You are not answering my question. Upon what basis do you say the child is his?
He wasn't a father until the courts made him a father. He wasn't even supporting the mother while she was pregnant-- maybe through no fault of his own, but this is still the fact.
I don't believe the court should be allowed to deny the right of any parent to support their children. Nor do I believe an individual should have the right to keep someone else from supporting their child.
We're not talking about a man who has raised a child as his own for years. We're talking about a man who didn't know that a child existed until another family had raised that child for twenty-two months. They are the rightful parents.
I believe it should be unlawful to purposely hide the existence of a child from a father, especially if the father is willing to support the child if he did know the child existed.
Men should not pay child support at all, unless the mother has offered the child to him and he has accepted it. If a couple divorces after they have children, he should absolutely pay child support-- and he should absolutely have full parental rights.
I don't believe the mother should have the option to not offer the child to the father and I don't believe a father should have the option of not accepting a child as his own. I also agree, a man should pay child support for any children he is responsible for, but I also believe that any woman accepting child support should also grant access to the children if the father wants to be involved.
Yes, but then would you still support his "right" to demand custody of the child? Or would you instead insist that the "right" belongs to the piece of **** that slept with a married woman?
If the child is not his, and there is some debate of that, then a paternity test should be administered. If it is found the child is not his, then he has no right to. However, if the father can be found, he should have the right to decide if he wishes to take custody of the child if the mother does not want it. That is, of course, if the father can prove he can support the child. And if he can, he should be granted child support from the mother. A woman is no less responsible for a child than a man when it comes to supporting it.
HER child, that existed solely within HER womb. She had every right to abort the child.
I believe the man has the right to demand the birth or abortion of the child as well. If he demands the birth, he would be responsible for providing support for his wife during the entire pregnancy, including financial support. And he would also be responsible for taking custody of the child and providing it with safe and stable living conditions. And the woman would have no obligation to pay child support after the birth of the child. If he demands the abortion of the child and the woman refuses, than the man should not be forced to financially support the child. Just as a woman has the right to give the child up for adoption on the grounds that she can not financially support the child, a man should also have the right to absolve responsibility on financial grounds. The above, would be true equality.
This law allows women to coerce men into becoming fathers against their will. This is considered wrongful when women are subjected to it, and yet people use the same arguments to justify coercing men into fatherhood without so much as noticing the irony-- "he made that decision when he had sex"; "he should have kept it in his pants then" and so forth, arguments that are rightfully dismissed as misogynist, "slut shaming" garbage when applied to women in the abortion debate.
I think I could agree with you based on my above views here.
The mother gestated the child in her womb for nine months. What did the "father" do?
There simply is not enough information in the article to say what the father had done. Or what the mother refused to let him do to support her pregnancy.
I'm fine with that.
Assuming he's been father to the child, yes. And she should not have the right to demand full custody unless it can be proven that he is an unfit parent. He is a father, and he has rights.
I agree.
Absolutely not. If he wanted a child, he should have slept with a woman who wanted to give him one.
Those rights should go both ways. If the woman did not want to have a child, she should not have slept with the father without protection.
