|
Post by canadian mojo on Apr 13, 2009 19:52:22 GMT -5
I also believe, though, that if men are opposed to pregnancy and the woman wants to go through with it, that there should be no social or legal ramifications for men who want to sign their parental rights away. I know in some cases, men can sign their rights away and sometimes still be held liable for the support of the child. I think that is very wrong. My two cents, anyway. The problem of course being all the assholes of the world would use that as the walk away clause and we would be left in pretty much the same boat we are now. As much as I don't like to say it, men pretty much NEED to be on the hook for a kid, period. There are just too many immature dicks out there. The only partial way around it I can see would be a pre nup (pre coitis?) argeement where the woman waives her rights to support.
|
|
|
Post by dantesvirgil on Apr 13, 2009 19:56:45 GMT -5
Well, I sort of disagree. I mean, I don't disagree with there being a lot of assholes in the world, and that some people would use it as a "walkaway" card. But the truth is, men can do that right now, at least in the US--there is nothing stopping them. But they don't. Men rarely sign their rights away; there is no rush to do so now. Besides, the legal system doesn't really hold men very well to their child support agreements all the time, and many women don't pursue legal action like they should.
|
|
|
Post by canadian mojo on Apr 13, 2009 20:26:03 GMT -5
I'm sure that if child support were enforced better you'd notice a fairly significant increase in it's use, particularly if it could be declaired unilaterally by the father.
|
|
|
Post by dantesvirgil on Apr 13, 2009 20:27:21 GMT -5
I don't know. It's a hypothetical, of course. But there are men who bitch about paying child support now who don't have their rights revoked. I think there is something rather permanent about the process that makes people hesitate, even assholes.
|
|