Coolio said:
The posts in this thread are pretty misinformed. I only know the way this stuff works in the US, and that's all this thread should be about. You can't have an international discussion about a nation's legal system unless everyone agrees to discuss it in the right context.
First, you cannot sign a contract absolving you of child support responsibility. These have always been thrown out in court.
Second, there is now legal precedent for the sperm donor of an in-vitro fertilization to be forced to pay child support.
Third, someone else mentioned this but most people are ignoring it. Currently, women have dramatically more reproductive rights than men. They have two positions where they make a choice about reproducing.
The majority of contraceptive methods are the female's responsibility. A reasonable person should not expect to be lied to about their sex partner's contraceptive use. As it stands, if a woman stops taking birth control, and lies about it, she suffers no consequences. Once a woman is pregnant, she has three choices. Keep the child, abortion, and adoption. The waiting lists for parents who want to adopt children are ridiculously long. The world we live in is ridiculously overpopulated. It's insanity to keep a child if the mother cannot support it herself and the father wants no part of the situation. The father and mother both had an initial choice to have unprotected sex, but now the mother has a second choice and the father is held hostage by this decision.
First of all - well put.
The bundle of cells or 'zygote' has about the same genetic material from the sperm as the egg - so technically the child is BOTH yours.
Coolio said:
I think it's reasonable to allow the father to demand she opt for abortion or adoption if she doesn't agree to absolving him of financial responsibility for a child he doesn't want.
I don't think it's unreasonable either. The laws should be amended.
I think the woman should be legally obliged to tell the father that she's pregnant before the first 30 days of pregnancy have passed. If this doesn't happen, and the man does not want to father her children - he should have the option to be absolved of his financial responsability later on - as the woman is being deceptive by omission.
Then at this stage, before it develops any further, BOTH parents can decide on the destiny of the zygote.
The woman has the option to keep the child regardless of the fathers decision, but if she chooses to do so, it will be entireley at her expense. She will then have to demonstrate to the state that she is capable of doing do.
In extreme circumstances, she could be forced by the state to abort the zygote or adopt the child.
This discourages destitute women living off the welfare system by getting themselves pregnant a few times. It DOES happen.
It also encourages women to consider the future emotional and financial circumstances of the CHILD at an early stage.
Take it from me - as a boy it was VERY difficult growing up without the love and guideance of a natural father. I didn't see the lack of money at the time - you tend to accept circumstances as a child.
My parents split when I was about 2, because they were two very different people. Sadly love wasn't enough.
Although they both agree - one good thing came out of that marriage - ME!
Comments from single mothers would be appreciated.