Do you think for young men there is a contradiction in telling teens to give up their baby for adoption and walking away from their children?

The child is THE most important person here. I’m not entirely sure that I understand the question, Could you explain further?

In my opinion, the raising of the child is completely up to the parents and their wishes.

Forcing a young man to pretend to suspend his career in order to feign interest in his biological offspring helps no one. If the child’s mother desires financial support, she should go through the appropriate channels to assure that happens, and he should pay. If she’s not interested in his money, that’s fine too.

Say all you want about the child’s rights to two parents – but I was raised by a disinterested parent, and I’ll tell you, it’s no bed of roses.

Who knows, maybe Mama will meet a nice young man who wants nothing more than to be a father figure in that baby’s life. Then, perhaps the bio-father can relinquish his legal rights, and go on his merry way. Works out well for all involved.

I think there is a contradiction in raising men to think they have less responsibility over the offspring they produce when they have sex – the fact that she has to figure out whether to raise the child (and good for her for keeping them) or to give the child up for adoption instead of the burden being on both of them is a problem. I’m glad he’s got the career thing figured out but his father knows truth – this child (because what else is he?) will regret not taking care of his baby when he could have.

When you give up a baby for adoption, you do not have pay support. When one parent simply walks away, they are still responsible for the support of that child, and can be forced to pay, or spend time in jail. There is a huge difference.

The consequences to the child in adoption, both adoptive parents care for and love the child, and in the other case you describe, both parents and the rest of the family are always embroiled in arguing and complaining and the atmosphere is very bad for the child.

@MissA I mean what is the real difference between giving up your baby to adoptive parents because you feel you cannot be a good parent, or giving the baby over to the mother alone if she wants the baby.

@all I am not under the impression he will not pay what is legally required of him. But it is interesting that if he signs papers to give up the baby to adoptive parents he is out of any monetary responsibility, but if he leaves it up to the mother, he is obligated.

@JLeslie Well that might have to do with the fact that adoptive parents usually come in twos and are able to support the child financially.

@Simone_De_Beauvoir But lets say the dad is sending money, just not physically present. Why is he judged differently that the dad who gives up his child for adoption? Are you saying it is because two parents are preferable, even if the single parent is doing a good job? Should he be forced to spend time with the kid then? Should the mother give up the baby because the dad is not going to be around? None of what I write is an opinion of mine, I am just exploring the idea.

@JLeslie No, of course I’m not saying that’s preferable – just saying that’s how it is in terms of adoption and the probably reason behind that kind of policy. As far as whether or not he should spend time with the baby, well yes but no one should be forced to do it. Financial support should be forced, though, imo.

@Simone_De_Beauvoir I can see both sides with the financial. If you make me choose, I say force the father, but if the man states he does not want a baby I can see how it is unfair that he has no say in terminating the pregnancy, but the woman does.

@JLeslie Of totally – I completely disagree with that.

@Simone_De_Beauvoir Sorry I am not clear in what you disagree with? I assume you are saying you disagree with a man being able to get out of paying, or the unfairness I mentioned.

@JLeslie The unfairness you mentioned.

@Simone_De_Beauvoir I actually agree it is unfair. It is also unfair that the woman is the one who will wind up pregnant, it is unfair on both sides I think. I did a question a long while back about men being able to opt out of being a father, and so they would not be financially responsible, if they inform a woman they don’t want a baby, were you on that thread? It came from a law suit filed, started by the mother of a teenage boy. Both teens agreed they did not want to have a baby while they were dating, and were using birth control of some sort, but the girl still got pregnant. The mother of the teen boy felt it unfair her son was stuck with a child, when he wanted it aborted. He never led along the girlfriend.

We have kind of wandered of topic, I don’t mind, but just to remind you, my original question is really about the message we are telling teens about teenage pregnancy.

@JLeslie I probably was on that question – all questions like that make me angry because so many people don’t realize that men should have rights (to an extent) when it comes to paternity and fathering children. As far as the message to teens, my message to my teenage sons will be “if you have sex with a female bodied person, she may get pregnant – if she does and wants to keep the baby, you will be expected to be a father”

@Simone_De_Beauvoir Yes, I think your message is clear. I think many times parents might not be so clear, but I don’t really know. Obviously the mother in the law suit probably did not give her son that type of warning. However, I think her message was probably don’t have a baby, and not necessarily a mixed message as I states in the original question. What this same mother might have left off was if he gets a girl pregnant, even if she has agreed she does not want a baby, she gets to change her mind, and he will be a father, which goes to your point.

” it takes two to make a thing go right, it takes two to make it outa sight! ”