I just can't agree, based on the number of men who just walk away from their responsibilities.

For example while it didn't happen until I was a teenager my own father walked out on my mother and three kids, without sending any support whatsoever. My mother was a stay-at-homer because that was what he wanted, so there was no income until she managed to get a part time job. I started working full time, while also going to work full time. Guess which one I ultimately had to give up.

Where there is a decided inequity, there cannot be equal treatment under the law. Sometimes legal unequal treatment is actually the more fair alternative.

Maybe more women should have abortions then, less population and less unwanted children that grow up in shitty situations.

And more men shouldn't be getting their rocks off and just walking away, ignoring the obvious possible repercussions.

Women are just as guilty of one night stands.

People should fuck when they can deal with that consequences, but people aren't responsible.

Indeed. Takes two to tango.

Obviously, there are other situations where things are not voluntary - that's another topic...

I know the laws were different back then, and maybe the laws in Canada are still different, but any parent today in a similar situation to the one you described who does what your father did can be compelled to at least pay child support. I haven't seen too many people arguing against child support for children they already have. This article only talks about waiving responsibilities long before a child is born.

In my view if losing the possibility of receiving child support motivates a woman to either abort or put a child up for adoption they probably shouldn't be having a child anyway. On the whole I believe this type of change would result in less children raised in shitty situations.

In my case my father refused to pay, which meant that a court order for payment would be required. When your total home income is something like $6K a year, a month without money can put you on the street. I ended up skipping school, most days, so that I could work full time and try to keep everything from falling apart, at age 16. It was something like 6 months before there was an order to pay in place, and they weren't divorced until a year and a half after that.

There are an awful lot of men who knock up a woman and then just disappear, once they find out. Abortion isn't a trivial operating. You aren't going in to have a wart removed. I know a little about this, as a friend was the assistant to the doctor who went to jail, multiple times, while trying to make abortion safe and legal in Canada. Leave aside the personal or religious reasons for not having an abortion; it's still a serious medical procedure, with serious possible negative outcomes. Forcing anyone into a position where they have to undergo a substantial medical procedure is just wrong, on oh so many levels.

Imagine the flip-side. You've fathered a child out of wedlock so you must now get a vasectomy, whether you want one or not.

And yet the repercussions of that decision aren't equal. That's why being inequitable, where the man is concerned, helps to equalize the situation. Being unable to keep it in your pants can result in a 'life sentence.'

And yet being able to keep things out of your pants isn't a life sentence, you can get it terminated via abortion. You aren't equalizing the situation, you just wanting to keep it completely inequal. This is giving this same option to men.

Are you against abortion? Do you not consider it a valid option? If this is the case, I can see your point and concede it shouldn't be allowed if abortion isn't allowed. However, if abortion is allowed, it's perfectly fair for the man to divorce himself from the situation exactly like a woman can do as well.

So basically you are against this because you might have been aborted if your situation happened today? Why should other kids go through this route? Fathers who don't want their children are going to happen, maybe this would help that situation.

No one is forcing anyone to have a medical procedure. It is just an option a woman has if she cannot financially support the child. She can still put it up for adoption. Plus pregnancy is a far more dangerous procedure than an abortion procedure today.