LogFAQs > #958082559

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, Database 9 ( 09.28.2021-02-17-2022 ), DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Arv doesn't agree with her body her choice
adjl 09/15/21 1:46:57 PM #17:	LinkPizza posted... Its a little much. But I think thats needed. I think if you are giving up full rights so you dont have to pay child support and stuff like that, you give up full rights to the child. Its not something that should be taken lightly. Thats how I see it, at least. Kind of like an abortion for men, in a sense That would be necessary if we're looking to create a perfect copy of an abortion from the guy's perspective, but I don't think that's really something that's necessary to create at all. As long as the mother retains the ability to dictate how involved he is in the child's life and he has no ability to claim custody (at least, not without paying whatever child support he would have paid if he'd had similar custody since birth), I think that's all that actually needs to happen. LinkPizza posted... Like while he won't have to pay any child support, he's also not allowed to see the child at all, nor entitled to photos or time spent with the child. He's basically becomes a stranger to the child. Being a stranger doesn't mean having a restraining order, though. You're certainly limited in how much you can interact with them, based on the parent(s)'s wishes, but you can still meet and spend time with the child, eventually according to the child's wishes without the need for parental consent. The "be a stranger" condition makes sense (presumably, if the guy's eschewing any involvement with the child he fathered, the relationship's going to be over, and it's pretty normal for kids to never have any interactions with their parents' exes), but ramping that up to a full-on restraining order is just silly and impractical. --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts. <cite>adjl posted [p:958082559] in Arv doesn'... [t:79660931]...</cite> <quote>LinkPizza posted... </cite> <quote>Its a little much. But I think thats needed. I think if you are giving up full rights so you dont have to pay child support and stuff like that, you give up full rights to the child. Its not something that should be taken lightly. Thats how I see it, at least. Kind of like an abortion for men, in a sense</quote> That would be necessary if we're looking to create a perfect copy of an abortion from the guy's perspective, but I don't think that's really something that's necessary to create at all. As long as the mother retains the ability to dictate how involved he is in the child's life and he has no ability to claim custody (at least, not without paying whatever child support he would have paid if he'd had similar custody since birth), I think that's all that actually needs to happen. LinkPizza posted... </cite> <quote>Like while he won't have to pay any child support, he's also not allowed to see the child at all, nor entitled to photos or time spent with the child. He's basically becomes a stranger to the child.</quote> Being a stranger doesn't mean having a restraining order, though. You're certainly limited in how much you can interact with them, based on the parent(s)'s wishes, but you can still meet and spend time with the child, eventually according to the child's wishes without the need for parental consent. The "be a stranger" condition makes sense (presumably, if the guy's eschewing any involvement with the child he fathered, the relationship's going to be over, and it's pretty normal for kids to never have any interactions with their parents' exes), but ramping that up to a full-on restraining order is just silly and impractical. --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1