Paper Abortions

[casebro]

Women can't legally put children up for adoption against the will of the biological father.

The father has a legal parental right.

But she has no obligation that I know of to ever tell the Dad that he is one.

 

[theprestige]

Women can't legally put children up for adoption against the will of the biological father.



The father has a legal parental right.

On the other hand, she can abort at will, with no input from the father.

Why do you require the father's consent for adoption, but not for abortion?

 

[Loss Leader]

I feel that if someone choose a not to wear their seatbelt they should have to pay their own medical costs for their face going through the windshield.

Um, actually ... research shows that not wearing a seatbelt increases risky driving and, thus, harm to others. Wearing a seatbelt increases safe driving.

This has nothing to do with your point, but I knew a fact and I got really excited.

 

[Butter!]

Adoption is also not the simple solution it is often framed to be (though I obviously think it is great and support it whenever it is possible). A lot of those poor kids end up in group homes or foster homes for a long time. Foster homes can be fantastic and nurturing in many cases, but they can also be... we'll just say "negative." And they lack a sense of permanence that is good for child development.

Some people who want to give up a baby for adoption are lucky enough to connect with adoptive parents directly prior to the birth. Those situations are the most ideal. However, they are still complicated. Not to mention the maternal bonding hormones that often override logic, the pain and danger of giving birth, the years of torment afterward wondering if you did the right thing, if your child is okay, if they're taking care of him properly and supporting his emotional needs, if he has any behavioral disorders, etc. Yes, open adoptions are a thing, but many adoptive parents are kind of against the idea, and I don't exactly blame them. Things can get very messy.

It really is best if undesired pregnancy can just be prevented outright. No pain, no controversy, no agony. Maybe a little less spice and romance, but that is a small price to pay to avoid everything else that can happen. I hope that feasible birth control options for both sexes can be further developed and eventually perfected. Then this whole ugly issue won't even exist.

 

[Butter!]

But she has no obligation that I know of to ever tell the Dad that he is one.

You seem to just keep focusing on instances where people are doing shady things, tricking each other, lying to each other, stealthing, ulterior motives, yada yada. Surely these cases represent the minority. Most of the time, it's a man and a woman hovering over the pregnancy test together, going "oh ****..."

 

[Puppycow]

Seems we have a disagreement here:

Women can't legally put children up for adoption against the will of the biological father.

The father has a legal parental right.

A woman can have a "paper abortion;" she can give the baby up for adoption.

A man has absolutely no power in the situation. If he wants to keep the baby but she doesn't want to carry it, too bad.

Can a biological father veto a woman's decision to give a child up for adoption, or not?

IANAL, but I assume that first his paternity would have to be established. I don't know all the ins and outs of this. Then, if it is legally established that he is the father with full parental rights, if she wants to give up the child for adoption he could just take full custody and even make her pay child support in some cases (if she doesn't want custody herself, or maybe even if she does).

I think the moral of the story is, be careful who you conceive a child with.

 

[Butter!]

Seems we have a disagreement here:





Can a biological father veto a woman's decision to give a child up for adoption, or not?

IANAL, but I assume that first his paternity would have to be established. I don't know all the ins and outs of this. Then, if it is legally established that he is the father with full parental rights, if she wants to give up the child for adoption he could just take full custody and even make her pay child support in some cases (if she doesn't want custody herself, or maybe even if she does).

I think the moral of the story is, be careful who you conceive a child with.

Yes, once paternity is established, the biological father can absolutely try to block the adoption and move to take custody himself. He has that right. If he never attempts to exercise it, things move forward without him. If he is found to be an unsuitable parent due to lifestyle or whatever, things can move forward in spite of him. If the woman in question never told him she was pregnant, things would obviously move forward without him. However, if he finds out later, he can sometimes demand custody and have it considered by the courts. It varies by location.

https://family.findlaw.com/paternity/parental-rights-unmarried-fathers-and-adoption.html

https://www.fundyouradoption.org/resources/put-a-child-up-for-adoption-without-the-fathers-consent/

 

[xjx388]

Yes, once paternity is established, the biological father can absolutely try to block the adoption and move to take custody himself. He has that right. If he never attempts to exercise it, things move forward without him. If he is found to be an unsuitable parent due to lifestyle or whatever, things can move forward in spite of him. If the woman in question never told him she was pregnant, things would obviously move forward without him. However, if he finds out later, he can sometimes demand custody and have it considered by the courts. It varies by location.

https://family.findlaw.com/paternity/parental-rights-unmarried-fathers-and-adoption.html

https://www.fundyouradoption.org/resources/put-a-child-up-for-adoption-without-the-fathers-consent/

I think this idea that unaware fathers lose their rights after a certain time is problematic. I don’t know how to solve it because pregnancies often result when two virtual strangers hook up after a one night stand. Seems unfair to those fathers who had no idea they had a kid but would have wanted to raise the kid.

 

[Butter!]

I think this idea that unaware fathers lose their rights after a certain time is problematic. I don’t know how to solve it because pregnancies often result when two virtual strangers hook up after a one night stand. Seems unfair to those fathers who had no idea they had a kid but would have wanted to raise the kid.

Sure, but after a certain amount of time, the adopted kid is established with a new family. It would be horrible to try to disrupt that and take them away, biology or not. It's another one of those situations that just isn't fair and can't really be made fair. It is unfortunate.

 

[Puppycow]

I think this idea that unaware fathers lose their rights after a certain time is problematic. I don’t know how to solve it because pregnancies often result when two virtual strangers hook up after a one night stand. Seems unfair to those fathers who had no idea they had a kid but would have wanted to raise the kid.

Lol. It's not problematic.

If it was a one-night stand he wasn't thinking "I'd like to start a family now", he just wanted to get laid. If what you want is to raise a kid, then get into a long-term committed relationship with a woman, don't have one-night stands and think that you have some sort of right to be informed later in the unlikely chance that a baby results.

The people it would be unfair to are the child and the adoptive parents if he comes back into the picture to dispute custody.

 

[Puppycow]

Sure, but after a certain amount of time, the adopted kid is established with a new family. It would be horrible to try to disrupt that and take them away, biology or not. It's another one of those situations that just isn't fair and can't really be made fair. It is unfortunate.

I don't even think it's unfair if he didn't have any expectation in the first place that his one-night stand would result in a child.

Again, if a man wants to be a father, there's a pretty clear-cut time-tested way to do that: find a woman who's looking for a long-term partner and wants to have kids. In my opinion, if it was just a one-night stand, there's no commitment or obligation there (either way). Two strangers who have a one-night stand don't owe each other anything after it's over, including any subsequent communication, if they don't want to.

 

[xjx388]

Lol. It's not problematic.

If it was a one-night stand he wasn't thinking "I'd like to start a family now", he just wanted to get laid. If what you want is to raise a kid, then get into a long-term committed relationship with a woman, don't have one-night stands and think that you have some sort of right to be informed later in the unlikely chance that a baby results.

The people it would be unfair to are the child and the adoptive parents if he comes back into the picture to dispute custody.

Sometimes accidental pregnancies with a one night stand are considered welcome surprises. It happened to my cousin. He didn't marry the woman or anything but he does have a good relationship with the kid. He wasn't ready to be a father but sometimes life happens and things change.

In any case, I think your position is like the flip side of arguments against abortion: Don't want to have kids? Don't sleep around. If that's slut-shaming, then I guess you are responsible-guy-shaming.

But yes, I get the issues. I think issues like this is exactly why there is such stigma around promiscuity in some circles.

 

[The Atheist]

It's not difficult.

You're right - it's not a question of morality, it's a question of stupidity.

Disappointing the thread continued after the entire problem was answered by the second post in the thread, but that's forums for you.

 

[Roboramma]

Um, actually ... research shows that not wearing a seatbelt increases risky driving and, thus, harm to others. Wearing a seatbelt increases safe driving.

I can see how wearing a seatbelt would be correlated with safe driving: people who are safety conscious would be both more likely to wear a seatbelt and more likely to drive safely. But you say not wearing a seatbelt increases risky driving, which seems to imply causation. Am I wrong in that implication, or is there an actual causal link in the research?

 

[Puppycow]

Um, actually ... research shows that not wearing a seatbelt increases risky driving and, thus, harm to others. Wearing a seatbelt increases safe driving.

This has nothing to do with your point, but I knew a fact and I got really excited.

I can see how wearing a seatbelt would be correlated with safe driving: people who are safety conscious would be both more likely to wear a seatbelt and more likely to drive safely. But you say not wearing a seatbelt increases risky driving, which seems to imply causation. Am I wrong in that implication, or is there an actual causal link in the research?

Seems to be mixed findings:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation#Seat_belts

There's a theory called risk compensation that predicts that people will take more risks when they think they will be protected by safety equipment.

But, while some studies seem to have findings that support the theory, others found the opposite effect.

 

[Roboramma]

Seems to be mixed findings:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation#Seat_belts

There's a theory called risk compensation that predicts that people will take more risks when they think they will be protected by safety equipment.

But, while some studies seem to have findings that support the theory, others found the opposite effect.

Risk compensation would suggestion causation from wearing a seatbelt to risky driving (feeling safe with the seatbelt makes people drive more recklessly). But Loss Leader was talking about the opposite, and I'm having a hard time thinking of a way for the wearing of seatbelts to cause people to drive more safely (a correlation makes perfect sense as I said in my last post).

So, was there any mention of a causative influence in the direction LL mentioned?

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Seems we have a disagreement here:





Can a biological father veto a woman's decision to give a child up for adoption, or not?

IANAL, but I assume that first his paternity would have to be established. I don't know all the ins and outs of this. Then, if it is legally established that he is the father with full parental rights, if she wants to give up the child for adoption he could just take full custody and even make her pay child support in some cases (if she doesn't want custody herself, or maybe even if she does).

I think the moral of the story is, be careful who you conceive a child with.

It varies state to state, but, generally speaking, a father can assert his paternity rights and prevent adoptions.

A father that asserts his parental rights in a timely and consistent manner will not have them terminated without his consent or without due cause, so the child can't be adopted without his consent. There are complications and variances state to state how unknown fathers and intentionally deceptive mothers are treated, but these are edge cases.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

This attempt to create a legal equivalency where there is no biological equivalency is bizarre to me.
If a man just wants a kid, there are surrogate mothers available - he doesn't have a right to a child with a specific woman.

 

[Darat]

Weird, a colleague and I were discussing this just today.

A woman can have a "paper abortion;" she can give the baby up for adoption.

A man has absolutely no power in the situation. If he wants to keep the baby but she doesn't want to carry it, too bad. If he wants her to abort but she won't, too bad. That's a consequence of biology, yes, but so what? There is still an inherent and large imbalance there: The woman's decisions completely impact the man's life and the man has no decision making ability at all.

The only real question here is whether or not the current situation meet our standards of ethics, specifically the idea of equality before the law. Our system strives to treat everyone equally and it's pretty clear to me that we don't treat men equally under the law. The only solution is this idea of a paper abortion. Allow men the right to terminate their responsibilities under the same restrictions women are subjected to. But that decision is forever. From that point forward, the man is never allowed to see the kid; it would be as if the fetus was terminated.

The fatal flaw with this is that it totally ignores human nature. What if the couple gets back together? What if later on down the road, the kid wants to meet the dad? What if the dad regrets it and wants to see the kid?

As such, I can't endorse the idea of a paper abortion. Once a kid is born, both parents are responsible. That's just the way it is.

You seem to have forgot a simple fact, the man had a choice as to whether to engage in an activity that could result in a person being created.

Consensual sex is entirely voluntary, if a man doesn't want to have responsibility for creating a child don't have sex (with a biological female) .

It really isn't rocket science.

He should accept personal responsibility.

 

[Darat]

But she has no obligation that I know of to ever tell the Dad that he is one.

Why should she, it is the rights of the child once it is born that are paramount, if we believe as a society that a child.has a right to know its biological parents then we need to legislate around that. (Based on pragmatism of course, perfect the enemy if good and so on.)