Double standards of parents' rights

No they don't. Children have a right to be brought up in a safe environment, but they already have no right to their parents. There are already plenty of parents who don't ever see their children now and have nothing to do with them. Nobody can take them to court and force them to do it with the argument that it's a child's "right"...

Just wondering . . . If the woman decides to give the kid up for adoption (no mention of father's ID), can/should the state make her pay child support to the Jugendamt/foster family?

I believe in personal responsibility, so yes, the mother should pay child support to the foster family as opposed to burdening society as a whole.

She shouldn't have become pregnant in the first place (either abstained, or used contraceptives), if that failed - had an abortion, if against her religion - then she shouldn't have had sex outside of marriage or been more careful (assumption of Catholicism and unmarried status). If it's a case of rape, then the lines are definitely blurred.

I was going to bring up the fact that the child is the one who gets screwed in the end. I see DD has already addressed that issue. It is ALWAYS the children who suffer the most in these situations. It takes 2 people to make them and 2 people to care for them, however that may look.

There are also many, many women who don't believe in abortion due to other reasons than religion.

It's not a perfect world. Yet.

Interesting argument. Though I am with Hams on this to a degree - if I didn't think I would be able to support my kids on my own, I wouldn't have had them.

Hazza - sorry, I feel kids have a right to know their parents. And by running from the issue, those parents are showing their kids what they are really made of as well, unfortunately.

The lines in the latter case are not blurred at all. If a woman is raped and becomeS pregnant, she bears no responsibility for the act and none for the outcome.

I agree men get the short end of the stick when it comes to parental rights and custody battles etc. If a pregnant woman wants an abortion and the would-be father is against it, it seems there's nothing he can do. It seems it would be very wrong if a father could force the woman to have a baby against her will in this case. However I'm also really uncomfortable with the fact that men have no say whatsoever if a woman wants to have an abortion. Maybe in such cases (if the father wants the baby and the mother doesn't) - the father should have to sign a document stating that he will take full responsibility for raising and supporting the child. Maybe he should also have to support the pregnancy and birth (financially and otherwise) in this case. Likewise, if a woman wants to have the child and the father would prefer an abortion, then the mother should sign a document stating that she will be solely responsible for raising the child.

When it comes to parental rights in cases where both parents want the children, men get an awful deal. Women nearly always get custody - it's just assumed the mother is the better/more suitable/most appropriate parent when often that is not the case. I'm not sure how we could ensure a fair deal for all here. What's most important is that the kids are able to see both parents often. Part of the problem is also that the two parents may live far away from each other so that it would not be feasible for the children to see both every day/every other day. Perhaps that's a starting point...

The lines with regards to abortion are blurred because abortion even when raped is not an option in some countries. What then? She has the baby and gives it up for adoption - she would then have no responsibility for any payment towards its upbringing. That is what I meant.

I thought you meant that the lines are blurred re: financial responsibility (as in -it's unclear whether or not she should have to support the child financially). If you mean that the case of rape is an exception to your general principle (that biological parents -or at least mothers- must financially support their offspring whether they keep the children or not) then I misunderstood

I completely disagree with the title of the thread, but I'm not going to ping pong with editor bob about it.

The argument that the custodial parent has all the rights and the non-custodial parent has only responsbilities - as insinuated by the current sub-title - is wrong.

The custodial parent does NOT have the right to deny visitation, or to force visitation, to deny co-parenting, or to force co-parenting, unless the non-custodial parent has been deemed grossly incompetent.

The non-custodial parent can only be held to a certain financial obligation, and that certainly not in 100% of cases, but has the RIGHT to absolve themselves of all other responsibilities (visitation, parenting, etc) as they feel suits them.

And to assume the poor father is defacto the one disadvantaged is plain chauvenism.

sorry, I do not feel a women who gives a child up for adoption should have to still support that child! She made a decision, and someone/or the new parents have taken that responsibility over legally, she is not longer legally responsible for that child, but that child's new parents are now 100% responsible.

@DDBug: Theoretically I am sure you are right - practically you are so wrong. The custodial parent has ultimate control - irrespective of legal backing. However the non-custodial parent is the one that pays... so I think perhaps you are not quite seeing the point of this thread.

And yes, the poor father IS the disadvantaged one* and it is NOT chauvenism.

*More often that not financially, definitely emotionally and personally.

Well that's really their issue to deal with then - they still have a choice and if this belief sways them towards having the child, then that is ultimately still their decision. Most of them probably don't believe in sex outside of marriage either. So if you stick to ALL of the dogma, then this issue should never arise - except in the case of rape, of course, but it's a bit of a moot point as I'm pretty sure the man isn't going to be able to financially support his offspring from prison. If he can, then he should be fleeced...

EDIT: On the other side, there is nothing at all in the law to stop a woman from having an abortion, no matter how much the man is against it. So as the law already doesn't take into consideration the moral position of the father, it would be unfair to use the moral position of the mother as a reason to force the man to take on the responsibility.

You can think whatever you like, and I agree that this is the ideal situation. However currently, a child has no legal right to force it's parents to see them...

I don't agree that biological parents should have to pay for the children they have given up for adoption either. There are all kinds of problems orbiting around such an arrangement. If the child is adopted and the biological mother pays for everything wheras the 2 real parents (i.e. the ones nurturing and caring for him/her etc) pay nothing - how is that fair? Wouldn't that cause a lot of people to become parents simply to use the cild as a money cow for milking the unknown unseen biological mother? What if the parents have different lifestyle expectations for the rearing of the child than the bio mother would have? What if those expectations are beyond the means of the bio mother? Should the latter pay only a certain proportion of her wages/social welfare payments for the rearing of the child so that she may only partially-support her bio child financially? What if the bio mother is poor wheras the new parents are rich?
Also, shouldn't the real parents be held responsible for the upbringing of their children?!
If the bio mother is going to have to pay for the upbringing of her child, then it seems she should be able to regain custody (perhaps partial) of the child if she changes her mind. After all, there should be no responsibilities without rights. However if that were the case, we could see situations where a child finds him/herself in a tug of war between the bio and adoptive parents. This is a fun can of worms.
As Carm said, if a parent gives up their child for adoption, he/she waives all rights and responsibilites to that child

I am not "so wrong" and can PM you with a few cases I know of personally. I know more women stuck with men forcing visitation just to insult the mother or refusing visitation as a type of revenge, if the father wants visitation the law backs him up. And I know more women receiving little or no child support than I know men paying half their wages to support their children. So, no, the only point I am seeing here is "poor men" and not "poor parents" or "poor child". This situation is never black and white, but it's being made out to be.

True, it doesn't. The child only has the right to be supported financially, not emotionally.

If she really gives it up for adoption, I don't think the adoptive family gets any money from anybody. The point of adoption is that it's legally your kid just like you had it yourself. Foster parents who take kids temporarily get payments for it but if you want to give up a baby for adoption, there are loads of people who want to adopt.