Signing away paternity

Peared

ntlbell wrote: »

That's easy for her to avoid tho isn't it?

don't let a man cum inside her?

everything is easy in your world see?

That makes no sense.

And your world is the same as my world. It's one and the same.

Unfortunately.

ntlbell

Peared wrote: »

That makes no sense.

And your world is the same as my world. It's one and the same.

Unfortunately.

You said. If a man doesn't want to have kids don't cum inside of women.

Here's were the magic happens wait for it.

If a woman doesn't want to get pregnant which is i would assume she doesn't if she wants to walk away

don't let a man cum inside you? no pregnancy?

the same point you made towards men no ?

ntlbell

brianthebard wrote: »

True but I don't think that's the point Wibbs was making.

It wasn't a reply to Wibbs post IIRC

Peared

brianthebard wrote: »

Come on now, there aren't children in orphanages who's mothers are alive? Fair enough a pregnant woman can't pretend she's not pregnant but there's lots of ways for her to walk away all the same, before or after birth.

But brianthebard, what I mean is.. Say I fly over to galway on my broomstick and we have us some hot caveman type playdates and you get me up the duff... I can't walk away from it. I have to make an incredibly difficult decision and take a physical, painful course of action, regardless of what I choose I can't just say nah I don't want a brianthebardjunior I'm outta here and forget all about it.

ntlbell

Peared wrote: »

But brianthebard, what I mean is.. Say I fly over to galway on my broomstick and we have us some hot caveman type playdates and you get me up the duff... I can't walk away from it. I have to make an incredibly difficult decision and take a physical, painful course of action, regardless of what I choose I can't just say nah I don't want a brianthebardjunior I'm outta here and forget all about it.

But your saying if you dont want it then don't let a man cum inside you

or if your male dont cum inside a woman so why are you over having playdates letting a man cum inside you if you dont want to get up the duff?

your own logic doesn't seem to sit well with you for some strange reason

brianthebard

ntlbell wrote: »

It wasn't a reply to Wibbs post IIRC

Well I replied to Wibbs, and you replied to me, so it appeared like you were continuing the theme.

Peared wrote: »

But brianthebard, what I mean is.. Say I fly over to galway on my broomstick and we have us some hot caveman type playdates and you get me up the duff... I can't walk away from it. I have to make an incredibly difficult decision and take a physical, painful course of action, regardless of what I choose I can't just say nah I don't want a brianthebardjunior I'm outta here and forget all about it.

First off...cool, caveman playdates (a little humour for a heavy thread). Second off, you're assuming that all fathers are making a painfree choice? I'm not sure that's the case. I appreciate what you are saying by physical pain, but there are plenty of women who wouldn't feel any emotional pain from having to deal with an unwanted pregnancy. That's just how it is.

Xiney

ntlbell wrote: »

and my point is why is there no supplement on mothers who don't give the father equal access rights etc?

why is the financial punishment only one way?

I see your point.

In that case, I amend my payment structure to the following:

Dad wants to be involved, but for no good reason Mom doesn't let him = X - Z
Dad is sufficiently involved = X
Dad is not involved, either because he doesn't want to be or because he is barred from seeing his child for good reason = X + Y


That work for you?

Wibbs

Peared wrote: »

If you are a man and definitely don't want a child then don't come inside a woman. Really it's as simple as that.

Same for women, if you have unprotected sex it is up to you to deal with the consequences of it.

Yes but your caveat for women was the unprotected bit. Lets look at this objectively as we can. Man and woman have sex. Woman takes bigger risk as she is the one who gets pregnant and indeed more men abandon their kids. So logic would suggest that the woman takes more responsibility for contraception, no? As it stands the general consensus is that it should be equal(and I agree FWIW), but the outcome is not equal. That's a sticking point there.

after the pregnancy occurs, women have an additional option - they can abort. Men can't. But men can walk away - women can't.

Or they can adopt, or they can keep the child. None of which the man has any say in. The only option he has is to walk so maybe that should be allowed for in law with some caveats.

Xiney wrote:

Women don't often have abortions to get away from bringing a child into this world. There is adoption, after all.

Yes but the rate of adoption has dropped considerably since the abortion option has become more available, which would suggest that in fact abortion is partly a way to get away from bringing a child into the world.


Starting trouble is not exactly a shining start to me being the new male mod around here.

Wibbs

brianthebard wrote: »

True but I don't think that's the point Wibbs was making.

Wasn't far off TBH.

Peared

@ NTL

What I said was that if you take that risk as a woman you have to deal with the consequences. That is still my point.

Respond if you wish, your just on the borderline trolling is tedious at best.

ntlbell

Xiney wrote: »

I see your point.

In that case, I amend my payment structure to the following:

Dad wants to be involved, but for no good reason Mom doesn't let him = X - Z
Dad is sufficiently involved = X
Dad is not involved, either because he doesn't want to be or because he is barred from seeing his child for good reason = X + Y


That work for you?

Loving it.

Xiney

Wibbs wrote: »

Yes but the rate of adoption has dropped considerably since the abortion option has become more available, which would suggest that in fact abortion is partly a way to get away from bringing a child into the world.

Often these adoptions would have been for babies born out of wedlock.

Arguably the babies up for adoption in times past would have been aborted these days. The woman would still have rather avoided the unmarried pregnancy, but since she couldn't do that, she avoided raising the child at least by giving it up.

Abortion avoids bringing a child into the world, that's the end result. But if women were willing to go through with the pregnancy but not the raising of the child, they'd go for adoption instead. It's to avoid pregnancy that people choose abortion.

Peared

Xiney wrote: »

I see your point.

In that case, I amend my payment structure to the following:

Dad wants to be involved, but for no good reason Mom doesn't let him = X - Z
Dad is sufficiently involved = X
Dad is not involved, either because he doesn't want to be or because he is barred from seeing his child for good reason = X + Y


That work for you?

I'm sorry but I lolled.

brianthebard

Wibbs wrote: »

Wasn't far off TBH.

Fair enough, when you called it a right I assumed you meant something different.

Red Hand

Xiney wrote:

Abortion avoids bringing a child into the world, that's the end result. But if women were willing to go through with the pregnancy but not the raising of the child, they'd go for adoption instead. It's to avoid pregnancy that people choose abortion.

Is it? For all abortions? I would think that there would be many reasons why someone would choose abortion-age of the female in question, avoiding pregnancy and birth, unable to raise a child if it were born for whatever reason, possible complications in the future when giving birth due to illness or whatever, family/spousal pressure, ethical reasons...and many many more.

Red Hand

Minesajackdaniels wrote: »

Any opinions? Should men be allowed to opt out of unwanted parenthood (with the caveat that it's not a cheap and easy way out), or should they carry the can for their actions whatever the circumstance?

I would say that it's not like someone forced a fellow to have a one night stand. Even if they were following all the contraception do's and don'ts, the fact is the whole purpose of sex is to make new offspring. So, yes, carry the can would be my answer for most of these scenarios.

the_syco

Xiney wrote: »

Dad wants to be involved, but for no good reason Mom doesn't let him = X - Z
Dad is sufficiently involved = X
Dad is not involved, either because he doesn't want to be or because he is barred from seeing his child for good reason = X + Y

Ah. Good reason tends to suck. Also, good reason tends to be why the problem (of father not being able to see child) exists at the moment.

Peared wrote: »

What I said was that if you take that risk as a woman you have to deal with the consequences. That is still my point./quote]
You take the risk, we pay the price. With the morning pill, you have the power, we take the risk, and maybe pay the price.

Phototoxin

simply put the choice is made when sex is done.

The_Minister

Peared wrote: »

But brianthebard, what I mean is.. Say I fly over to galway on my broomstick and we have us some hot caveman type playdates and you get me up the duff... I can't walk away from it. I have to make an incredibly difficult decision and take a physical, painful course of action, regardless of what I choose I can't just say nah I don't want a brianthebardjunior I'm outta here and forget all about it.

And if BriantheBard offers to pay for you to fly to a Marie Snopes clinic in England, pay for the abortion and flights, should he not be able to call it quits since he offered you a way out?

brianthebard

I feel somewhat uncomfortable with what brianthebard is proposing here...

The_Minister

brianthebard wrote: »

I feel somewhat uncomfortable with what brianthebard is proposing here...

:DSorry, I'm not sure how you ended up as the hypothetical commitment-phobic father in this thread.

brianthebard

It was a not so subtle hint on peared's part...

Elle Victorine

To be honest if a guy wants something to do with his child and he's not allowed he shouldn't have to pay maintenance.


That and I'm entirely for the rights of the father being equal to that of the mother. I don't believe one is more capable than the other for emotional development and I don't think being the one to give birth gives you more rights. Women can be equally redundant as parents.

In a better world this would be the case but I won't hold my breath.

K-9

Jeremiah 16:1 wrote: »

Is it? For all abortions? I would think that there would be many reasons why someone would choose abortion-age of the female in question, avoiding pregnancy and birth, unable to raise a child if it were born for whatever reason, possible complications in the future when giving birth due to illness or whatever, family/spousal pressure, ethical reasons...and many many more.

Those same points would apply to men walking away, barring the illness one. Suppose it's less acceptable for "deadbeat dads" though.

Elle Victorine wrote: »

To be honest if a guy wants something to do with his child and he's not allowed he shouldn't have to pay maintenance.


That and I'm entirely for the rights of the father being equal to that of the mother. I don't believe one is more capable than the other for emotional development and I don't think being the one to give birth gives you more rights. Women can be equally redundant as parents.

In a better world this would be the case but I won't hold my breath.

And I'm sure we all know of many Mothers and Fathers who have the kids anyway but are unfit regardless.


I'd have no problem with the OP, but maybe an educational program first, before signing the rights, just to make sure they are fully aware of what they are doing.

The only problem I can see is if a Dad did decide he wanted to be involved a few years later, many do and become great Dads, what happens then?

b3t4

What happens while having sex, and the contraception used, is very much up to the people involved.

After sex, and if a pregnancy occurs, then unfortunately it lands firmly in the laps of a woman therefore I feel it should be up to the female to decide if she wants to continue that pregnancy. Pregnancy, unfortunately, is not a one night event.

I feel that some men need to get more informed when it comes to contraception.

I see what your suggesting MAJD but I feel that it would make some men even less responsible when it comes contraception. Sure they can sign the child away, continue to be as irresponsible with contraception and continue creating children they don't want. At least if they have to pay maintenance they might be a little careful next time.

You know what, it's a complete mess. No matter what argument I've come up with it's a mess. People who don't want to have to deal with the consequences of sex with a stranger should not be having casual sex with said strangers.

A.

The Sweeper

Just to reiterate b3t4, I'm not suggesting that signing away paternity be easy or cheap. I'm suggesting, for instance - and I'm grabbing this out of the air - that it be a relatively protracted legal process taking up to six months and requiring, perhaps, an interview with a trained assessor who can validate your reasons and ensure you're not being forced into signing away your paternity by family pressures, for instance, and further perhaps you have to pay a hefty one-off payment into a high-interest trust in the name of the child to close the deal, with that trust then going to the child on something like 18th birthday.

Keep in mind there are plenty of men out there - and there are actually current PI threads on this - who on discovering they are going to be a father, adjust to the thought easily and actively want to be in their child's life, even if they don't want a relationship with the mother. Men like that aren't going to change their minds if this sort of thing becomes an option.

This signing away of paternity is the option for men who don't want children at this time or in the forseeable future in their life.

It would also provide a choice for men who discover they are a father years after the event - a past short-term girlfriend comes back into your life years on and announces her child is actually your child, and while she never wanted you to have anything to do with it, and so never told you and denied you the first few years of your child's life, well now hard times are a-bitin' and it's time for you to cough up maintenance.

At the age of 32 my own body clock STILL isn't making a squeak of a tick so I really, truly know how it feels to be an adult who doesn't want children. It gives me empathy for other adults who don't get a choice.

the_syco

Minesajackdaniels wrote: »

It would also provide a choice for men who discover they are a father years after the event - a past short-term girlfriend comes back into your life years on and announces her child is actually your child, and while she never wanted you to have anything to do with it, and so never told you and denied you the first few years of your child's life, well now hard times are a-bitin' and it's time for you to cough up maintenance.

100% agreed. The bit bolded, I'm tempted to read as "you'll never see you child, but I want every penny I can get off you".

Minesajackdaniels

Minesajackdaniels wrote: »

It gives me empathy for other adults who don't get a choice.

They have the choice......it is called safe sex.

Dragan

Moonbaby wrote: »

They have the choice......it is called safe sex.

There are no fool proof ways to avoid pregnancy, other than not having sex.

Even then, there has been a very famous case of conception without sex.:)

K-9

b3t4 wrote: »

What happens while having sex, and the contraception used, is very much up to the people involved.

After sex, and if a pregnancy occurs, then unfortunately it lands firmly in the laps of a woman therefore I feel it should be up to the female to decide if she wants to continue that pregnancy. Pregnancy, unfortunately, is not a one night event.

Completely agreed. Had this debate on another site about a man takng a case to stop a woman having an Abortion. I think it would backfire and force more women to have secret Abortions.

b3t4 wrote:

I feel that some men need to get more informed when it comes to contraception.

Goes for both sexes. The amount of women who are on the pill and say sure go on, is very common, many who should know better.

b3t4 wrote:

I see what your suggesting MAJD but I feel that it would make some men even less responsible when it comes contraception. Sure they can sign the child away, continue to be as irresponsible with contraception and continue creating children they don't want. At least if they have to pay maintenance they might be a little careful next time.

You know what, it's a complete mess. No matter what argument I've come up with it's a mess. People who don't want to have to deal with the consequences of sex with a stranger should not be having casual sex with said strangers.

A.

The irresponsibility part would be my worry.

Minesajackdaniels wrote: »

Just to reiterate b3t4, I'm not suggesting that signing away paternity be easy or cheap. I'm suggesting, for instance - and I'm grabbing this out of the air - that it be a relatively protracted legal process taking up to six months and requiring, perhaps, an interview with a trained assessor who can validate your reasons and ensure you're not being forced into signing away your paternity by family pressures, for instance, and further perhaps you have to pay a hefty one-off payment into a high-interest trust in the name of the child to close the deal, with that trust then going to the child on something like 18th birthday.

Keep in mind there are plenty of men out there - and there are actually current PI threads on this - who on discovering they are going to be a father, adjust to the thought easily and actively want to be in their child's life, even if they don't want a relationship with the mother. Men like that aren't going to change their minds if this sort of thing becomes an option.

This signing away of paternity is the option for men who don't want children at this time or in the forseeable future in their life.

Definitely agree that it shouldn't be a flippant choice. If it entails never seeing the child again they need to be made fully aware of the consequences. In a way, many may back out when they see the effect it can have!

Moonbaby wrote: »

They have the choice......it is called safe sex.

They do, as do Women.

Men don't have the option of Abortion. If they walk away they're a "deadbeat Dad". I think that is unfair. A woman having an Abortion is rightly treated sympathetically.