I agree with you to a certain extent. The problem I have with the whole double standard thing is that it requires a guy to be honest about what his intentions were when he went to bed with a woman. Plenty of unmarried couples plan children only for the father to get cold feet once his girlfriend's lost her figure and he's about to be eyeball deep in nappies. I think that many men are already feckless enough without giving them the option to sign away all responsibility the moment they get buyer's remorse. There are plenty of men also, who will do anything to avoid barrier contraception because it detracts from their enjoyment.
Then there's the issue of consent and cases where consent may have been dubious, e.g. following a drunken one night stand when a woman may have been taken advantage of only to wind up pregnant, not to mention victims of rape and/or domestic abuse. Or where a married man is sleeping with a mistress who believes him to be single. Teenage girls would pay a high price for a failure of contraception, whereas teenage guys would have no incentive to take responsibility for contraception and use condoms.
Not every woman can have an abortion and live with herself afterwards. It's against many women's religious beliefs. Adoption is also a hard choice to make and to see through.
I do of course agree that many women seek to entrap men and that many women believe any sperm donor should be made to haemorrhage cash. I don't condone that behaviour but neither do I think there are enough honourable men for such a system of signing away rights to work. You wouldn't have much more than the word of a guy regarding whether a pregnancy was the result of a one night stand, brief fling, longer relationship or whether it was in fact planned.
So I admire your independence and your decision not to burden someone who clearly had no interest in fatherhood but I don't see how it could ever really become legally workable for a guy to sign away parental responsibility on a whim.
I completely understand your need for the father not to have any rights over your daughter but at the same time, I wouldn't want to see a system where once a father signed away his rights there was no way back from that. There are few enough men with an interest in raising children from previous relationships. I think there would definitely have to be a process through which he could apply for visitation, on the understanding that he would have to start supporting the child financially.
Sorry to derail but I feel I have to answer this. If a man had made a similar generalization about women, there would be many women saying that it's unfair to women as a whole because not all women are like that (to henceforth be referred to as NAWALT). I can simply respond with NAMALT (Not All Men Are Like That), but that's not really a sufficient argument.
Reagan has mentioned how she would be reluctant to allow a man to sign away his rights and obligations to the child. She is saying that a "paper abortion" would leave a woman too vulnerable to male caprice. The thing is that we men would in turn like to be protected against female caprice. As the law stands right now, any male is vulnerable to whatever decision she chooses to make. If you want to know more check out these links that speak on it more eloquently than I can.http://www.salon.com/life/feature/2000/10/19/mens_choicehttp://www.salon.com/life/mothers/2001/02/06/farrell
If a man and a woman are married, it's a very reasonable assumption that they one day want to have at least one child. Outside of marriage, it gets more complicated. Both people are likely having sex for the thrill and pleasure of it only to discover that whatever birth control method they were using had failed. Federal and state law as it is now has stated that a man lost the right to decide for himself to be a father the moment he engaged in sexual activity, vaginal or not. Whatever his intentions or state were is considered irrelevant.
A 12 year old male who has sex with an older female (age of consent varies between 14-17 by state) is considered a victim of statutory rape, but is still held liable for child support if the act resulted in a pregnancy. A woman who has sex with a drunk/unconscious man has committed rape, but said man will still be held liable for child support from the resulting crime. They have no way out and the woman and the courts have the full authority to any and all of his assets for "the best interests of the child". This can range anywhere from 35%-60% of his income and the courts will take more if she demands it, regardless of what her true intentions are. If the man can't pay, he will be thrown in jail and have all his legal privileges taken away.
Why would any woman do such a horrible thing? She wants to tie the man to her, she wants the income she thinks child support will bring her, or most likely, she just really wants a child and doesn't care how she gets it.
My point is that the law still assumes that women are all innocent things that will be taken advantage by evil men out for nothing but a thrill. In this modern age, that simply isn't true. Everyone knows how reproductive biology works. Yes it takes "two to tango", but allowing only one to decide how to end the dance isn't legal equality. Men also have to deal with the emotional pain of knowing a life they could have raised was snuffed out at an abortion clinic or is off somewhere else being raised by someone else. The woman has no obligation to consider him for these choices either.
My point is that just like women don't want to be treated as dispensers of food and sex, men don't want to be treated as dispensers of sperm and money. That is why I would support a 'paper abortion'. Some of you may ask,'What about the child? What about what's best for the child?' My answer, as harsh as it is, is that it's irrelevant. If this question is not allowed to be asked when a woman heads to the abortion clinic, the adoption agency, or the hospital to give birth than by fair and equitable ethical standards it should not be asked to men. Equality, for those who can handle it, can be incredibly harsh.
That's my two cents.