Interesting debate over there .....

[Joods]

I'm not saying a woman has to be dragged in,drugged and then have the kid aborted by force. I'm saying, if both parties don't consent then they shouldn't be allowed to have a child - that should be the norm. Of course i'm not saying no to single parents - provided they are capable of providing properly for the child.
A single mom/dad unable to provide for the kid yet still insisting on having one is a no brainer - not to mention a huge injustice to the child.

bold mine.

And who gets to decide on what exactly that is? Excuse me, but in my last post, I told you what sacrifices I made while raising a special needs child. In addition to what I stated, I wasn't able to work because taking care of a special needs child of this magnitude required 24 hour care. I couldn't go to college. I couldn't go to work. I hand made all of her clothing up until she was five years old because I couldn't afford to shop in places like Justice For Girls.

Having her diagnosis thrown at me ten days before I gave birth hardly left me any time to prepare what I was in for. But rest assured, having her adopted out to a family who could have given her a much better start financially was out of the question. She is my child. She is part of me and I get every right to make every decision in her life up to her 18th birthday because I was the primary attachment figure since birth.


And what about instances where you have a military parent overseas and they die. What about the spouse and the kids. Do we suddenly take those kids away from the surviving parent because they are suddenly a single parent?

What about car accident victims where a parent is killed? Do we take the kids away from the parent who survives, who isn't working, but raising the kids instead, yet was a victim of an unfortunate circumstance?

I'm not really sure you're thinking this all the way through as it would seem you want to do more harm than good. And based on your previous posts in this thread about single parents, I'd say you are now shifting your goalposts in order to take some of the heat off yourself from the backlash you're now getting.

No, you seem dead set against single parenting no matter the situation. Changing your views now, is a bit too late. At least for me it is. I can only hope you are never put in the position of losing a loved one and having to raise children on your own. I just don't think you could handle that sort of pressure given your original opinion on the matter.

[LadyForCamus]

Its not to say a child would always do well with both of its parents present but i guess its better than an invisible dad that didnt want to have a kid in the first place forced to pay support ..which further cultivates ill emotions in the man ...and who is trapped in between all this mess?..an innocent child that didnt even ask to be born into this world..
Anyhow, that's my take on the subject.

Well, not to say that I don't understand where you are coming from in regards to the welfare of the child, but my husband was abandoned by his mother, and raised by his father who didn't really want him either. He had a tough childhood to say the least, but I know for certain that he's happy he was born. Ya know?

[brewer]

My 2 cents worth on financial. I don't think the one parent that does not want any parental rights should relinquish them from all financial responsibility. There are to many single parents living in poverty because they did nothing more than choose to be a parent. The one that wants nothing to do with the kid, fine, they will just be assigned lower financial support. Legally they need to be providing some kind of support. Unless they were somehow tricked (and that has happened) they are responsible for supporting that life.

Edit: Sorry, wanted to post these stats: https://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/acs-21.pdf

[Thumpalumpacus]

Just wanted to say that if the father's name is on the birth certificate, he cannot back out or sign over any parenting responsibility. He will either have to raise the child directly or pay support. Only a prenatal agreement can absolve him of those responsibilities, and if the mother goes on any form of public assistance the State will attach his paycheck without regard to any private agreement.

This is how it works in California. Not sure about other states.

[Whateverist]

I'm not for laws that encourage irresponsibility.  I consider myself both pro-Choice and pro-Life, meaning that I think ultimately it should be a woman's choice, but I also think that we should revere human life enough not to think of the human fetus as an intruder or body waste.  Granted, I'm not a woman, but I can't relate whatsoever to those who talk about abortions being great experiences.  I'm pro-Choice for pragmatic reasons, because I don't think that forcing a child to be born when it's not wanted is really fulfilling any moral obligation to that child.  It seems to me that the pro-Lifers aren't really fighting for the child so much as they are just fighting their cosmic battle of good vs. evil.  Once the child is born, they lose interest.  Not me.  If the child is not wanted and can't be assured the opportunity to grow up in an environment where they're loved and encouraged to be all they can be, then pro-Lifers haven't done anything.  However, even though I'm no longer a theist, I still believe we have a responsibility toward the unborn, and I'm still pretty disturbed by the lack of respect for life, even in its early stages.  With the abundance of contraceptives available today, there is really no excuse for rampant irresponsibility.  After a certain point, perhaps sterilization procedures should be strongly encouraged.

That is a damned fine bit of reasoning.  The block of text is possibly a bit too thick for some to even try to chew.  Their loss.  

Hey Rob, would this be an appropriate use of the reporting function to report that Old Baby isn't getting either the kudos or the rep he deserves? [j/k .. sort of]

[Old Baby]

I'm not for laws that encourage irresponsibility.  I consider myself both pro-Choice and pro-Life, meaning that I think ultimately it should be a woman's choice, but I also think that we should revere human life enough not to think of the human fetus as an intruder or body waste.  Granted, I'm not a woman, but I can't relate whatsoever to those who talk about abortions being great experiences.  I'm pro-Choice for pragmatic reasons, because I don't think that forcing a child to be born when it's not wanted is really fulfilling any moral obligation to that child.  It seems to me that the pro-Lifers aren't really fighting for the child so much as they are just fighting their cosmic battle of good vs. evil.  Once the child is born, they lose interest.  Not me.  If the child is not wanted and can't be assured the opportunity to grow up in an environment where they're loved and encouraged to be all they can be, then pro-Lifers haven't done anything.  However, even though I'm no longer a theist, I still believe we have a responsibility toward the unborn, and I'm still pretty disturbed by the lack of respect for life, even in its early stages.  With the abundance of contraceptives available today, there is really no excuse for rampant irresponsibility.  After a certain point, perhaps sterilization procedures should be strongly encouraged.

That is a damned fine bit of reasoning.  The block of text is possibly a bit too thick for some to even try to chew.  Their loss.  

Hey Rob, would this be an appropriate use of the reporting function to report that Old Baby isn't getting either the kudos or the rep he deserves?  [j/k .. sort of]

Thanks bro.

[brewer]

Just wanted to say that if the father's name is on the birth certificate, he cannot back out or sign over any parenting responsibility. He will either have to raise the child directly or pay support. Only a prenatal agreement can absolve him of those responsibilities, and if the mother goes on any form of public assistance the State will attach his paycheck without regard to any private agreement.

This is how it works in California. Not sure about other states.

Does the father need to be there and agree/sign? Or agree/sign at some point?

What happens if he does not agree/sign and the mother wants financial support. The paternity test route?

What if dad is total scum and mom wants a complete and total break and is willing to include no financial support in the break. Is he no longer obligated according to the state?

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

In my opinion, with the death of a parent the custody of the child should be given to the living parent. If the living parent is incapable of taking care of the child then the child should be under government care. If a situation comes up where the parent proves capable of taking care of the child he/she can go to court and reacquaire the guardian status.

..and i'm sorry you had to go through that Judi...

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

What about the man being forced to pay support even after not consenting to have a child?

I'd like to hear some opinion on the matter.
How does this situation work out,as in legally where you live?

[Old Baby]

What about the man being forced to pay support even after not consenting to have a child?

I'd like to hear some opinion on the matter.
How does this situation work out,as in legally where you live?

He got her preggers.  Did they not use contraception?  Should a would-be mother who wants to raise the child be forced to have it killed because the would-be daddy went "oops, I'm not ready"?  The "it's just a fetus" distinction is a convenience for those who don't want to go through with having a kid, but to those who actually want to be a parent, that ugly tadpole looking thing is their human baby child.