The current system tells women (and adolescent girls) that all they have to do is get pregnant and have the baby (even if they do it by deceitful means, like telling their sex partner they're on the pill when they're not, or even using the contents of a discarded condom to make themselves pregnant), and the man will be held legally responsible for supporting the baby for the next 18 years. What a crock! It's high time women and the legal system faced the fact that WOMEN have babies; men don't.
Those babies are here because of a sex act between a man and a woman. If a man doesn't want to expose himself to the possibility of supporting a child for the next 18 years, he shouldn't have sex until he's married. I would assume a male has that much self-control.
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.
First, unmarried women were never able to receive "child support" until 1971, when the Supreme Court ruled that they were being denied equal protecvtion of the law.
Of course they were. That was the whole point of the law, to reward married women for a socially constructive lifestyle. Bastardy was never just a morally undesirable state, but carried substantial legal penalty as well.
As to the "contract" that a married man undertakes-you are certainly correct. But the state wants now to enforce only one part of the contract-his obligaton to support-while allowing the obligation of his (now ex) wife to have sex with him, clean his house, and provide him with the love and companionship of his children to be voided without fault on his part and without penalty to the other party to the contract.
An odd contract that-only one provision enforceable at law, the others not obligations at all.