It should be illegal for a woman to give birth to a child without a signed consent form from the biological father.
When a man doesn't want a child, and the woman uses her religion as an excuse to not get an abortion (or any other reason) children are born without a loving home with two financially stable parents.
Wow. That's a little bit of a massive sweeping generalization, isn't it? First of all, the man can obviously choose to own up to being too stupid to wear a condom and raise the kid whether he originally wanted it or not. Second, even if the dad decides to "go out for a pack of cigarettes" and vanish, a child can still be raised in a loving home with one parent. I'm willing to grant that that's not necessarily financially stable, but it's certainly a reasonable option.
This behavior has created endless problems in our society.
Such as? Cite examples, please.
I would posit that having children, like having sex, should be a decision reached mutually, and not forced upon a party by one overbearing, overzealous individual. Some feminists have suggested 'sexual consent forms'. Why are there two different standards for getting consent for the sexual act, and the birthing act? Contrary to what Christians would have you believe, people have sex for pleasure, and only rarely set out with the intention of creating a child. Children are most often an accidental byproduct of the act. Women should not have a monopoly on reproductive rights.
1)You're skipping rather rapidly from point to point here. There's not a whole lot of flow to your line of logic.
2)Again with the sweeping generalizations. "Christians" is a really huge group with a lot of different individuals, and I've yet to meet one of these individuals who don't understand the concept of sex for pleasure.
If a man doesn't want a child, he should be able to have control over what happens to his genetic material, in the same way that women have control over who has sex with them. Women are allowed to get abortions, even if the father wants to have the child. Another double-standard.
A double standard I've noticed you give no solution to. Logically, if a father should be allowed to force abortion on a woman, shouldn't he also be able to stop a woman from having an abortion if he wants the child? You don't seem to adress this at all.
A simple consent form accompanied with genetic samples can be used to ascertain the validity of a birth."Validity"? What do you mean by that? If a woman wants to give birth, she'd better have a consent form from the father, as well as a signed contract specifying the terms of the relationship with the father, preferably with indication the pair will remain a couple indefinitely so that the child may have both a mother and a father, provided that both parties agree to those terms
This is simply not how relationships work. Two people can't simply say that they'll remain together forever and then have it magically be so. They can dream about it and try as hard as they can to stay with each other as much as they like, but they can't guarantee anything. Besides which fact, what if the biological father isn't in a relationship with the mother? What if he just donated sperm to help out an infertile man and his wife, or a lesbian couple?
not to mention that Marriage contracts have become legally meaningless as there are no longer any courts which uphold them. This also needs to change, but the word marriage needs to cease to be used, because of its religious overtones. Contracts imply that a promise must be made, and a promise must be kept. That people honor all of their contracts is an essential part of any society, whether it's a marriage contract, or a contract for the exchange of goods or services.
Blatantly false. Marriage contracts are still upheld in every court which I'm aware of. And why does the word "marriage" automatically have religious overtones? It's simply a word describing a commitment between two people to love each other. Are emotions a religious thing now?
Whenever there's a single mother, they have always blamed the father, while assigning no blame whatsoever to the mother, whom refuses to get an abortion even when it's legal and free to do so. The mother is applauded for her bravery and allowed to repeat this atrocious behavior in order to get a meal ticket. When the child stops being cute, the young mother puts the child up for adoption (or worse, neglects the child while retaining custody), creating a burden on society.
... I'm having a hard time dignifying this paragraph with a response. What possible reason could there be to "blame" either the mother or the father for a child's birth? Why should a single mother automatically have to get an abortion? Why is allowing her child to live "atrocious behavior"? Why do you think every home without 1 mother and 1 father is automatically an abusive one? Why are foster kids "a burden on society"? Why, why, a thousand freaking times, WHY?
Sorry. That got out of hand.
Is this change to our society really too much to ask?
YES. You see, a man basically already signs a consent form when he chooses to stick his dick into a woman without protection. If the woman chooses to keep the resulting bastard child, I for one think the man can just grow a pair and accept the consequences of his stupidity. Or shove off, whatever. What he most certainly cannot do is force a woman to abort her child when she wants to keep it.
Whats your opinion?