I’m not denying there are inequalities in reproductive laws.
However....
The continued argument - “Because a woman has a legal option to abort therefore men should be entitled to opt out of financial responsibilities of an unwanted pregnancy” has been a virtual swan song for all men. It is a dead-end argument.
For decades there’s been probably hundreds of legal beagles that have taken on these issues on behalf of men’s rights groups that have failed to bring a more equitable solution.
What arguments could you bring before our lawmakers and judiciaries that make them undeniably aware of the decades of the errors of their ways...and all will become willing to create remedies that will ensure equality for all parties concerned?
Remember, there are two parties involved in creating an unexpected, unwanted pregnancy. Then there becomes five parties, with varying degrees of interests, after a birth takes place.
1) the woman
2) the man
3) the child
4) the state government
5) the taxpayers
Thank you for making dispassionate argument. I apologize if I was a little snarky in my reply to you. My goal here is not to denigrate or shame others. I've seen what the system can do to good fathers. I've seen friends discarded and destroyed and treated as pariah and denied help as they struggle, broken-hearted and longing just be a dad to their kids. I despise some aspects of our current system, so I tend to get passionate about this issue, especially knowing that I'm swimming upstream and that my take on this is not particularly popular.
So I'm aware that decades of legal precedent stand against me and that many of the arguments I'm making have not fared well in court, although a lot of progress has been made precisely because there are compelling arguments for father's rights.
I also recognize that there multiple parties with interest here. So let me at least offer what I see as a more reasonable alternative to our child support system.
-- First of all, I favor universal health care, which will go a long way toward helping single parents meet their children's needs without litigation.
-- I believe fathers should have a legal say after conception but before birth in matters of adoption, so mothers should be compelled to notify fathers of conception so they can prepare to be parents and, ideally, be involved in raising the child or have the option to take custody should the mother choose adoption. Failure to disclose should be a relevant factor in later support lawsuits. However, I don't believe fathers should be able to prevent a woman from choosing abortion, as I don't believe women should be forced to carry to term. It really is their bodies.
-- Likewise, I believe fathers should have a short window in which they can choose to terminate parental rights and responsibilities. I do believe some financial obligation is appropriate in such cases, but it should be limited to established need, support for care during and immediately after the pregnancy, and be of limited duration.
-- Judges should have the power to waive back child support in cases where inability to pay is demonstrated.
-- No one should be jailed for inability to pay support.
-- Shared custody should be encouraged by the courts.
-- Child support orders should be based on cost of living and demonstrated need, not just on relative income. Non-custodial parents should have the ability to better their own circumstances. It's simply unrealistic to expect that a child will suffer no loss of standard-of-living amid a breakup, so that should not be used as a legal baseline.
-- Non-custodial parents should have a say in how their contributions are used. For example, if a non-custodial parent buys shoes or pays for tutoring or contributes to a college fund, that should count toward satisfying the support order. Currently, such contributions are not counted.
That's a small list of some of the problems I see with the status quo.
