Replies

Child support laws are an anachronism, dating to the era when women were chattel and couldn't own property or had few lines of work open to them to make a living.

Yep! Equal rights don't quite mean what they sound like, huh?

Absent a written contract in which the father guarantees support (and marriage could be presumed such a contract), men should have no responsibility for child support whatsoever.

I don't know that I would say marriage constitutes a contract to provide for any children, but I understand your argument.

A woman has the choice whether or not to carry a baby to term, and if she chooses to do so without a clear contract with the father to be a co-parent, then it's HERS.

Yes, this is the "slippery slope" we have encountered by legalizing abortion and giving the father no legal say. I suspect this issue is going to hit the fan in the near future. If the woman has sole legal control over having the baby or aborting it, then it is HER property(as much as I disagree with the notion, its the law). If the man helped create it, and its legal to kill it before its born, and if its born, the father would face a legal financial duty, then the father would have the same right to have it "aborted" as the mother. What the left has disguised as "a woman's right to choose" may come back and bite them in the arse. The courts are out of their minds if they say a man has entered into a legal contract at conception, and the woman holds the sole authority as to whether the contract has to be honored.

Implement this policy and watch the ranks of welfare dependent single mothers drop like a rock.

Probably, but without a change in the "welfare mindset", we would have protests, riots and killing widespread before it ever got better. There are millions of people who would not know what to do if this was taken away from them.

Thanks for understanding the argument. There seem to be so many people that reject the idea that a man should only be responsible to children through marriage without even using their heads. They simply knee jerk "It takes two" or "keep it zipped".

The simple argument is that women have two choices about having children. First, the choice of having sex. Second, the choice of having an abortion. Men only have one; the choice of having sex. After sex, they have no control, only obligation.

Something has to change here. The system is totally skewed towards women. If sex is a contract, then women shouldn't be able to have abortion except for medical emergencies. And I hate the argument that It's a woman's body, and therefore a woman's choice. First of all, the baby's body is involved too. Second, what do you think the man uses to make his money? A man's body is involved - for at least 18 years.

But if abortion will never be illegalized, then we should mandate paternal notification. If a women isn't comfortable notifying a man that she is carrying his baby, then she shouldn't have sex with him. And when a man is notified, he should have a predetermined amount of time to notify the woman of his intentions of being a sperm donor or father. If he decides to be a father, then he should be legally entitled to visitation and be legally responsible for financial and other support.

People seem to get stuck up on the idea that a man should only be responsible to children through marriage when the more interesting question is if a man should be able to stop a woman from having an abortion so that he can raise the child.