I am in a situation that is leading me to challenge the law. If America is about equality then we should have equal rights. A man cannot force a woman to have an abortion but at the same time a man should have the right to choose. If the man gets someone pregnant and does not want to have the child he (as like a woman) should have the right to "get rid of it", in this case sign over parental rights. It is slightly different in because when you are the man you have to wait until the child is born to do a DNA test to prove its yours before you sign over your rights unless the mother gives you permission to do it while the child is still in development (from what I have been told). To get to the point. What is the difference? If a woman has the right to choose to be a mother why doesn't/can't the father have the right to choose? What is the likeliness of winning this case and how hard would it be to find a lawyer to contest the law prohibiting the father to sign over his rights?
Changing the law... is pro-choice the same as parental rights?
- Thread Starter Poohba
- Start date
- Status
Women carry fetuses therefore we make the ultimate decision on whether to have the child or not. If men were pregnant I am sure the tables would be turned.
In the US and most western world countries you have to take responsibility for your children. What kind of society would we have if we let all deadbeat parents sign off their rights? We would have everyone on welfare, or children being supported by the government, homeless, and parentless.
When you have unprotected sex with someone, you run the risk of getting them pregnant.
In North America, women have access to many types of birth control.
Terminating parental rights can and only will be done if there is an adoptive stepfather willing to take responsibility. How is it in the childrens best interest to let the father of fthe hook? It is all about what is best for the children, NOT the deadbeat dad. Courts will not terminate rights unless it is in the best interest of the child, there is lack of parent/child relationship, and an adoptive parent willing to take over.
Also if rights were terminated w/ no adoptive father (or mother), the sperm donor becomes a legal stranger to the child, the stand alone parent could then file for gov't assistance. Why should us tax payers pay for a deadbeat?
If you do not want the child, you certainly do not ever have to see them. Very sad. You do however have to pay child support of the woman files for it. If she files for it, it makes sense to use visitation and at least give yourself the chance to know and love the child.
Doing a DNA test on an unborn child, or terminating rights while the child is in utero is just plain stupid, since not all pregnancies result in a live birth anyways. Tests like that also increase the chance of miscarriage.
No men should not have ANY POWER to "get rid of it" because paternity is not established until after the child is born.
your case would be impossible to win, nor would any attorney be stupid or desperate enough to take a clown like you on as a client.
I feel really sorry for the woman (and the unborn child) that is going to have to deal with you.
If you do not want any kids, then see to it that you don't.
In the US and most western world countries you have to take responsibility for your children. What kind of society would we have if we let all deadbeat parents sign off their rights? We would have everyone on welfare, or children being supported by the government, homeless, and parentless.
When you have unprotected sex with someone, you run the risk of getting them pregnant.
In North America, women have access to many types of birth control.
Terminating parental rights can and only will be done if there is an adoptive stepfather willing to take responsibility. How is it in the childrens best interest to let the father of fthe hook? It is all about what is best for the children, NOT the deadbeat dad. Courts will not terminate rights unless it is in the best interest of the child, there is lack of parent/child relationship, and an adoptive parent willing to take over.
Also if rights were terminated w/ no adoptive father (or mother), the sperm donor becomes a legal stranger to the child, the stand alone parent could then file for gov't assistance. Why should us tax payers pay for a deadbeat?
If you do not want the child, you certainly do not ever have to see them. Very sad. You do however have to pay child support of the woman files for it. If she files for it, it makes sense to use visitation and at least give yourself the chance to know and love the child.
Doing a DNA test on an unborn child, or terminating rights while the child is in utero is just plain stupid, since not all pregnancies result in a live birth anyways. Tests like that also increase the chance of miscarriage.
No men should not have ANY POWER to "get rid of it" because paternity is not established until after the child is born.
your case would be impossible to win, nor would any attorney be stupid or desperate enough to take a clown like you on as a client.
I feel really sorry for the woman (and the unborn child) that is going to have to deal with you.
If you do not want any kids, then see to it that you don't.
- Status
Ask a Question
Share this page
