By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics - Do you agree with the concept of legal paternal surrender?

 

Do you think it should be legal?

I support abortion, and yes. 30 60.00%
 
I support abortion, and no. 7 14.00%
 
I oppose abortion, and yes. 3 6.00%
 
I oppose abortion, and no. 6 12.00%
 
Don't Know / See Results 4 8.00%
 
Total:50
Kantor on 24 January 2013
UltimateUnknown said:

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.

No form of contraception other than abstinence is 100% effective.

Do you think having sex with someone of the opposite gender qualifies as consenting to bring a new life into the world? Do you think that it's reasonable to ask people who want to remain childless to completely abstain from sex?



(Former) Lead Moderator and (Eternal) VGC Detective

Around the Network
Kantor on 24 January 2013

Oh, and I should mention that, of course, this law would only take effect if it were possible for the mother to give up her baby at birth to a foster parent or an orphanage if she wishes not to abort it. This is already the case in most countries.



(Former) Lead Moderator and (Eternal) VGC Detective

Kantor on 24 January 2013
JWeinCom said:
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.

Regrettable but true. I suppose at least it spreads the burden around a little.

I would think the real advantage here would be that the mother would know in advance that the father did not want to be involved, and therefore could plan better. One would hope that if she couldn't afford to take care of it by herself she would try to find it a better home, but I guess you never know with these things.

And, of course, the ideological fact that the man is not being forced into an 18-year compulsory payment contract over which he has no control.



(Former) Lead Moderator and (Eternal) VGC Detective

UltimateUnknown on 24 January 2013
Kantor said:
UltimateUnknown said:

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.

No form of contraception other than abstinence is 100% effective.

Do you think having sex with someone of the opposite gender qualifies as consenting to bring a new life into the world? Do you think that it's reasonable to ask people who want to remain childless to completely abstain from sex?

Yes that is how I feel. In fact that is just how nature is without contraception: You have sex, you have a baby as a result (not taking into account certain periods of the menstruation cycle of course). Your sperm doesn't ask for your consent before swimming up to an egg and fertilising it. If you are using contraception, you should know that it will not be 100% effective, so there is always a very small percentage, be it 0.5% or 5% that you may induce pregnancy. So in essence, by using contraception you are accepting that there is still that small chance that you'll have to take a bigger responsibility in your hands (I don't know if contraceptive boxes state that or not, because they definitely should put a disclaimer). While I fully understand that sex isn't necessarily for pro-creating and can be had for pleasure, it is still a "risk" you accept, if you want to put it that way, when you indulge in the act.

I personally absolutely believe that a human life is nothing to be playing around with, whether it is in its earliest or latest form of development.