Post Conception Opt-Out? Good Idea or Bad?

[roguenuke]

Courts will usually only sever parental responsibilities in fairly extreme circumstances, as it should be.

No. Safe haven laws allow it within a set time frame. That is a law.

And adoption does not take fairly extreme circumstances. Even relinquishing parental responsibility doesn't take extreme circumstances. In a lot of cases, it just takes getting married to someone willing to take on the responsibility.

 

[trouble13]

There is no way to have the rights equal out here. It just isn't possible. Women and men have differences that do not allow that.

Of course their are ways. The OP suggested one such way.

 

[trouble13]

The question should be, does a child deserve the right to financial support from both of their parents? The answer is yes.

Should both parents have the option to legally opt of parenthood before birth, the answer to that is yes also.

 

[roguenuke]

Of course their are ways. The OP suggested one such way.

It wouldn't be equal though. That isn't equal. It is someone complaining about women being able to make a pregnancy decision meaning they have an opt out. That isn't a sound argument.

 

[roguenuke]

Should both parents have the option to legally opt of parenthood before birth, the answer to that is yes also.

Yes, that option is to not have sex. After sex, post conception, both parents are not in equal positions when it comes to risk or financial responsibility, as only the woman has those on her during the pregnancy. It isn't until after birth that the man takes on the same responsibilities of the woman now.

 

[Irredentist]

No. Safe haven laws allow it within a set time frame. That is a law.

And adoption does not take fairly extreme circumstances. Even relinquishing parental responsibility doesn't take extreme circumstances. In a lot of cases, it just takes getting married to someone willing to take on the responsibility.

I would say that giving a baby up for adoption is a fairly extreme circumstance, but I suppose that's a matter of opinion.

 

[trouble13]

It wouldn't be equal though. That isn't equal. It is someone complaining about women being able to make a pregnancy decision meaning they have an opt out. That isn't a sound argument.

If your argument were sound the law would restrict women right to short to only be legal when a medical professional has deemed there to be a grave concern to the woman if the pregnancy is allowed to continue but the law is far more loose than that.

 

[Irredentist]

Should both parents have the option to legally opt of parenthood before birth, the answer to that is yes also.

There is no parenthood prior to birth, so that doesn't really make sense.

 

[roguenuke]

If your argument were sound the law would restrict women right to short to only be legal when a medical professional has deemed there to be a grave concern to the woman if the pregnancy is allowed to continue but the law is far more loose than that.

No it wouldn't. A woman is always at risk when she gets pregnant of complications that can affect her, up to and including death. The man does not increase his risk at all from pregnancy. As long as the increase in risk to a woman is not 0, then she is taking on a risk from pregnancy that the man does not have. All pregnancies come with an increased risk to health above 0.

 

[roguenuke]

I would say that giving a baby up for adoption is a fairly extreme circumstance, but I suppose that's a matter of opinion.

I wouldn't.

And giving up parental rights to someone else who is marrying the other parent is most certainly not fairly extreme circumstances.

 

[mrjurrs]

I dont need to


Its opinion not fact

You're boring. Did you or did you not say it was the basis for outlawing abortion?

 

[Irredentist]

I wouldn't.

And giving up parental rights to someone else who is marrying the other parent is most certainly not fairly extreme circumstances.

Nevertheless, in most such cases the parent will not give up their parental rights or responsibilities, regardless of the other parent marrying.

 

[trouble13]

Yes, that option is to not have sex. After sex, post conception, both parents are not in equal positions when it comes to risk or financial responsibility, as only the woman has those on her during the pregnancy. It isn't until after birth that the man takes on the same responsibilities of the woman now.

Women can held to the same unrealistic"just don't have sex" standard as well. People have sex and accidental pregnancies occur.

The question is what should the law require after the fact. Under current standards the law treats mothers and fathers unequally. That is a matter of fact.

 

[roguenuke]

Nevertheless, in most such cases the parent will not give up their parental rights or responsibilities, regardless of the other parent marrying.

But some will, especially if, like with the OP's actual concern, they don't want any of those responsibilities. That's the point. If they don't want the responsibilities, rights, then they will be more than happy to relinquish them to someone else.

 

[roguenuke]

Women can held to the same unrealistic"just don't have sex" standard as well. People have sex and accidental pregnancies occur.

The question is what should the law require after the fact. Under current standards the law treats mothers and fathers unequally. That is a matter of fact.

Women are. They still have to take some responsibility for the potential result of that. But since their consequences when it comes to a pregnancy are larger than a man's, as in they are the one pregnant, not him, that means they get to make the decisions concerning the pregnancy. After the pregnancy is when the decisions become mutual again, if the man is even around.

Biology treats mothers and fathers unequally, that is a matter of fact.

 

[Irredentist]

But some will, especially if, like with the OP's actual concern, they don't want any of those responsibilities. That's the point. If they don't want the responsibilities, rights, then they will be more than happy to relinquish them to someone else.

Assuming there is someone else to relinquish them to. But that isn't in their control.

 

[roguenuke]

Assuming there is someone else to relinquish them to. But that isn't in their control.

Lots of things are not in our control in life.

 

[Juks]

Post Conception Opt-Out FOR MEN

It is very hard for me to participate in this kind of discussion, since this is not how it is in my country. This is how it is in Sweden:
Man and woman have sex. Woman gets pregnant.

Woman has options:

1. Woman decides if she will bring the pregnancy to terms or have an abortion which must be made before week 12. Medical reason can allow abortion up to week 18. Women has to go to healthcare for "talks" pre- decision
2. Woman has to (legally) inform healthcare and authorities on fathers’ identity at latest at time of birth. If she doesn't inform man, authority does. Children’s right to know who their parents are comes first) It will however influence her rights in case of custody dispute.
3. If she doesn't know (had several sexual partners) She , authorities or healthcare informs the men on that they will have to take father tests (again: the right of the child to know who the father is comes before the right of the parents) ones the child is born to establish paternity

At this point the man has options:

1. Man renounces his right of equal custody (or isn’t fit) and doesn't want to have anything to do with child, which means he will have to pay a larger amount in support for the child until the age of 18, decided by court and depending on income.
2. Man get's the full (automatic) equal support of the child and agree on schedule with women for half time livings. Any allowance is in this case something the parents decide on but it is not required.
3. Man get's equal custody but agrees on schedule where child lives most of the time with mother and only some weekends with him. Man pays some alimony, decided by court and depending on income and how much more time the children are at her place.
4. Women renounces her rights of equal custody (or isn’t fit). Man gets sole custody and also allowance depending on the woman's income.

If he chooses option 1 on his own (without have made an agreement with her) then the woman has options again:

1. Woman has an abortion
2. Woman gives the baby up for adoption
3. Woman has another man to adopt the child and raises the child with him instead.
4. Women just let things run its course, she doesn't have to have any contact with him, the authorities will take in allowance from him and give them to her. If he doesn't have any income she will get a minimum amount from authorities (today about 200 dollars a month) If he has income but refuse to pay it will mount up to a debt, sent to the bailiff after an amount of time, which will in Sweden mean he can't take any loans or get any credits for three years and that the authorities have the right to require his employers to pay them directly from his salary or force sell any assets he has to cover the costs. In the meantime, the authorities will make the payments to her. (off course, if he is the one that has custody, the same rules apply to him)

So, to me, when you say he cannot walk away but she can. I find that I don't agree and that is exactly what he can do and what she can't, in your country.

 

[trouble13]

There is no parenthood prior to birth, so that doesn't really make sense.

If you want to have an honest conversation, great I am all for it. If your gonna make semmantical arguments to avoid my points than this is where I end my participation.

 

[Irredentist]

Lots of things are not in our control in life.

Which is precisely the point. A parent cannot simply relinquish their legal responsibility for a child because they don't want it. There has to be someone else to take on that responsibility in their place. Whether that be a person or the state.

 

[Lycanthrope]

It is very hard for me to participate in this kind of discussion, since this is not how it is in my country. This is how it is in Sweden:
Man and woman have sex. Woman gets pregnant.

Woman has options:

1. Woman decides if she will bring the pregnancy to terms or have an abortion which must be made before week 12. Medical reason can allow abortion up to week 18. Women has to go to healthcare for "talks" pre- decision
2. Woman has to (legally) inform healthcare and authorities on fathers’ identity at latest at time of birth. If she doesn't inform man, authority does. Children’s right to know who their parents are comes first) It will however influence her rights in case of custody dispute.
3. If she doesn't know (had several sexual partners) She , authorities or healthcare informs the men on that they will have to take father tests (again: the right of the child to know who the father is comes before the right of the parents) ones the child is born to establish paternity

At this point the man has options:

1. Man renounces his right of equal custody (or isn’t fit) and doesn't want to have anything to do with child, which means he will have to pay a larger amount in support for the child until the age of 18, decided by court and depending on income.
2. Man get's the full (automatic) equal support of the child and agree on schedule with women for half time livings. Any allowance is in this case something the parents decide on but it is not required.
3. Man get's equal custody but agrees on schedule where child lives most of the time with mother and only some weekends with him. Man pays some alimony, decided by court and depending on income and how much more time the children are at her place.
4. Women renounces her rights of equal custody (or isn’t fit). Man gets sole custody and also allowance depending on the woman's income.

If he chooses option 1 on his own (without have made an agreement with her) then the woman has options again:

1. Woman has an abortion
2. Woman gives the baby up for adoption
3. Woman has another man to adopt the child and raises the child with him instead.
4. Women just let things run its course, she doesn't have to have any contact with him, the authorities will take in allowance from him and give them to her. If he doesn't have any income she will get a minimum amount from authorities (today about 200 dollars a month) If he has income but refuse to pay it will mount up to a debt, sent to the bailiff after an amount of time, which will in Sweden mean he can't take any loans or get any credits for three years and that the authorities have the right to require his employers to pay them directly from his salary or force sell any assets he has to cover the costs. In the meantime, the authorities will make the payments to her. (off course, if he is the one that has custody, the same rules apply to him)

So, to me, when you say he cannot walk away but she can. I find that I don't agree and that is exactly what he can do and what she can't, in your country.

Interesting.

If a woman in Sweden decides to get an abortion, does the man have any legal ability to contest it?

 

[AGENT J]

You stated that a father cannot use safe haven laws.

nope, thats NOT all i said, please don't calim that again since its fatcually untrue

Yes he can. If he has any knowledge of or access to the child then he can utilize safe haven laws the same as she can. You are trying to ignore the difference in knowledge for the birth is due to the physical nature of pregnancy and birth on the mother. He has many options to keep in touch with, track of women he has slept with to find out if she is pregnant and work out with her about being a father. If he chooses not to take those steps, then he is opting out on his own.

Ill ask you AGAIN
how does the father use safe heaven without the mother?

 

[AGENT J]

Sure he has those options.

he factually does not without the woman

hence way its factually unequal

 

[roguenuke]

It is very hard for me to participate in this kind of discussion, since this is not how it is in my country. This is how it is in Sweden:
Man and woman have sex. Woman gets pregnant.

Woman has options:

1. Woman decides if she will bring the pregnancy to terms or have an abortion which must be made before week 12. Medical reason can allow abortion up to week 18. Women has to go to healthcare for "talks" pre- decision
2. Woman has to (legally) inform healthcare and authorities on fathers’ identity at latest at time of birth. If she doesn't inform man, authority does. Children’s right to know who their parents are comes first) It will however influence her rights in case of custody dispute.
3. If she doesn't know (had several sexual partners) She , authorities or healthcare informs the men on that they will have to take father tests (again: the right of the child to know who the father is comes before the right of the parents) ones the child is born to establish paternity

At this point the man has options:

1. Man renounces his right of equal custody (or isn’t fit) and doesn't want to have anything to do with child, which means he will have to pay a larger amount in support for the child until the age of 18, decided by court and depending on income.
2. Man get's the full (automatic) equal support of the child and agree on schedule with women for half time livings. Any allowance is in this case something the parents decide on but it is not required.
3. Man get's equal custody but agrees on schedule where child lives most of the time with mother and only some weekends with him. Man pays some alimony, decided by court and depending on income and how much more time the children are at her place.
4. Women renounces her rights of equal custody (or isn’t fit). Man gets sole custody and also allowance depending on the woman's income.

If he chooses option 1 on his own (without have made an agreement with her) then the woman has options again:

1. Woman has an abortion
2. Woman gives the baby up for adoption
3. Woman has another man to adopt the child and raises the child with him instead.
4. Women just let things run its course, she doesn't have to have any contact with him, the authorities will take in allowance from him and give them to her. If he doesn't have any income she will get a minimum amount from authorities (today about 200 dollars a month) If he has income but refuse to pay it will mount up to a debt, sent to the bailiff after an amount of time, which will in Sweden mean he can't take any loans or get any credits for three years and that the authorities have the right to require his employers to pay them directly from his salary or force sell any assets he has to cover the costs. In the meantime, the authorities will make the payments to her. (off course, if he is the one that has custody, the same rules apply to him)

So, to me, when you say he cannot walk away but she can. I find that I don't agree and that is exactly what he can do and what she can't, in your country.

Men in the US have multiple opportunities to walk away, not have any obligation to their children at all in the US, that so many are unwilling to recognize. Yes, there are laws that allow women to walk away as well, but that doesn't suddenly make the reality of the situation go away, where men can walk away from the start and just become basically impossible to find, especially in our country, and that isn't even counting options to go to a different country.

 

[trouble13]

Women are. They still have to take some responsibility for the potential result of that. But since their consequences when it comes to a pregnancy are larger than a man's, as in they are the one pregnant, not him, that means they get to make the decisions concerning the pregnancy. After the pregnancy is when the decisions become mutual again, if the man is even around.

Biology treats mothers and fathers unequally, that is a matter of fact.

As I said the law could limit a women's legal options to her biological needs but it does not. A woman has the legal right to abort if she decides motherhood is an inconvenience to her life that she does not want. Men should be liberated to exercise that same decision or that freedom should be taken away from women. Limit abortions to only being legal when it's a medical necessity and you would have
more parody in the law than we currently we have.