Unequal legal protections fathers vs mothers

[none]

Child is born.
Mother has the right to terminate parental responsibilities, no more obligation to child.
Father doesn't have the right to terminate parental responsibilities, always obligated to child until mother relents legally.
And obligated to child I mean financially obligated too.
I wonder what the justification is for this inequality of rights.
If there is a reason I don't know what it is, but there might be some dynamic that I don't know of so I bring this here...

What is the justification for the inequality of rights for mothers and fathers regarding parental termination and obligation?

Or do I have the whole thing wrong that mothers can terminate their obligation?

 

[Blahface]

Mothers can terminate parental responsibilities through abortion if that is what you mean. I don't think they can just give the baby up for adoption if the father wants the baby. If the father does take the baby, I'm pretty sure the mother has to pay child support.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Child is born.

First mistake and the cause of 99.9999999% of the world's problems.

Mother has the right to terminate parental responsibilities, no more obligation to child.

As we all have the right to seek medical treatments to rid ourselves of parasites.

Father doesn't have the right to terminate parental responsibilities, always obligated to child until mother relents legally.

Father is parasite free, infected mother with hapliod cells that grow into large parasitic organism.

And obligated to child I mean financially obligated too.

As he was a great part of the infection.

I wonder what the justification is for this inequality of rights.

He is just as negligent as she is for allowing this ecosystem-destroying parasite to establish itself.

What is the justification for the inequality of rights for mothers and fathers regarding parental termination and obligation?

Bodies. For reasons unknown to Congressional medical science only females get these forms of parasites and bear the brunt of the infection until the body passes the parasitic organism in a painful ordeal.

 

[dismal]

Mothers can terminate parental responsibilities through abortion if that is what you mean. I don't think they can just give the baby up for adoption if the father wants the baby. If the father does take the baby, I'm pretty sure the mother has to pay child support.

In many places you can drop your kid off at the firehouse and walk away. IIRC, They had to clarify the laws a little when people started dropping off 13 year olds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safe-haven_law

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Child is born.
Mother has the right to terminate parental responsibilities, no more obligation to child.

Actually, that would be terminating it for both parents.

Father doesn't have the right to terminate parental responsibilities, always obligated to child until mother relents legally.
And obligated to child I mean financially obligated too.

That is a bullshit claim. They are obligated financially and no other way. That isn't "too". He doesn't ever have to see the kid... ever.

I wonder what the justification is for this inequality of rights.

Are you asking why the male shouldn't have a choice to override the decision of a woman to have an abortion? IE, forcing a woman to either go through a pregnancy or an abortion against their will? Are you seriously asking why this authority doesn't exist?

Or are you asking, how come if the woman chooses to have the child, the father of the child has to pay support whether they want a child or not. To me, that sounds like poor family planning on the guy's part. Don't want a kid, you may want to take appropriate precautions.

If there is a reason I don't know what it is, but there might be some dynamic that I don't know of so I bring this here...

What is the justification for the inequality of rights for mothers and fathers regarding parental termination and obligation?

Well forcing a woman to have an abortion is a pretty nasty concept. I was hoping that would be obvious.

 

[laughing dog]

Child is born.
Mother has the right to terminate parental responsibilities, no more obligation to child.
Father doesn't have the right to terminate parental responsibilities, always obligated to child until mother relents legally.
And obligated to child I mean financially obligated too.
I wonder what the justification is for this inequality of rights.
If there is a reason I don't know what it is, but there might be some dynamic that I don't know of so I bring this here...

What is the justification for the inequality of rights for mothers and fathers regarding parental termination and obligation?

Or do I have the whole thing wrong that mothers can terminate their obligation?

The current system is a result of hundreds of years of practice. That doesn't make it necessarily right or wrong. The imbalance of "rights" to some degree mirrors the imbalance of biology. The basic principle that the two who make the baby should be responsible for that baby's care and upbringing is reasonable. I believe that is the underlying principle which has guided law and practice. Clearly, the law and practice and societal views have not caught up with the advances in medical technology. Regardless, at some point, the fundamental imbalance of biology (i.e. women bear the burden of carrying a fetus to term) needs to be reflected in law and in practice.

 

[bigfield]

The law is usually set up so that there is a reasonable outcome in any conceivable situation.

Pre-birth

1. Woman does not want the child, but man does: Neither person is actually a parent yet, therefore neither has parental rights. Woman's right to bodily autonomy trumps man's right to have his progeny brought to term.

2. Woman wants to have the child, but man does not: The woman's right to bodily autonomy trumps the man's right to not become a father.

There cannot reasonably be legal equality until babies can be conceived and raised in an artificial incubator, therefore removing the problem of the woman's bodily autonomy, not to mention a host of medical risks.

Post-birth

1. Mother wants to give up the child for adoption, but father does not: Both people have parental rights, and therefore the father can refuse to consent to the adoption, but must also be willing to take custody of the child.

2. Father wants to give up the child for adoption, but mother does not: Same as above, but roles reversed.

3. Mother wants to give up the child for adoption, but father is absent and cannot be identified: Without an identified father, the mother's consent must be considered sufficient for the sake of the child's welfare.

This likely varies by country and jurisdiction. If None has a complaint with a particular state's laws, he should reference them.

 

[prideandfall]

What is the justification for the inequality of rights for mothers and fathers regarding parental termination and obligation?

it's lodged in the woman's body. personal bodily autonomy. end of discussion.

is it fair? well no, not exactly. legally speaking there is certainly an imbalanced component to the amount of choice vs. the amount of obligation in terms of financial burden.
but, life isn't always fair - the thing is lodged in the woman's body, that pretty much negates the fairness argument.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Mothers can terminate parental responsibilities through abortion if that is what you mean. I don't think they can just give the baby up for adoption if the father wants the baby. If the father does take the baby, I'm pretty sure the mother has to pay child support.

Legally, yes. In practice she simply can say she doesn't know who the father is, thus giving him no chance to contest it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The law is usually set up so that there is a reasonable outcome in any conceivable situation.

Pre-birth

1. Woman does not want the child, but man does: Neither person is actually a parent yet, therefore neither has parental rights. Woman's right to bodily autonomy trumps man's right to have his progeny brought to term.

2. Woman wants to have the child, but man does not: The woman's right to bodily autonomy trumps the man's right to not become a father.

There cannot reasonably be legal equality until babies can be conceived and raised in an artificial incubator, therefore removing the problem of the woman's bodily autonomy, not to mention a host of medical risks.

Post-birth

1. Mother wants to give up the child for adoption, but father does not: Both people have parental rights, and therefore the father can refuse to consent to the adoption, but must also be willing to take custody of the child.

2. Father wants to give up the child for adoption, but mother does not: Same as above, but roles reversed.

3. Mother wants to give up the child for adoption, but father is absent and cannot be identified: Without an identified father, the mother's consent must be considered sufficient for the sake of the child's welfare.

This likely varies by country and jurisdiction. If None has a complaint with a particular state's laws, he should reference them.

Note that in reality case #1 normally becomes case #3--she simply pretends she doesn't know.

It also doesn't address the financial responsibility.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The law is usually set up so that there is a reasonable outcome in any conceivable situation.

Pre-birth

1. Woman does not want the child, but man does: Neither person is actually a parent yet, therefore neither has parental rights. Woman's right to bodily autonomy trumps man's right to have his progeny brought to term.

2. Woman wants to have the child, but man does not: The woman's right to bodily autonomy trumps the man's right to not become a father.

There cannot reasonably be legal equality until babies can be conceived and raised in an artificial incubator, therefore removing the problem of the woman's bodily autonomy, not to mention a host of medical risks.

Post-birth

1. Mother wants to give up the child for adoption, but father does not: Both people have parental rights, and therefore the father can refuse to consent to the adoption, but must also be willing to take custody of the child.

2. Father wants to give up the child for adoption, but mother does not: Same as above, but roles reversed.

3. Mother wants to give up the child for adoption, but father is absent and cannot be identified: Without an identified father, the mother's consent must be considered sufficient for the sake of the child's welfare.

This likely varies by country and jurisdiction. If None has a complaint with a particular state's laws, he should reference them.

Note that in reality case #1 normally becomes case #3--she simply pretends she doesn't know.

As usual, please don't feel the need to support any of your claims with statistics. Though a personal anecdote would be about appropriate from you at this point.

 

[bigfield]

The law is usually set up so that there is a reasonable outcome in any conceivable situation.

Pre-birth

1. Woman does not want the child, but man does: Neither person is actually a parent yet, therefore neither has parental rights. Woman's right to bodily autonomy trumps man's right to have his progeny brought to term.

2. Woman wants to have the child, but man does not: The woman's right to bodily autonomy trumps the man's right to not become a father.

There cannot reasonably be legal equality until babies can be conceived and raised in an artificial incubator, therefore removing the problem of the woman's bodily autonomy, not to mention a host of medical risks.

Post-birth

1. Mother wants to give up the child for adoption, but father does not: Both people have parental rights, and therefore the father can refuse to consent to the adoption, but must also be willing to take custody of the child.

2. Father wants to give up the child for adoption, but mother does not: Same as above, but roles reversed.

3. Mother wants to give up the child for adoption, but father is absent and cannot be identified: Without an identified father, the mother's consent must be considered sufficient for the sake of the child's welfare.

This likely varies by country and jurisdiction. If None has a complaint with a particular state's laws, he should reference them.

Note that in reality case #1 normally becomes case #3--she simply pretends she doesn't know.

It also doesn't address the financial responsibility.

Financial responsibility is straightforward: if you have parental rights, then you have parental obligations. And if you have parental obligation,s then you have financial obligations to your child. Whether that obligation is discharged via support payments to the other parent, or by the purchase of goods and services, makes no difference.

 

[RVonse]

If a mother wants to end her pregnancy and drives to the clinic without incident than all is well and good after the abortion. But if a man happens to have a car accident with that same mother and kills that same fetus.....then that is manslaughter with a guaranteed sentence of jail time. Then we wonder why more men are incarcerated than women. Its definitely a woman's world, at least if you live in the USA.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Note that in reality case #1 normally becomes case #3--she simply pretends she doesn't know.

It also doesn't address the financial responsibility.

Financial responsibility is straightforward: if you have parental rights, then you have parental obligations. And if you have parental obligation,s then you have financial obligations to your child. Whether that obligation is discharged via support payments to the other parent, or by the purchase of goods and services, makes no difference.

The problem is while your argument makes sense for who gets to decide it does not make sense from a financial standpoint. With the choice should come the responsibility for the results of that choice.

 

[RavenSky]

If a mother wants to end her pregnancy and drives to the clinic without incident than all is well and good after the abortion. But if a man happens to have a car accident with that same mother and kills that same fetus.....then that is manslaughter with a guaranteed sentence of jail time. Then we wonder why more men are incarcerated than women. Its definitely a woman's world, at least if you live in the USA.

^^^ I call bullshit on all of that

 

[none]

The law is usually set up so that there is a reasonable outcome in any conceivable situation.

Pre-birth

1. Woman does not want the child, but man does: Neither person is actually a parent yet, therefore neither has parental rights. Woman's right to bodily autonomy trumps man's right to have his progeny brought to term.

2. Woman wants to have the child, but man does not: The woman's right to bodily autonomy trumps the man's right to not become a father.
...

I thank you for your reply, but I don't understand how a man not becoming legally committed to the birthed child affects the womans autonomous choice to give birth.

It seems to me the woman can still give birth if there is no legally desiginated father.

Why is there an obligation for a man to be a father if he doesn't want to be a father?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Let's go deeper. Why should a birth parent be responsible for the support of a child until they are 18 years old? Why is society at large not on the hook? Is it "do the crime, do the time" logic, or is something more at work here?

 

[Jarhyn]

Let's go deeper. Why should a birth parent be responsible for the support of a child until they are 18 years old? Why is society at large not on the hook? Is it "do the crime, do the time" logic, or is something more at work here?

There is a strong desire to press biological parents into service for their children. It's a desire to find a discrete person to blame. Nobody wants particularly to admit that things are their fault, or that we all had a part in a bad situation. So instead of paying taxes and supporting single parents via the state,and admitting that unwanted children are a product of unchecked reproductive rights, we attack individuals and wreck individual lives.

I think we really need to shift to either a stipend for all parents and better social services to prevent abuse, or forced reversible birth control for everyone until they decide to be parents (with no barriers; the point being to allow anyone to 'opt in'). We can figure out why to do about low birth rates when and if that becomes an issue, maybe with some sort of parenthood draft.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

The problem isn't the law, the problem is the way humans reproduce. Take your complaints to the How-Evolution-Got-It-Wrong Dept.

 

[credoconsolans]

First mistake and the cause of 99.9999999% of the world's problems.

Mother has the right to terminate parental responsibilities, no more obligation to child.

As we all have the right to seek medical treatments to rid ourselves of parasites.

Father doesn't have the right to terminate parental responsibilities, always obligated to child until mother relents legally.

Father is parasite free, infected mother with hapliod cells that grow into large parasitic organism.

And obligated to child I mean financially obligated too.

As he was a great part of the infection.

I wonder what the justification is for this inequality of rights.

He is just as negligent as she is for allowing this ecosystem-destroying parasite to establish itself.

What is the justification for the inequality of rights for mothers and fathers regarding parental termination and obligation?

Bodies. For reasons unknown to Congressional medical science only females get these forms of parasites and bear the brunt of the infection until the body passes the parasitic organism in a painful ordeal.

Brutal, but completely true.

- - - Updated - - -

If a mother wants to end her pregnancy and drives to the clinic without incident than all is well and good after the abortion. But if a man happens to have a car accident with that same mother and kills that same fetus.....then that is manslaughter with a guaranteed sentence of jail time. Then we wonder why more men are incarcerated than women. Its definitely a woman's world, at least if you live in the USA.

Complete BS.

It would be considered an accident and no charges filed. There was no intent and for all you know the woman caused the accident.