A woman who becomes pregnant has the choice to either carry the baby to term, or to abort. Do you think that a father should have a similar option, but instead of abortion -- he can 'opt out' of his paternal rights (and responsibilities) to the child, should the mother decide to give birth?

That's a question I've always thought about too. Obviously there are moral obligations but a woman does have the right (as she should) to have an abortion against the wishes of the father. So from a LEGAL standpoint it seems slanted against the guys. Birth control is the responsibility of both so it's a little unfair to say the guy should have thought of that before because she should have as well. There should be some level of fairness to the woman & the man. But at the same time they should both do what's right for the child. I absolutely see both sides of this.

Guys have pretty much had that option for years and the law never does much with them. And I think about it longterm, these kids never know who their fathers are, wonder their whole lives, and then what if they fall in love and have sex with somebody, who is another product of that same father? Then that's incest and they don't even know it because the father didn't want to have to take any responsibility. You know what, you took that risk just as much as she did when you had sex, why shouldn't you have to face the consequences of your actions as well?

Hell no, he helped put it there it should be his responsibility as well to make sure that child is supported and treated the right way.

Chris wrote:

A woman who becomes pregnant has the choice to either carry the baby to term, or to abort. Do you think that a father should have a similar option, but instead of abortion -- he can 'opt out' of his paternal rights (and responsibilities) to the child, should the mother decide to give birth?

Too many times kids don't become real to their parents until much later on. Fact is a woman who has an abortion is stopping a life from happening and therefore there won't be any responsibilities to maintain something that isn't there. A father shouldn't be able to get out of taking care of a life that exists that he created just because he didn't have the power to terminate. He had the power to keep it zipped and wear a condom.

You can't opt out of parenthood. All you can do is ignore your responsibilities. Whether you're punished for that or not is irrelevant.

There would be a lot of unclaimed, uncared for fatherless kids out there if men were able to have this privilege. Crazy as it sounds, I would be more in favor of a man having a say in the termination of a fetus then them being able to legally walk away from a baby's mouth that needs food.

Chris wrote:

A woman who becomes pregnant has the choice to either carry the baby to term, or to abort. Do you think that a father should have a similar option, but instead of abortion -- he can 'opt out' of his paternal rights (and responsibilities) to the child, should the mother decide to give birth?

Maybe. But the conditions of it should be ultra strict. If he is going to opt out of fatherhood, then it is binding for eighteen years (meaning that when the kid is four, he can't suddenly get the urge to stop by and play daddy.) He nor his family would have zero legal rights to the child whatsoever.

No. In no way should a man have the option to choose to get out of his parental responsibilities. The man was there and he needs to buck up and take responsibility, period. A father who "opts out" is just a nice word for a deadbeat dead.

^ and agreed.
He should have "opted out" by PULLING out. lol

It is kinda unfair that a mans has less "choice" in the matter than a woman when it comes to being a parent, but let's be honest, men have more opportunity to hit and run.

JB wrote:

^ and agreed.
He should have "opted out" by PULLING out. lol

It is kinda unfair that a mans has less "choice" in the matter than a woman when it comes to being a parent, but let's be honest, men have more opportunity to hit and run.

Which they have been doing probably since time began, and really picked up on since shotgun weddings died out about 50 some years ago.

If he fathered the child he needs to be responsible even if only financially. I'll throw this into the mix. There's a surprisingly high number of married men out there who are raising children that they think are their flesh and blood, but aren't. I believe in most cases, the courts have ruled that, regardless of when (at what age the child is) these cuckholds find out they aren't the fathers, they are still financially responsible. Shouldn't they be legally off the hook if they've been that deceived? Emotionally is a seperate issue.

alan smithee wrote:

If he fathered the child he needs to be responsible even if only financially. I'll throw this into the mix. There's a surprisingly high number of married men out there who are raising children that they think are their flesh and blood, but aren't. I believe in most cases, the courts have ruled that, regardless of when (at what age the child is) these cuckholds find out they aren't the fathers, they are still financially responsible. Shouldn't they be legally off the hook if they've been that deceived? Emotionally is a seperate issue.

Yup. Unfortunately in cases like that, the law doesn't wanna turn kids into little bastards. So whoever has been on birth certif. as daddy for some odd years is stuck being responsible, even if it becomes obvious that the kid was from another mans orgasm until he can get the red tape cleared.

The law protects kids first, women second and men last.

Marc wrote:

Yup. Unfortunately in cases like that, the law doesn't wanna turn kids into little bastards. So whoever has been on birth certif. as daddy for some odd years is stuck being responsible, even if it becomes obvious that the kid was from another mans orgasm until he can get the red tape cleared.

The law protects kids first, women second and men last.

THOSE kinds of laws, when it's rape, it's children first, men seldom seem to register on it, and women are protected last and least.

A lot of them already do 1 cannot force some one to be a parent and then force child support on them 2. I had a friend who was dating a guy when it came down to do the deed he wanted her to sign a document that stated he was using protection but if by chance she got pregnant he did not want anymore children and would not be responsible for child support he also wanted to video tape her signing this document. Needless to say it ruined the moment

binky04 wrote:

I had a friend who was dating a guy when it came down to do the deed he wanted her to sign a document that stated he was using protection but if by chance she got pregnant he did not want anymore children and would not be responsible for child support he also wanted to video tape her signing this document. Needless to say it ruined the moment

Wow, he sounds like a real romantic.

It isn't "fair" that a woman can choose abortion, but the man has to pay up if she keeps the child. But it is a fact of life, and men need to realize it. If men had the option of just opting out, there would be a crazy amount of women needing assistance.

RedBedroom wrote:

It isn't "fair" that a woman can choose abortion, but the man has to pay up if she keeps the child. But it is a fact of life, and men need to realize it. If men had the option of just opting out, there would be a crazy amount of women needing assistance.

That's not a fact of life, that's a fact of the law.

Well, it is both a fact of life, and law.

RedBedroom wrote:

Well, it is both a fact of life, and law.

It's hardly a fact of life. The law aside, women and men technically have equal chance to "opt out" in a sense. It's the law that favors women over men.

What I mean about the fact of life is that women can make the call on abortion, and men can not force an abortion should they not want a child born.

And men need to realize it is a fact of life so that they make good decisions on who they sleep with and not trusting that she is on the pill if the guy really does not want a kid.

RedBedroom wrote:

What I mean about the fact of life is that women can make the call on abortion, and men can not force an abortion should they not want a child born.

And men need to realize it is a fact of life so that they make good decisions on who they sleep with and not trusting that she is on the pill if the guy really does not want a kid.

Why couldn't they? Legally they are forbidden to but from a natural POV alone, they could easily force an abortion if they wanted it enough. The double standard is a legal one. It's no fact of life.

Men don't need to "realize it" uniquely. Both genders have consequences resulting from irresponsibility.