CMV: If you oppose legal parental surrender (fathers opting out of child support), then you must oppose current social programs that allow mothers to do exactly what LPS would let fathers do.

This isn't a defense of legal parental surrender; that's probably among the 5 most debated topics on this sub. This is going to be a spin on that topic.

I legitimately cannot think of a single argument used to argue against legal parental surrender (which would allow fathers to opt out of child support and visitation)... that cannot be used to argue for a massive change in social programs.

And that change would be anyone -- man or woman -- who puts their kid at a safe haven, puts them at an orphanage, or a foster/group home, or up for adoption -- must pay child support to the state (for adoptions, they would pay CS until an adoption is finalized). You put your kid up for adoption or at an orphanage or drop it at a safe haven? Until that kid has a finalized adoption (during the time they are in those shitty foster homes), you are legally required to pay the government child support. The amount you pay, the penalties for nonpayment, and any conditions relating to the onerousness of the payments are all exactly the same as what is imposed on fathers. (And by all means, if the father is found through a DNA test and if he doesn't want his kids surrendered, he should have to pay child support as well to the government.) If there is absolutely no way a man can opt out of financial responsibilities, the same goes for women. Feminists, you wanted equality; this is on you.

The three most common arguments used to argue against LPS (in my experience) are all fully applicable here. "I and REAL parents shouldn't pay for men who didn't want to pay for child support through our taxes." What, but you have no outrage at women who can do the exact same thing? There's no reason to oppose mandatory-CS in these programs if you oppose LPS for tax reasons. "The man should've wore a condom" -- again, the woman should've went on BC or, depending on area, gotten an abortion, and when she chose to do neither of those things she chose to be legally bound to that child for 18 years. Finally, "The child has a legal right to support from both parents" and "The child's right to financial solvency trumps either parent's right to financial freedom" -- both of these "rights" are being completely shit on by these programs in their current form. So if you legitimately believe that those rights exist, then you cannot be against this proposed change to the program.

Bottom line, if you are against LPS (particularly for fathers), then there are only 2 possibilities:

• You are a sexist.

• You should support these changes to social programs that would mandate any parent who puts their child in one of them would have to inescapably pay child support to the program, in the same conditions as men who are forced to pay it, and they would have to pay either until the child is 18 or once an adoption by private individuals is finalized.

This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views**! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!