After reading the last post before Giaguara's, I said to myself, her next post is going to retreat back to the "prevention" stance. I thought of making a post to that effect, but I didn't want to spoil the natural flow of what was about to happen. Sure enough...I knew it! I freakin' knew she would go there!
We Men simple need to realize that we're nothing. We are simply fodder for this Earth. Whether we be the bodies blown to bits on the battlefield or the Financial Life Support system for whoever we must accept this reality with little complaint. There is no room in the Male Psyche for weakness. It's our our job...it's our responsibility...it's our fault.
With an outlook like that, it's like women are hellbent to make even the "good men" of this society want to just bang anything, give a few squirts, and then bolt as efficiently as possible. Then they have something to complain about why men are such pigs.
Same thing goes for marriage with its inevitable coupling with divorce, and thus vaginamony- err, I mean alimony. (Anybody remember that Chris Rock bit?) Thingsa gotta change or it's just going to push the sexes even further and further apart. Lashing out at a group for the wrongs done by a few won't get humankind anywhere.
It is possible, in addition the father would have to somehow also get majority custody against a mother who wants majority custody as well. It is possible but when we look at custodial statistics it is rare enough to almost be called non-existant.
The man does have a choice before conception, that is true. However what if the birth control fails? What if he has made every good effort to show he did not wish to be a father at this time?
As for preventing adoptions and abandonments, the issue is terminating parental rights. You do bring up good questions though and since you bring them up, could you be nice and answer them. If a mother wishes to give up a child for adoption, can the father prevent her and force her to retain her maternal rights? I understand that he can assert his rights to keep the child. However can he prevent her from giving up hers?
That is the crux (crux counting contest, you know you wanna) of the issue. Women can give up their parenting obligation via abortion, abandonment, and adoption. Can men? What I am getting at again is establishing paternity. As far as I know, most women do not have to name the father to give a child up for adoption.
Nick
I'm jumping in this late, so the conversation may have moved on.
But...
As for non-existant, I have to admit I'm close to two cases. One went for the mother, one went for the father. In both cases the court ruled correctly in my opinion. That biases me in favor of saying that the courts rule accurately, even if the numbers seem to favor women.
I say the man is fscked after conception and before birth. It may be wrong, but that's what I see. Once I've planted my seed, I do seem 'fall behind' in the rights race. I don't lose any, but the woman gains some before I do.
As for the adoption question, I say the father can (should be able to) make a woman keep her parental responsibilities. That means if she 'gives up' and the man takes charge, she should pay if she is able. I'm not sure that's what you're asking, but it's how I see things should be. If one parent 'abandons' the child, but the other doesn't, the 'other' should pay.
Your last paragraph raises two points for me. One, with abortion, women have an advantage but no more rights. After that things should be equal. But, even with things being equal, men have to be more vigilant to keep track of their offspring.
I'm jumping in this late, so the conversation may have moved on.
But...
As for non-existant, I have to admit I'm close to two cases. One went for the mother, one went for the father. In both cases the court ruled correctly in my opinion. That biases me in favor of saying that the courts rule accurately, even if the numbers seem to favor women.
I say the man is fscked after conception and before birth. It may be wrong, but that's what I see. Once I've planted my seed, I do seem 'fall behind' in the rights race. I don't lose any, but the woman gains some before I do.
As for the adoption question, I say the father can (should be able to) make a woman keep her parental responsibilities. That means if she 'gives up' and the man takes charge, she should pay if she is able. I'm not sure that's what you're asking, but it's how I see things should be. If one parent 'abandons' the child, but the other doesn't, the 'other' should pay.
Your last paragraph raises two points for me. One, with abortion, women have an advantage but no more rights. After that things should be equal. But, even with things being equal, men have to be more vigilant to keep track of their offspring.
I'm close to two cases as well. In one the court gave the father 55% custody of the daughter, him being Mr. Employed-Suburbia, her being a living in trailer in squalar with registered child molester(who supplied drugs). (I really wish I were kidding, she had been a nice person until she started doing drugs) He still owed her $17 a month child support and was often come after by the county to repay benefits she had claimed while also claiming she had the child full time to get them. Showing the county things like court orders never brought the money back. (It would just suddenly disappear through a garnishment of tax refunds with no notification, etc.) He lucked out as she lost interest in being a mother at all and wandered off to do her drugs unheard from but maybe once or twice a year in a call.
The other I won't bore you with, but it was worse.
But I'm glad to hear that maybe in certain counties, in certain states you can get a fair shot.
Now as for the falling behind in the rights race, you wouldn't fall behind though if upon notification you could terminate your parental rights during the preganancy. That's what I have been advocating. I've seen you ask lots of questions around it but I don't know if you've actually stated your position on it. Would you give a man a right to terminate his parental right during a pregnancy? That is what would even up the falling behind of the rights.
As for the adoption question, I think we are in agreement there. The reality of the situation is much less clean cut though. It would be hard for a man to enforce his rights, especially if she intentionally names someone else as the father or doesn't name him as the father. If a woman screws with your head by intentionally telling you she screwed around, someone else must be the dad, etc. then it would be even harder for a man to commit to the resources (cash) to prove and then enforce his rights. I really don't see a way of writing a law to fix that sort of business though.
Actually you would probably want the law to state that expectant Fathers could terminate their rights up to 30 days after being notified that they have a child. The reason why is because some Men don't find out they have a child until after the child is born. It the language of the Law specified Pregnancy then the Woman only need hide the child from the Father until birth.
I think some of the people responding to this topic are really looking at things from perhaps the wrong perspective. My Son is 1 year old and I've wanted to be a Father since before he was born. It's alot of work. I've made alot of changes because of him. I'm willing to do anything for him. It's a total joy.
However. I realize that not every person wants to be a Mother or a Father. People that don't want to be Parents make very poor Parents in many cases. I don't think Women or Men should be subjected to becoming Parents if they don't want to. We have enough dysfunctional families in this world.
The constitution of the United States guarantees equal protection under the law. One of those protections is against the loss of property without DUE process. Each persons body is considered property (Just as persons were considered property). Because each persons body is considered his or her own property certain rules are applied. One must have permission ( oral or written) in order to touch, walk on, someones property. In the case of the human body, touching it without permission is legal assault. All subparts of the human body are equally protected by property rights. regeardless as to where your body or parts of your body are located they are still your property until you explicitly turn over ownership ( Title) to someone else. Thus in the medical field it is neccessary for doctors to obtain permission to do any procesdures. Otherwise they would have tresspassed on the persons body (Property). This includes the removal of organs and other tissues. For example if you have your appendix removed, you may require the hospital to return it to you. It is yours and they have to do so. Or you may indicated ( which is often assumed) that you want to relinquish ownership of your apendix and let the hospital do whatr it wants with it. Similarly with organ donations. even when you are dead, you and your estate retain property rights over the organis in your body. A hospital must recieve permission from your estate or must have a affidavit that you had notarized stating that you allow "x" organs to be removed. Of course now a days we have bracelets and checkmarks on our drivers licences that allow for speedy determination of these property rights.
Now on to the point. A womans "eggs' and a mans 'sperm" are also covered under property rights. Just because sperm leaves a man's body does not mean that he does not retain property rights over them. The DNA contained in the man's sperm and the womans egg are also bound by property rights. When consensual intercourse occurs, both parties have agreed to the use of their property by the other person. But each retains property rights over their own bodies ( see Kobe Bryant case)
The problem is when the new property ( the baby) is created. Does this property have it's own rights equal to that of those individuals that created it? clearly it does not. it has limited rights. It's "right" to "life" may be terminated by the property decision of the mother. This is because under the law, the baby is a part of her property and therefore subject to her property rights (of course such laws that convict mothers for drinking or drugging while pregnant have blurred this recognition).
If the child is the property of the mother (as legally defined) then we can logically conclude then that the child is NOT the property of the father. The law implies that the father relinquished property rights to his DNA once the child was created in the womans property (body). If this is the case then, the father should not be liable for any property of the mother.
however, the law claims that by testing the DNA of the child and matching the DNA of the father. That he has a financial and legal responsibilty for the child that was legally NOT his property. So the question is this " Is his DNA his property that was transfered legally to the woman?" or was only the act of intercourse covered under property law? That is, the right to touch the other person?
if baby making is a process that legally transfers property rights of sperm and it's DNA to the mother then the father should rightly have no say over what is done with the transferred property.
however if he retains property rights to his DNA then he should have property rights equal to that of the mother when it comes to the child.
The complication would be that, top get at the "new property" one must tresspass on the mothers property (her body). clearly then, no abortion can be had without securing permission of the mother to do "proceedures" on her property. This makes sense as, law enforecement cannot legally enter ones property ( house/ Apt/ vehicle) without a court order.
If the father retains property rights to his DNA and therefore 1/2 of the "new property" He should be legally able to transfer his property rights in the child to any person he wants. If however he retains property rights to 1/2 the new property ( child) then he should be required to put in for the upkeep of said property.
Would you give a man a right to terminate his parental right during a pregnancy?
At this point I'd say no, but I'm open to suggestions. I don't see a good argument for it just yet. In my mind it wouldn't equate to a woman being able to get an abortion or put the kid up for adoption. What you're advocating for is something different and not equal. I don't even see a need for it actually, but that's why I'm asking questions.
At this point I'd say no, but I'm open to suggestions. I don't see a good argument for it just yet. In my mind it wouldn't equate to a woman being able to get an abortion or put the kid up for adoption. What you're advocating for is something different and not equal. I don't even see a need for it actually, but that's why I'm asking questions.
The point is this: although there are a number of deadbeats that run off after screwing a woman without wearing protection, there are also a number of innocent victims who consent to protected sex and have their sperm stolen from the condom and hijacked to create a baby. There is no legal recourse for such deceptive action. It is a guaranteed 18 year sentence of paying the lying whore.
At this point I'd say no, but I'm open to suggestions. I don't see a good argument for it just yet. In my mind it wouldn't equate to a woman being able to get an abortion or put the kid up for adoption. What you're advocating for is something different and not equal. I don't even see a need for it actually, but that's why I'm asking questions.
Could you elaborate on why you consider them not equal? I would consider it very equal, especially with regard to adoption.
Likewise it might solve some problems. Right now a woman might delude herself through an entire pregnancy, hoping that this guy she loves is going to now take care of her, love her, leave his wife, whatever because of this upcoming baby.
A signed paper notifying her that he has terminated his parental rights would pretty much put an end to that little fantasy and allow her to make a decision (abortion) that doesn't encumber her for the next 18 years.
The point is this: although there are a number of deadbeats that run off after screwing a woman without wearing protection, there are also a number of innocent victims who consent to protected sex and have their sperm stolen from the condom and hijacked to create a baby. There is no legal recourse for such deceptive action. It is a guaranteed 18 year sentence of paying the lying whore.
I don't think those numbers are quire equal BR, however maybe if you added the number of women who swore they were on the pill and didn't forget to take any of them this month, it might get closer.
I don't think those numbers are quire equal BR, however maybe if you added the number of women who swore they were on the pill and didn't forget to take any of them this month, it might get closer.
See, I'm less cynical than you this time around.
Nick
I never specified numbers. I just said that numbers for both exist. I doubt there are less than or equal deadbeats to guys being screwed by women stealing sperm.
Could you elaborate on why you consider them not equal? I would consider it very equal, especially with regard to adoption.
Likewise it might solve some problems. Right now a woman might delude herself through an entire pregnancy, hoping that this guy she loves is going to now take care of her, love her, leave his wife, whatever because of this upcoming baby.
A signed paper notifying her that he has terminated his parental rights would pretty much put an end to that little fantasy and allow her to make a decision (abortion) that doesn't encumber her for the next 18 years.
I say not equal because a women can't abandon a child before pregnancy. Abort, yes. But they can't sign their responsibilities away. That's what you're saying a man should be able to do, but we have to share the responsibility in my opinion.
how is abortion different from post birthing abandonment besides death of the fetus? In both cases, to the parents the child does not exist and they are not responisble for it.
I say not equal because a women can't abandon a child before pregnancy. Abort, yes. But they can't sign their responsibilities away. That's what you're saying a man should be able to do, but we have to share the responsibility in my opinion.
A woman can sign her responsibilities away by putting it up for adoption or legally abandoning it.
Actually you would probably want the law to state that expectant Fathers could terminate their rights up to 30 days after being notified that they have a child. The reason why is because some Men don't find out they have a child until after the child is born. It the language of the Law specified Pregnancy then the Woman only need hide the child from the Father until birth.
I think some of the people responding to this topic are really looking at things from perhaps the wrong perspective. My Son is 1 year old and I've wanted to be a Father since before he was born. It's alot of work. I've made alot of changes because of him. I'm willing to do anything for him. It's a total joy.
However. I realize that not every person wants to be a Mother or a Father. People that don't want to be Parents make very poor Parents in many cases. I don't think Women or Men should be subjected to becoming Parents if they don't want to. We have enough dysfunctional families in this world.
I say not equal because a women can't abandon a child before pregnancy. Abort, yes. But they can't sign their responsibilities away. That's what you're saying a man should be able to do, but we have to share the responsibility in my opinion.
Sure she can by putting it up for adoption or I would fully support a statement declaring her intent to abandon the child when born as well.
The real issue after birth is she has the power to begin legally entangling the man if he cannot declare beforehand his intent not to parent. Then we have support issues, etc. It doesn't really change anything.
Comments
We Men simple need to realize that we're nothing. We are simply fodder for this Earth. Whether we be the bodies blown to bits on the battlefield or the Financial Life Support system for whoever we must accept this reality with little complaint. There is no room in the Male Psyche for weakness. It's our our job...it's our responsibility...it's our fault.
Same thing goes for marriage with its inevitable coupling with divorce, and thus vaginamony- err, I mean alimony. (Anybody remember that Chris Rock bit?) Thingsa gotta change or it's just going to push the sexes even further and further apart. Lashing out at a group for the wrongs done by a few won't get humankind anywhere.
Originally posted by trumptman
It is possible, in addition the father would have to somehow also get majority custody against a mother who wants majority custody as well. It is possible but when we look at custodial statistics it is rare enough to almost be called non-existant.
The man does have a choice before conception, that is true. However what if the birth control fails? What if he has made every good effort to show he did not wish to be a father at this time?
As for preventing adoptions and abandonments, the issue is terminating parental rights. You do bring up good questions though and since you bring them up, could you be nice and answer them.
That is the crux (crux counting contest, you know you wanna) of the issue. Women can give up their parenting obligation via abortion, abandonment, and adoption. Can men? What I am getting at again is establishing paternity. As far as I know, most women do not have to name the father to give a child up for adoption.
Nick
I'm jumping in this late, so the conversation may have moved on.
But...
As for non-existant, I have to admit I'm close to two cases. One went for the mother, one went for the father. In both cases the court ruled correctly in my opinion. That biases me in favor of saying that the courts rule accurately, even if the numbers seem to favor women.
I say the man is fscked after conception and before birth. It may be wrong, but that's what I see. Once I've planted my seed, I do seem 'fall behind' in the rights race. I don't lose any, but the woman gains some before I do.
As for the adoption question, I say the father can (should be able to) make a woman keep her parental responsibilities. That means if she 'gives up' and the man takes charge, she should pay if she is able. I'm not sure that's what you're asking, but it's how I see things should be. If one parent 'abandons' the child, but the other doesn't, the 'other' should pay.
Your last paragraph raises two points for me. One, with abortion, women have an advantage but no more rights. After that things should be equal. But, even with things being equal, men have to be more vigilant to keep track of their offspring.
Originally posted by bunge
I'm jumping in this late, so the conversation may have moved on.
But...
As for non-existant, I have to admit I'm close to two cases. One went for the mother, one went for the father. In both cases the court ruled correctly in my opinion. That biases me in favor of saying that the courts rule accurately, even if the numbers seem to favor women.
I say the man is fscked after conception and before birth. It may be wrong, but that's what I see. Once I've planted my seed, I do seem 'fall behind' in the rights race. I don't lose any, but the woman gains some before I do.
As for the adoption question, I say the father can (should be able to) make a woman keep her parental responsibilities. That means if she 'gives up' and the man takes charge, she should pay if she is able. I'm not sure that's what you're asking, but it's how I see things should be. If one parent 'abandons' the child, but the other doesn't, the 'other' should pay.
Your last paragraph raises two points for me. One, with abortion, women have an advantage but no more rights. After that things should be equal. But, even with things being equal, men have to be more vigilant to keep track of their offspring.
I'm close to two cases as well. In one the court gave the father 55% custody of the daughter, him being Mr. Employed-Suburbia, her being a living in trailer in squalar with registered child molester(who supplied drugs). (I really wish I were kidding, she had been a nice person until she started doing drugs) He still owed her $17 a month child support and was often come after by the county to repay benefits she had claimed while also claiming she had the child full time to get them. Showing the county things like court orders never brought the money back. (It would just suddenly disappear through a garnishment of tax refunds with no notification, etc.) He lucked out as she lost interest in being a mother at all and wandered off to do her drugs unheard from but maybe once or twice a year in a call.
The other I won't bore you with, but it was worse.
But I'm glad to hear that maybe in certain counties, in certain states you can get a fair shot.
Now as for the falling behind in the rights race, you wouldn't fall behind though if upon notification you could terminate your parental rights during the preganancy. That's what I have been advocating. I've seen you ask lots of questions around it but I don't know if you've actually stated your position on it. Would you give a man a right to terminate his parental right during a pregnancy? That is what would even up the falling behind of the rights.
As for the adoption question, I think we are in agreement there. The reality of the situation is much less clean cut though. It would be hard for a man to enforce his rights, especially if she intentionally names someone else as the father or doesn't name him as the father. If a woman screws with your head by intentionally telling you she screwed around, someone else must be the dad, etc. then it would be even harder for a man to commit to the resources (cash) to prove and then enforce his rights. I really don't see a way of writing a law to fix that sort of business though.
Nick
Actually you would probably want the law to state that expectant Fathers could terminate their rights up to 30 days after being notified that they have a child. The reason why is because some Men don't find out they have a child until after the child is born. It the language of the Law specified Pregnancy then the Woman only need hide the child from the Father until birth.
I think some of the people responding to this topic are really looking at things from perhaps the wrong perspective. My Son is 1 year old and I've wanted to be a Father since before he was born. It's alot of work. I've made alot of changes because of him. I'm willing to do anything for him. It's a total joy.
However. I realize that not every person wants to be a Mother or a Father. People that don't want to be Parents make very poor Parents in many cases. I don't think Women or Men should be subjected to becoming Parents if they don't want to. We have enough dysfunctional families in this world.
Now on to the point. A womans "eggs' and a mans 'sperm" are also covered under property rights. Just because sperm leaves a man's body does not mean that he does not retain property rights over them. The DNA contained in the man's sperm and the womans egg are also bound by property rights. When consensual intercourse occurs, both parties have agreed to the use of their property by the other person. But each retains property rights over their own bodies ( see Kobe Bryant case)
The problem is when the new property ( the baby) is created. Does this property have it's own rights equal to that of those individuals that created it? clearly it does not. it has limited rights. It's "right" to "life" may be terminated by the property decision of the mother. This is because under the law, the baby is a part of her property and therefore subject to her property rights (of course such laws that convict mothers for drinking or drugging while pregnant have blurred this recognition).
If the child is the property of the mother (as legally defined) then we can logically conclude then that the child is NOT the property of the father. The law implies that the father relinquished property rights to his DNA once the child was created in the womans property (body). If this is the case then, the father should not be liable for any property of the mother.
...continued...
if baby making is a process that legally transfers property rights of sperm and it's DNA to the mother then the father should rightly have no say over what is done with the transferred property.
however if he retains property rights to his DNA then he should have property rights equal to that of the mother when it comes to the child.
The complication would be that, top get at the "new property" one must tresspass on the mothers property (her body). clearly then, no abortion can be had without securing permission of the mother to do "proceedures" on her property. This makes sense as, law enforecement cannot legally enter ones property ( house/ Apt/ vehicle) without a court order.
If the father retains property rights to his DNA and therefore 1/2 of the "new property" He should be legally able to transfer his property rights in the child to any person he wants. If however he retains property rights to 1/2 the new property ( child) then he should be required to put in for the upkeep of said property.
Originally posted by trumptman
Would you give a man a right to terminate his parental right during a pregnancy?
At this point I'd say no, but I'm open to suggestions. I don't see a good argument for it just yet. In my mind it wouldn't equate to a woman being able to get an abortion or put the kid up for adoption. What you're advocating for is something different and not equal. I don't even see a need for it actually, but that's why I'm asking questions.
Originally posted by bunge
At this point I'd say no, but I'm open to suggestions. I don't see a good argument for it just yet. In my mind it wouldn't equate to a woman being able to get an abortion or put the kid up for adoption. What you're advocating for is something different and not equal. I don't even see a need for it actually, but that's why I'm asking questions.
The point is this: although there are a number of deadbeats that run off after screwing a woman without wearing protection, there are also a number of innocent victims who consent to protected sex and have their sperm stolen from the condom and hijacked to create a baby. There is no legal recourse for such deceptive action. It is a guaranteed 18 year sentence of paying the lying whore.
Originally posted by bunge
At this point I'd say no, but I'm open to suggestions. I don't see a good argument for it just yet. In my mind it wouldn't equate to a woman being able to get an abortion or put the kid up for adoption. What you're advocating for is something different and not equal. I don't even see a need for it actually, but that's why I'm asking questions.
Could you elaborate on why you consider them not equal? I would consider it very equal, especially with regard to adoption.
Likewise it might solve some problems. Right now a woman might delude herself through an entire pregnancy, hoping that this guy she loves is going to now take care of her, love her, leave his wife, whatever because of this upcoming baby.
A signed paper notifying her that he has terminated his parental rights would pretty much put an end to that little fantasy and allow her to make a decision (abortion) that doesn't encumber her for the next 18 years.
Nick
Originally posted by BR
The point is this: although there are a number of deadbeats that run off after screwing a woman without wearing protection, there are also a number of innocent victims who consent to protected sex and have their sperm stolen from the condom and hijacked to create a baby. There is no legal recourse for such deceptive action. It is a guaranteed 18 year sentence of paying the lying whore.
I don't think those numbers are quire equal BR, however maybe if you added the number of women who swore they were on the pill and didn't forget to take any of them this month, it might get closer.
See, I'm less cynical than you this time around.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
I don't think those numbers are quire equal BR, however maybe if you added the number of women who swore they were on the pill and didn't forget to take any of them this month, it might get closer.
See, I'm less cynical than you this time around.
Nick
I never specified numbers. I just said that numbers for both exist. I doubt there are less than or equal deadbeats to guys being screwed by women stealing sperm.
Originally posted by trumptman
Could you elaborate on why you consider them not equal? I would consider it very equal, especially with regard to adoption.
Likewise it might solve some problems. Right now a woman might delude herself through an entire pregnancy, hoping that this guy she loves is going to now take care of her, love her, leave his wife, whatever because of this upcoming baby.
A signed paper notifying her that he has terminated his parental rights would pretty much put an end to that little fantasy and allow her to make a decision (abortion) that doesn't encumber her for the next 18 years.
I say not equal because a women can't abandon a child before pregnancy. Abort, yes. But they can't sign their responsibilities away. That's what you're saying a man should be able to do, but we have to share the responsibility in my opinion.
Originally posted by bunge
I say not equal because a women can't abandon a child before pregnancy. Abort, yes. But they can't sign their responsibilities away. That's what you're saying a man should be able to do, but we have to share the responsibility in my opinion.
A woman can sign her responsibilities away by putting it up for adoption or legally abandoning it.
A man should be able to do the same.
Originally posted by BR
A woman can sign her responsibilities away by putting it up for adoption or legally abandoning it.
A man should be able to do the same.
Wow, I actually agree with BR on something!
(pulls out "Things I Never Thought Would Happen" list)
Originally posted by hmurchison
Nick,
Actually you would probably want the law to state that expectant Fathers could terminate their rights up to 30 days after being notified that they have a child. The reason why is because some Men don't find out they have a child until after the child is born. It the language of the Law specified Pregnancy then the Woman only need hide the child from the Father until birth.
I think some of the people responding to this topic are really looking at things from perhaps the wrong perspective. My Son is 1 year old and I've wanted to be a Father since before he was born. It's alot of work. I've made alot of changes because of him. I'm willing to do anything for him. It's a total joy.
However. I realize that not every person wants to be a Mother or a Father. People that don't want to be Parents make very poor Parents in many cases. I don't think Women or Men should be subjected to becoming Parents if they don't want to. We have enough dysfunctional families in this world.
Agreed.
Nick
Originally posted by bunge
I say not equal because a women can't abandon a child before pregnancy. Abort, yes. But they can't sign their responsibilities away. That's what you're saying a man should be able to do, but we have to share the responsibility in my opinion.
Sure she can by putting it up for adoption or I would fully support a statement declaring her intent to abandon the child when born as well.
The real issue after birth is she has the power to begin legally entangling the man if he cannot declare beforehand his intent not to parent. Then we have support issues, etc. It doesn't really change anything.
Nick
Originally posted by BR
A woman can sign her responsibilities away by putting it up for adoption or legally abandoning it.
Can a woman do this if the man wants the child? No, only when the father is willing to let the child go up for adoption.