|
|
|
|
|
|
by leereeves
1508 days ago
|
|
|
> as long as the state would step in and assume that financial obligation Do you mean a system that provides for the needs of poor children (based solely on financial need)? That already exists, and I'd support expanding it. Or do you mean a system that reduces the financial burden on a wealthy woman who can afford to provide for her children but simply doesn't want to? I don't see the compelling need for a system like that. Government support for children should be provided based on their financial need, not an alternative to child support based on the father's income. That's how the available funds can most improve children's welfare. |
|
|
During pregnancy a woman should be able to terminate her pregnancy to avoid obligation to the child. The rights of the woman supersede the rights of both the child and the father because it is her body that needs to go through pregnancy.
After the birth the parental rights should be equal. Both parents should be able to renounce their obligation to the child. In this situation, the state should step in and assume that responsibility. That applies to both guardianship and financial obligation. The state will only take over guardianship if both parents give up their obligation. The state will step in financially if one parent gives up their obligation.
It is acceptable to put limited restrictions on these such as establishing a reasonable cutoff for abortions as Roe v. Wade allows or the short windows of time that safe haven laws usually establish. What is important is that the parents at least have a choice at some point in the process. Once the parents make that decision, I am fine with them being held to it.