You're assuming so many things in your support of an option for a male to "have his say"...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rekna
I think the father should have the right to say "I want you to have this baby, i'll pay for the pregnancy (bills and lost wages) but after word I have full custody of the baby and the mother must sign away all her rights to the baby.
|
Substitute the word "state" for father, read the NY Times article I linked to at the bottom of post #4.
The first thing in the court proceeding is the judge appointed a "guardian" to "represent" the fetus....
This is a thread, whether by intent or design, about publicly exposing matters extremely sensitive and private, for a woman who becomes an object of a man resorting to some legal mechanism that does not currently exist, courts say it is settledl law, to seek redress in court to "preserve a pregnancy", with the goal of directing the authority of the state to force a full term pregnancy and birth.
Let's look on how it can "be done right".
Requirements would include a viable, timely, notification "process". Any woman who becomes pregnant would be required to notify any man who she has reason to believe has a probable paternity interest, in a timely way, via a "proof of notification" mechanism, acceptable as timely and verifiable in a resulting criminal or civil proceeding.
In the case where several individuals could possibly have a paternity interest, notification to multiple individuals would be neccessary.
To respond to issues of health risks associated with pregnancy, and to the possibility of changing fortunes of someone with a paternity interest involved in contesting termination of a pregnancy, posting a bond, early in the court proceeding, to fund medical expenses and protect against resulting disability or other temporary or permanent debilitating effects of the contested pregnancy, including birth defects, as well as to partially or fully fund reasonable child support for the ensuing 18 years.
Doesn't even the discussion, in recent posts, of commitment to provide financial support, and pay for lost wages and medical expenses, confine this "male right", to males of some significant financial means?
Do we really want to go there? A procedure to force an unwilling woman to endure a pregancy to full term and delivery at the insistance of a man who can afford financially, to qualify to do that?
Don't wealthy males have enough "rights", at the expense of the rest of us, already? For women living in poverty in rural areas, and in all of South Dakota, aren't "forced pregnancies", already the norm?