort of a separate issue, and a more provocative one, and wouldn't have to be decided at the same time as the idea in the OP.

If you keep the rest of the system as-is, this is bad for the child. The child support money would have to come from somewhere else. I'd support this if that problem was solved, which I'm sure there are numerous ways to do.

The money would just come from welfare, just like it does if a woman decides to keep a baby knowing that neither parent can pay for it of the father is dead or whatever.

Tax payers are already willing to support welfare for women who decide to keep a fetus, even if financially unaccounted for, in the name of rights for women.
Tax payers should also therefore be obligated to support welfare when men decide to not support a baby, even if otherwise financially unaccounted for, in the name of rights for men.

Being okay with one but not the other suggests women's rights are more important, which is unjust.

[Loud Whispers]

PTW, as I'll soon be in the middle of nowhere I cannot participate in this digital abortion.

[freeformschooler]

This isn't about "real" abortions. a "paper" abortion in this sense is legally not accepting responsibility for the embryo.

These days except for screwed up countries or weird religions no woman has to carry a baby to term without wanting to. Our society is geared for the mother to make this choice, not the father.

Personally I think we need better societal care rather than foisting child support payments on some dude because his sperm made the egg. Children are everyone's future and society should support that. Child support is just a stop-gap.

Oh.

In that case:

This concept seems horribly named.