[PapaBear3625]

Oh I’ve long advocated that. Choice should work both ways. A man should have the legal right to sign away all parental rights and be absolved of all parental responsibilities within a certain time period of being informed of the pregnancy. To be pro choice only for women but not for men is sexist.

And if a man is to be expected to support a child, he should have the option of taking full custody of the child.

It used to be (before a 1972 Supreme Court decision) that states could make only married fathers be liable for child support. This acted as an inducement to get married before having children.

[alexander_busek]

It used to be (before a 1972 Supreme Court decision) that states could make only married fathers be liable for child support.

That is patently untrue!

Prior to 1972, single men or men who were married to someone other than the mother of the child in question were frequently adjudged to be the "father" and thus liable for child support. There are many, many cases of pre-1972 women suing, e.g., Hollywood celebrities for support for their (the men's) putative offspring.

This acted as an inducement to get married before having children.

That statement doesn't make sense. How would not being held liable (prior to 1972) encourage men to marry the mothers of their children?

Regards,