Originally posted by bunge
Presumably there's a written or implied contract.
Yes, a written contract exempting the donor from any parental responsibilites. In consensual, pre/extra marrital sex the vast majority of participants are engaging with the understanding that there is no intent to produce a child. The implied consent is NOT to have a child.
You were suggesting that my line of reasoning led to your proposed scenario, it does not. That's a strawman argument.
Yes, adoption or abandon, like a woman, accept that a man might have to keep the baby until the adoption is final. A detail not worth debating here.
No, your scenario doesn't require the man to keep the baby anymore than the women. You simply wish to ceremoniously pass the responsibility of putting the child up for adoption to the man. I'm not even sure if you would require the woman to inform the man prior to passing over custody. The end result, however, is the same number of children given up for adoption, but by a more circuitous route. Your scenario differs from mine on the following points...
1. It denies the reality that a woman makes a choice to continue with the pregnacy, thus affirming her intent to raise the child or give it up for adoption.
2. A biological father can blackmail a mother into turning over sole custody without any compensation or commitment of support during pregnacy.
It's possible we are getting tied up in semantics, but to be clear there is no such thing as true equality in reproduction. I can't legislate into existence a menstrual cycle for men or mandate that they gain 40 lbs, get kidney stones, have an episiotomy, or lactate. You are quite aware of this reality since you don't propose that a man have any say in whether a women can get an abortion or not.
I accept these realities and propose a division of responsibilities that results in the least number of single mothers, fatherless kids, unwanted children, and abortions. I accept the reality that most of the time when men and women have sex out of marriage they are proceeding with the understanding that they do not wish to produce a child and that it is a change of intent on the part of the woman that alter's the situation.
I'm curious as to what you would think of the following scenario...
There is currently a condom manufacturer who wraps the condoms in a special wrapper that must be unwrapped twice. The first wrap is removed by the man and the second by the woman. In each case a sticky layer of the wrapping preserves a fingerprint of each person for a record of consent. Now, what if in addition to this the wrapper explicity stated that opening this condom exempted the man using the condom from any future responsibilities for a child conceived during sex. You can also have a line of condoms that DOES commit the man to provide child support. The writing is bioluminescent (green for no child support commitment, red for child support required) and can be read easily in the dark, they are standardized and a widespread education campaign informs the public of their use and implications.
Would this be ok with you?