Essentially before the baby is born a man could sign a contract waiving all rights including financial ones from the child.
It may be possible to request the bearer of the child relieve the biological inseminator of parental rights and obligations; in this way, the bearer is not naming or holding accountable the inseminator for financial upkeep of the newborn 'till age of majority. In most cases, particularly in the US, it's usually best to have the newborn be adopted to assert in court who is assuming formal (legal) responsibility in this respect. Look up both federal and state laws + family lawyer to affirm best coarse of action.
I'd say that the best chance that a man has to not have any financial obligations to the child is to have the child aborted if adoption is not possible. This is a personal choice of course. So far adoption has been a very steady workhorse for newborns in need. The real problem with inseminator (usually men) just up and disappearing is that, if they are found, and they are charged, they may be arrears for money is owing to the child, assuming that they are still below the age of majority and have actually gone some years without the inseminator who has financial obligation to the child.
In in such cases, wherein the bearer refuses to relieve of the formal or legal obligations of the biological inseminator or refuses to abort or both, it is usually decided that the court may intervene and have the newborn adopted or else fostered. The last thing is being orphaned and that's not a pretty state of affairs for a child much less the foster care system.
Granted, if the court is to intervene and the authorities are consulted, then it may be suggested given the circumstances what the course of action may be that the Court decides; for example, if it was a rape but the woman decides to keep the child and knows the perpetrator and wants the perpetrator held accountable then the court may decide that the perpetrator is indeed accountable and that the perpetrator must assume responsibility for the crime. If, however, sexual contact was consensual, then the court has to consider this as well.
Now the real question here is the most rarest circumstance that if the child of the single parent becomes disowned formally by law that whether this child can actually recoup any sort of damages through suing the other parent is in question. I gathered that there are a few cases of this that exist but it actually administering justice in this case is very delicate to say the least, especially if the premise of disowning the child was for violent behavior or maybe antisocial tendencies.
In whatever capacity, whether it's parental abuse of the now adult child or the other parent having been found to be charged, the onus is on the adult to prove that there was undue hardship. It's a lot harder to do when you're a child because you don't really have any adults looking out for you social services to actually intervene on your behalf but it has been done.
Usually it's the case of the neighbors or somebody in the family who calls the authorities in for a wellness check and that's when social services follows up to decide whether or not the child is indeed being abused and should be removed from the home either temporarily or permanently.
In such cases where there is abuse happening and it's not remedied that may be construed as what the court deems "undue hardship". Particularly in the case of a father if the court deems that the presence of the father could have prevented the mother from being abusive towards the child in the first place.
In the case of men being raped, and the women being the perpetrator, well, the court has to consider this as well and may consider that the woman may have to put the child up for adoption or foster care or other alternative arrangement. The woman being a rapist is going to be charged such.
Evidence of this might be poked holes in a condom or else perhaps this woman who was the perpetrator takes advantage of an already compromised man by some drug or else the man was already inneberrated or under the influence of some drug or otherwise debilitated and could not object or consent or was coerced in some sense. Not much different from a male rapist.
Don't get me wrong there are some men out in this world who just simply don't want to have any financial obligations to a newborn so what happens is that they have consensual sex and then the woman becomes pregnant and she becomes pissed off when she tries to get the man to take responsibility so the man decides he is going to paint the woman as a rapist. Now, it's the man's word against the woman's word that is very hard to prove in a court of law. This could also happen too that if it's consensual sex the woman doesn't want to have any kind of contact or responsibility she might say that the man is the rapist. I'm not going to say that society doesn't have a bias against men for being rapist instead of women so in most cases when men have any sexual contact with women they have to make it very clear that what they want out of the situation in terms of whether or not the child should be born or not and who is going to be taking financial responsibility for the care of this child.
@osmanthus I hope you get the help you need.
@osmanthus I am aware. I just hope you get the help you need
Yes, absolutely. And it's barbaric that men don't have that legal right yet in 2024. It wouldn't be quite as simple as you describe though. There would be details to work out, like how late in the pregnancy can a man make that decision? It would need to be early enough that she could still choose to abort if she decided to. There would also have to be laws around the woman being legally required to tell the father she is pregnant with his child. Today there is no such requirement, which again is barbaric. A man doesn't even have the right to know he has a child in the world. But the mother can let him know at any time during his kid's childhood and demand child support.
Fathers have virtually zero rights in the West. That will change eventually, but it's insane that it's still the case today.
It's called Going out for milk and cigarettes and never coming back. You act like it's not a pre internet meme that everyone knows exist.
Same reason the law aware of culture going ons dosen't cater to them directly.
@naultd That doesn't remove the man of the financial burden.
@naultd Whether they do or don't doesn't have anything to do w/ the question. The fact that they could hire a PI proves my point that there isn't a legal process in which a man could waive his financial obligation b4 birth.
@naultd There is no law that allows the man to waive his financial obligations. Hope this helps.
@naultd TY for sharing whatever that was but it doesn't have anything to do w/ the question.
Opinion
2Opinion
Yes because men deserves reproductive rights too. I’d consider this a reproductive right if women claim killing babies is their right men deserve to have a similar right to reproduction.
... Yes. That's already a thing.
@Smashingdoozy What country?
Like... Everywhere... It's not an easy process and is often denied by courts. Which I don't agree with.
@Smashingdoozy Lol, Definitely not a thing. There is no legal process for a main to waive his financial obligations b4 birth
Yes correct because there's nothing to sign away at that point.
@Smashingdoozy You would be signing away your financial obligation b4 the child was born. If a woman can kill the baby b4 it's born then there's obviously something to sign away. Think w/ logic vs emotion b4 responding.
There's no paperwork involved with an abortion that is in reference to the fetus. It's all about the person carrying understanding the process and potential complications.
You can't sign away your obligation before the child is born because there is no obligation before birth and no guarantee there will be one after birth.
@Smashingdoozy Lol, I certainly hope you find a man to take care of you because you are going to struggle in life. An abortion is a medical procedure, and if you've ever been part of a legal abortion you would know there's tons of paperwork involved. You could easily do the same thing for a financial obligation, whether the child is born or not is irrelevant. In fact in a court of law a contract signed on a cocktail napkin could be considered legally binding. Not to be rude bit you don't know what you're talking about at all so why would you provide an easily provable false POV?
Considering I have had an abortion I think I know what the paperwork involves ☺️
It actually is relevant whether the child is born or not because the fetus doesn't have personhood until they are born. They don't have a birth certificate (obviously). They in the eyes of most laws non existent.
@Smashingdoozy One abortion, I've paid for dozens, and if you had you wouldn't make such a ridiculous statement. That has absolutely nothing to do with a contract, if a person is waiving their financial obligations for for the next 18 years the birth of the kid is irrelevant because its the obligation in the event of that is being made. I find it interesting how you know absolutely nothing about this subject but are pretending as your gender entitles you to knowledge
A man does not have parental rights therefore obligations until his name is on the birth certificate. I don't know what else to tell you. I've had a friend go through this process. He could not give up his parental rights until the baby was born and even then the courts wouldn't allow it because there was not another parent to take over. It's not that I agree with this process at all. I think people should be allowed to give up their rights and financial obligations if they so choose to. But the fact is right now you cannot until the baby is born and often not unless someone else is willing to take your place.
@Smashingdoozy Perhaps you could start by telling me about something you have knowledge of or discuss the topic being presented. Tbe question asked was would equality be a man having the right to remove his financial obligation. A parental right is irrelevant if financial rights are being waived. Obviously you've never had a friend go through this process because the process I'm referring to doesn't exsist. Like most women you're responding w/ emotion vs logic which has led you to miss the question and go off on another tangent. Literally nothing you have shared is accurate which ironically is why courts don't allow men to give up financial obligations because w/out men, women would be absolute disaster trying to raise kids, mich like how you have been while trying to articulate your point.
I have not gone on a tangent lmao. I literally said you were correct that it can't be done before birth and that i agree you should be able to? It's not my problem you've failed to read what I've said.
@Smashingdoozy You literally responded by saying 'it's already a thing and then telling me that it's "everywhere" This is what I mean by use logic v emotion. And that's not including your tangent about your abortion and some other nonsense. As it is as stated b4 if implemented it would be something easily attainable b4 birth, so even in your apology comment you were inaccurate
I said it was a thing because I didn't read your description.
Then when you said before birth in your comment I agreed that it can't happen before birth. The reason for that *currently* is because you have no parental therefore financial obligations because that begins when the baby is born and the birth certificate is signed. As I said, I don't agree with this.
I referenced my friend, because that is how i have conversations and explain things to people - by relating it to my own or people I'm close withs experience (s). As I said he could not do that because it isn't a thing.
Again with the abortion situation, you said "If a woman can kill the baby b4 it's born then there's obviously something to sign away." In my experience with abortion none of the paperwork I had to sign had anything to do with the fetus itself, or parental rights. you're not signing away your right to be a parent, you are signing a consent and acknowledgment form of the procedure and it's potential side effects. As well as bunch of other shit so Drs can't be sued.
Relating things to my experiences is just how my brain works. Sometimes I don't make that clear enough so I hope this clears things up for you.
@Smashingdoozy
1. You should have read the description. My position is that signing away financial obligations contingent on birth is pretty standard, that's kinda why the word contingent was created. We do agree that it does not currently exsist.
2. Anecdotal evidence does validate a general point.
3. I agree with you on the Dr's point however that is irrelevant to the over arching point, and in my opinion is a byproduct of you responding emotionally v logically.
4. Anecdotal evidence has a place, however not sure why it would apply to the original question. With that said yes it does clear I up for me. TY
It's not evidence 🙃 it's relation.
Also I can't just go back and change what I originally said. Stop acting all high and mighty because I didn't read a damn description.
You can't say something is irrelevant to the over arching point when I just responded to something you brought up.
@Smashingdoozy Lol, you should have read the description. How can you respond to a point if you don't even understand the point?
@Smashingdoozy You responded to a poor interpretation of what you heard because you were emotionally tied to it. The fact thar you had to sign away your fetus doesn't have anything to do w/ whether a man can sign away his financial obligations b4 birth
Uh no. You said that there must be something to sign away for an abortion implying that you're signing away your rights and obligations as a parent which is factually incorrect. If you're insisting it has nothing to do with what you're talking about then maybe you shouldn't have brought it up ☺️
@Smashingdoozy Lol, this is hilarious and validates what I say about women. You took what I said heard what you wanted and now are pretending as we're discussing something said by me. Anyone reading this would quickly noticed I used the term "waive their right" you then responding by changing the word "waive" to sign and now are pretending I said this. Shame on you.
"If a woman can kill the baby b4 it's born then there's obviously something to sign away." Direct quote from you. All you have to do is scroll up. Trying to gaslight when you can literally see what you said is hilarious.
@Smashingdoozy That's a reply to a statement made by you. Yes all anyone would have to do is scroll up to recognize that. This is why I say you should think b4 replying vs making nonsensical emotional replys.
They'll see your nonsensical replies that's for sure 🥴
@Smashingdoozy I encourage anyone to read the content I produce and challenge them to provide any part they deem "nonsensical" This is partly because I provide logical, tangible, generally applied, Information that validates my POV as to emotionally triggered responses that playcate to my personal feelings.
Lmfao ok buddy
@Smashingdoozy No worries glad I could educate you.
No one grants women the right to infanticide.
You can also add your opinion below!
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
