Quote:
Originally posted by KSig RC
I agree completely with you. Surely you'll also agree, then, that this right and responsibility should allow the man to relinquish his rights to the child, just as the woman can terminate the pregnancy, no?
I mean, why should a man be saddled with her choice for the next 216 months, and have to make concessions that will affect his livelihood, his ability to work, and limit is opportunities in nearly every area of his life for years to come?
I realize the argument is extreme, but true feminism is based in equality - so let's discuss equality, not some bizarrely nominal notion of self-importance or 'fairness' rooted in inconvenience.
|
No I agree with you completely. If a man doesn't want the child, he shouldn't be obligated to support it.
I guess that on the flip side (and this is not intended to incite flames or anger-- just something that occurs to me as I write) of this argument is where the woman can terminate and leave neither party saddled with an obligation, there is also the fact to consider that from birth, there is a third party in the equation and that child's emotional and physical welfare to consider-- and at that time the courts can hold both partners liable to support that child unless one parent has officially terminated his/her parental rights. Or both-- making the child a ward of the state.
A man or woman in this case can be emotionally blackmailed and legally ordered into being an active partner in the raising and financial needs of the child. In which case, the man and woman don't win, but the child's needs supercede the parents's decision?
So if you have a kid and both parties are not 100% down, everyone loses unless the child is given over to the state for adoption into a 2 parent household?
I don't believe a parent should be obligated to support the child if s/he legally terminates her/his parental rights. Not fair to the child, and will probably mess them up psychologically, but it is an equitable split that removes the unwanted burden from the uninterested party.
I guess that is why the court intervene with children's advocates?