>>>>The only shortcoming here, is that the BabyDaddy would have been allowed to contract away his responsibilities, and the baby’s rights, if he had done his squirtin’ and begettin’ via a licensed physician. I personally don’t see how a physician’s involvement would abrogate the baby’s right, when the baby didn’t consent to relinquish his moral and legal claim on his natural father’s providence and support. <<<
What about cases where an unmarried woman chooses to give her baby up for adoption. She is able to completely escape all parental responsibilities with the stroke of a pen.
On the other hand, if she so chooses, she can keep the baby, choose not to work and receive public assistance and hefty child support payments from the biological father.
It is perfectly legal for the woman to not lift a finger to earn money to support the child, but if the man, despite his best efforts, falls behind in his slut support (I mean child support) payments he can face all sorts of penalties including losing his drivers license, and being incarcerated.
She could also choose to legally murder the baby in the womb and the father would have no say in the matter.
When it comes to children, women have all the rights and no responsibilities and men have practically no rights and all of the responsibilities.
That's one of the aspects of the whole situation which I find discriminatory and unfair.
If a woman gets pregnant, she has the choice of (A) having an abortion, (B) placing the child up for adoption, and having no further obligations toward the child, (C) keeping the child and making the father pay support. And the father has NO legal leverage to influence her choices.
Meanwhile, if she chooses to keep the child, the man's options are (A) paying child support, or (B) going to jail.
While not justice, that part of it was generally judged tolerable because she had gone through gestation and childbirth, which is a sizeable contribution in itself; and the law judged that a baby is better off with a married adopted mother and father.
I think that kinda went to hell when they began allowing adoptions to gay/lesbian singles and couples. In these cases, it practically seals the child's fate of being permanently motherless or fatherless.
"On the other hand, if she so chooses, she can keep the baby, choose not to work and receive public assistance and hefty child support payments from the biological father"
If that's the way the system is set up, it's economically rational for her to do that. I don't say that's how the system should be set up. NO support system works equitably EXCEPT a marriage culture that ensues that the vast majority of children are born into married-mother-and-father families.
It can be done. It was done as recently as in the 50's.
"It is perfectly legal for the woman to not lift a finger to earn money to support the child, but if the man, despite his best efforts, falls behind in his slut support (I mean child support) payments he can face all sorts of penalties including losing his drivers license, and being incarcerated."
That is skin-crawlingly unjust. I know a decent, blameless divorced man who was put through a wringer in the way you describe. I wouldn't blame him for pulling down the Court House brick by brick.
" She could also choose to legally murder the baby in the womb and the father would have no say in the matter."
This is the most barbaric of all. Murder is murder and, in a civilized society, would be treated by the law as such.
" When it comes to children, women have all the rights and no responsibilities and men have practically no rights and all of the responsibilities."
There are incremental ways the law could be tweaked here to yield a more equitable result, but as a whole, Sex, Marriage and Reproduction are likely to turn into a Controlled Demolition at best, a Catastrophe at worst, for all concerned, outside of a traditional marriage culture.
I've heard it put differently...
Men have responsibilities. Women have options.