This might surprise you -
Mar. 11th, 2006 11:17 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
kyburgBut if a guy wants to opt out of child support, before the child is born?
As long as ending the pregnancy is an option, no questions asked -
Sure.
As long as this decision is made before the child is born - and can be made before the child is born.
No, state and local governments. You can't go back to someone who inadvertantly acted as sperm donor and you want to recoup your losses when she showed up for assistance, five years or more later. You can refuse services - until she can't take care of the child and then remove the child and terminate her parental rights, too. You could, you know.
Boy, that'll show 'em. But no, it's not a matter of handing over the kid to the second parent once the first one's been tagged as incompetent.
(I'm of two minds about having to notify the second parent when the first one didn't, once a child is in care. I could ask the DCFS social worker about how they approach that now. Something tells me they don't just find a DNA match and snap, the job's over.)
You may want to have children.
I'm telling you. It's not your right to have children, in spite of being able to provide for them or not.
If you won't think about someone other than yourself in matters like this - I don't want you make decisions for someone who won't even be visible to society until school age.
Children are not a necessity in today's world - they are a luxury that has to be measured in their impact. That's harsh, but that's also true.
But mind you. You can't have one without the other.
You want to make it possible for men to opt-out?
You have to make it possible for women to opt-out as well.
Ultimately, you're dealing with an equation that has no room for the unborn - and when people are considering these steps, there never will be room.
Deal with the reasons a woman needs an abortion, folks. Making it illegal won't do a dick thing about it otherwise.
I don't think it's fair to make men responsible for pregnancies they didn't want.
And it's not fair to make women responsible for pregnancies they didn't want, either.
As long as ending the pregnancy is an option, no questions asked -
Sure.
As long as this decision is made before the child is born - and can be made before the child is born.
No, state and local governments. You can't go back to someone who inadvertantly acted as sperm donor and you want to recoup your losses when she showed up for assistance, five years or more later. You can refuse services - until she can't take care of the child and then remove the child and terminate her parental rights, too. You could, you know.
Boy, that'll show 'em. But no, it's not a matter of handing over the kid to the second parent once the first one's been tagged as incompetent.
(I'm of two minds about having to notify the second parent when the first one didn't, once a child is in care. I could ask the DCFS social worker about how they approach that now. Something tells me they don't just find a DNA match and snap, the job's over.)
You may want to have children.
I'm telling you. It's not your right to have children, in spite of being able to provide for them or not.
If you won't think about someone other than yourself in matters like this - I don't want you make decisions for someone who won't even be visible to society until school age.
Children are not a necessity in today's world - they are a luxury that has to be measured in their impact. That's harsh, but that's also true.
But mind you. You can't have one without the other.
You want to make it possible for men to opt-out?
You have to make it possible for women to opt-out as well.
Ultimately, you're dealing with an equation that has no room for the unborn - and when people are considering these steps, there never will be room.
Deal with the reasons a woman needs an abortion, folks. Making it illegal won't do a dick thing about it otherwise.
I don't think it's fair to make men responsible for pregnancies they didn't want.
And it's not fair to make women responsible for pregnancies they didn't want, either.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
*nods*
Date: 2006-03-11 11:31 pm (UTC)It's pretty simple: if a man has sex without bothering to make sure his partner is on the same wavelenght in the case of an unwanted pregnancy, he is tacitly agreeing to respect the woman's judgment on the matter. If she chooses to have a child as a result, then basically he can't opt of taking care of the child financially when he never expressed his reluctance before having sex. Ditto if she chooses not to have the child, despite how he feels about children.
The time to speak up on what to do in case of an unwanted pregnancy is always before having sex. For both partners, but especially for the man, since he's not biologically capable of carrying a fetus, but only of preventing conception. So have the conversation, and if you don't like the answer your partner gives you, there's always opting out of intercourse, and/or going for masturbation. Sorry, but that's how most people work it out.
Re: *nods*
Date: 2006-03-12 01:42 am (UTC)I think there ought to be a contract people can sign, which basically says that in the event that a pregnancy should not occur, the male will have nothing to do with it, (no child support, no visitation, etc.) and the female will not attempt to change that state of affairs. Both parties must sign it for it to be valid, and it is the only way to prove that the male did not intend for a pregnancy to occur.
The female is under no obligation to sign, and can decide at that point whether to fuck the guy anyway or not.
Under various circumstances a similar contract could be signed after the pregnancy occurs, but again, only with the female's consent, and it's going to be a damn lot harder to get consent at that point if she isn't planning on aborting.
Basically, I don't like the idea of people putting pressure on women to have abortions (or not.)
Re: *nods*
Date: 2006-03-12 03:16 am (UTC)You shouldn't need a contract. Christ, all it would take is one hour of talking before having sex, during which the following milestones are hit:
1. birth control: whose responsibility, and what exactly does it entail? Who pays (if insurance does not cover it)?
2. if birth control fails: what do both parties want to do next? Who pays for what?
If there is no verbal agreement, then both parties just walk away. "...But I've always wondered what it would be like to fuck [insert specifications and/or name here]". No. You just don't do it.
And another thing: even if you initially agree on things, you routinely have the same exact talk, especially when one of you changes his/her mind vis a vis - having to be the one who's taking care of contraception, or being ready and willing to have children. While at that point it's probably not easy to walk away from another person, you would at least be invested enough in them to be willing to compromise a little. And if no compromise is coming? Well, what better reason to walk away from a relationship and/or marriage than figuring out both parties are not growing and changing at the same rate, and reaching an amicable split? It's what adults should be grown enough to do.
Re: *nods*
Date: 2006-03-12 03:25 am (UTC)Obviously a compromise *ought* to be enough, but if you really and truly do not want kids and really want to prove it and don't want to end up paying child support, I think there ought to be a way to legally prove it which a judge will respect in court. (Currently, such contracts do not hold up in court, to my understanding.)
Re: *nods*
Date: 2006-03-12 09:49 pm (UTC)Oh boy, how that is a familiar story.
(Currently, such contracts do not hold up in court, to my understanding.)
Correct. Ultimately, it comes down to what's in the best interests of the state. The state doesn't want to pay the tab for an unwanted pregnancy (in terms of welfare for mother keeping the child, or adoption agency when mother doesn't want to keep the child), so the state seeks out the father to support the child instead.
Re: *nods*
Date: 2006-03-12 10:01 pm (UTC)Re: *nods*
Date: 2006-03-13 08:37 pm (UTC)Guy, you don't want kids - and you say so - that's just being honest. If she doesn't think she can manage alone, she can opt-out as well.
Kid? You rolled a one when it came to parents. Take it to God. You'd be doing that anyway, once you were born.