And therein lies the problem. Any human being who can turn a blind eye on their own child and hate them seriously has issues imo.

So while I agree that parents who are forced to stay together because of their children would probably not be that great of parents, I think that the financial obligation to support a newborn child may deter at least a few irresponsible "to be" parents from bringing a new life into this world who they will just either kill off or abandon anyway. If not children just become the same as disposable trash and the state has to take care of it.

Mind you I have no problems with the state having to pay for orphans. In fact I think it is one of the best things our tax money can go towards, but if their parents are alive they should at least be given this responsibility first. Unfortunately though, no amount of money can ever buy them the love and care a child should get from his or her parent, which is what makes me sad.

guy: have an abortion
girl: no...
guy: then i'll file a paternal surrender....

multiply to a million... i think it will be a problem

I'm not EVEN going to get into this discussion, but I will say this: Having an abortion and signing this are completely different scenarios.

Abortion - removes the baby, neither parent has to worry about raising or providing for the baby.

This - removes responsibility from the father and places this baby completely in the hands of the woman. It completely dumps all financial responsibility on her, rather than erasing it from both parents.

I'm against abortions and this idea, but I'm not going further.

fixed. You have to go halfsies on college if the kid decides to go.

The main reason I'm against this is the following.

Let's say this happens and the mother can't support herself and the kid. Who's going to help pay the tab? You and me.

Hell no.

No, there's just too much room for men to abuse the system.....at least if you consider how its laid out in the OP. Honestly though, you could probably fine-tune the law a bit.

Truth is, I kind of agree with it in principle, but I just see way too many issues arising if you put it into practice, primarily from an ethical point of view. For instance, if the women refuses to get an abortion because she thinks its murder, she would potentially be in a very difficult situation if the paternal surrender was granted.

Women already abuse the system.  Ever seen what happens with men during a divorce when there is a child involved?  They get the complete shaft, even if the woman is a terrible mother.

This is a fantastic idea. Having a child is very serious, and resolving where everyone stands legally before birth would only benefit the child. Also, there is nothing good about forcing a parent who doesn't want to be there into their life.

The only remaining step to complete equality would be a legal mechanism for the cases where the woman doesn't want the child but the father does. Not forced obviously, but a way for her to sign over rights and be compensated by the father for the duration of the pregnancy. It would just be an extra option for the woman, should the father offer it.

I dont agree with some abortions. But since they are there and legal, I do feel men and women should be equal in these matters. So since a man can not abort a baby they should have the option to opt out of care, and have that care rest solely on the mother as she chooses to keep the child. Do i think this may cause problems? Yes, in the beginning we will have kids that have single moms and no recourse (but that is a big issue today with many single moms and looser dads any ways). But in the long term it may make these girls think twice about safe sex, and take more care and responsibility about not getting pregnant until they are ready, which is what America needs.