[slg]

Neither.

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.

[leereeves]

> The state will step in financially if one parent gives up their obligation.

Always? Like, if two millionaires have a child and one gives up their obligation, the government would pay child support to the other millionaire parent?

I couldn't support that. I think whether the state steps in should be based on the child's financial need, not the number of responsible parents.

[slg]

Too many benefits in the US are gate kept by means testing. It adds unnecessary bureaucracy and causes needless division and animosity among the population.