Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>

Pro-choice people what would you want these men should be charged with?

Scroll to see replies

GBH.

I agree that the father should be able to forfeit parental responsibilities.

That's incredibly unfair on the mother. Takes two to make a baby. He got her pregnant.

Besides that would make it far too easy for any male to simply neglect their child.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 21

math42

Original post by Bornblue

That's incredibly unfair on the mother. Takes two to make a baby. He got her pregnant.

Besides that would make it far too easy for any male to simply neglect their child.

Posted from TSR Mobile

It's also incredibly unfair on the father that the woman gets to decide whether or not he has to support a child. Of course she should decide whether or not to have the child. I am advocating an option for the father to wave responsibilities and rights. The father, if he chose this path, would not have any legal right to temporary or permanent custody, of course, but he would also not have to pay child maintenance. He would cease to be considered a legal guardian of the child. This could not be reversed unless both parties agreed.

Reply 22

username2763536

Probably attempted murder.The pregnancy was 21 weeks along.So 5 months which is pretty advanced.I dont think its as clear cut as people make it out to be.There is no clear point where a feotus becomes human and where abortion is defintely wrong.Its interesting how people will fight over a bunch of cells merely because its human.However its perfectly fine to slaughter an animal or incarcerate them in zoos simply because they are not human.Even though animals defintely have more intelligence and feelings than any foetus.

Reply 23

username878267

Original post by 1 8 13 20 42

It's not unfair on the father, he has created the child, he should support it.
Both should have to support it, they both created the child. It is not fair for one parent to be able to waive their responsibility.

Then you place a huge burden on the mother and you allow any father who enters financial difficulties to waive their duties as a father.. In fact you encourage it. Is that what we want?

Thus option also means that either single mothers would become very poor or we would need to massively increase child benefits.

Posted from TSR Mobile

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 24

Good bloke

Original post by Bornblue

Thus option also means that either single mothers would become very poor or we would need to massively increase child benefits.

Or stop having unprotected sex, of course.

Reply 25

username878267

Original post by Good bloke

Or stop having unprotected sex, of course.

Oh yes, because stopping having unprotected sex after the child has been born will help...

Takes two to have unprotected sex and thus both the mother and father should be equally responsible for the financial upbringing of any child that results from the encounter.

People often berate women who get pregnant from unprotected sex yet never seem to blame the man who she had unprotected sex with...

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 26

math42

Original post by Bornblue

Both should have to support it, they both created the child. It is not fair for one parent to be able to waive their responsibility.

Then you place a huge burden on the mother and you allow any father who enters financial difficulties to waive their duties as a father.. In fact you encourage it. Is that what we want?

Thus option also means that either single mothers would become very poor or we would need to massively increase child benefits.

Posted from TSR Mobile

I think the woman should be able to waive her responsibility too. Well, if the father also does not want to look after the child, adoption does this (of course, the woman always has the abortion option as well). If the father wants to look after the child and the mother doesn't, then yes, she should be allowed to forfeit her responsibility and position as a guardian and allow him to be sole guardian.

I don't think I made this clear. This is something I would only say could be done with sole consent of the father prior to a child being born or at most within a very short period right after (I guess the legal particulars of the former case are quite awkward, what with the child not yet being a recognised individual, so perhaps it would need to be done soon after birth). I am not saying a father can be looking after a child for a while then, suddenly, noticing he is in financial difficulties, decide to vamoose. The mother should not have to shoulder any responsibility for the child she does not want either: she had the abortion option, and if that was not palatable to her, she can, as soon as she wishes, decide to have the child adopted.

You cannot have your cake and eat it. Women already have a clear option to not be responsible for a child: simply do not bring a child into the world. As it stands, the future of a man who gets a woman pregnant, whether through any fault of his or hers or neither, is entirely at the whim of the woman in question, which I think is definitively unfair. It would be absurd and immoral to give the father a say over the woman's body, so a system like that I have proposed seems the only reasonable way of having some equality in terms of responsibility and rights.

I imagine this would only be used in a select number of cases. While it would be legally encouraged, there is most certainly a social stigma against absentee fathers. Those in relationships would be inclined to make it work, I imagine, for the most part, even if they had misgivings. I'm not sure you get the magnitude of what I'm suggesting. The father would not just not have to pay. He would forfeit any right to custody whatsoever. If the mother so chose he could never see his child again (well, while said child is still a child anyway). It is not something that would be done lightly.