Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If abortion is available, then the father should have the option to participate or not in any part of the child's life - financial, emotional etc. Totally up to him. If the government denies women choice then it also must deny it to the father and dictate his participation.
Why. Why should every man be able to opt out of their parental duties just because abortion is a legal option for women?
You are comparing a fetus the size of a pea (which may naturally never be born) inside of a woman's womb to an actual living child who needs love, attention, guidance, food, shelter and clothing.
If Dick and Jane are married and jane gets pregnant but Dick isnt ready to be a father, why should he be able to neglect the welfare of his child because Susan who lives 2,000 miles away in another decides to abort her pregnancy?
On what planet does this seem logical to anyone.
Men have a legal right to a vasectomy (essentially kills their sperm or potential children), then the mother should have the option to terminate any parental rights he has to the child's life, right?
If Dick and Jane are married and jane gets pregnant but Dick isnt ready to be a father, why should he be able to neglect the welfare of his child because Susan who lives 2,000 miles away in another decides to abort her pregnancy?
On what planet does this seem logical to anyone.
Men have a legal right to a vasectomy (essentially kills their sperm or potential children), then the mother should have the option to terminate any parental rights he has to the child's life, right?
Let's ignore married couples. Marriage is a special contract, Dick has more to worry about than just child support from Jane.
Let's talk unmarried couples. Why should Dick pay for Jane's decision to keep the child?
Why. Why should every man be able to opt out of their parental duties just because abortion is a legal option for women?
You are comparing a fetus the size of a pea (which may naturally never be born) inside of a woman's womb to an actual living child who needs love, attention, guidance, food, shelter and clothing.
If Dick and Jane are married and jane gets pregnant but Dick isnt ready to be a father, why should he be able to neglect the welfare of his child because Susan who lives 2,000 miles away in another decides to abort her pregnancy?
On what planet does this seem logical to anyone.
Men have a legal right to a vasectomy (essentially kills their sperm or potential children), then the mother should have the option to terminate any parental rights he has to the child's life, right?
You don't understand because you don't understand biology or conception. The fact that you consider killing sperm = abortion shows your absolute and complete lack of knowledge.
Once you revisit those topics and learn more about reproduction, conception, and human development, you will get it.
Until then, you will not be able to recognize the legal argument that has been put forth here the same exact way by multiple posters about 20 times.
Child support laws came in a time abortion was generally illegal, and women were not in the workplace.
We live in a very different world.
Child support laws have been on the books since the late eighteenth century. Child support enforcement laws were enacted in 1975. Abortion law just became generally legal in 2022. In 1973 abortion became legal nationwide up to the point of viability. Women have always been in the workplace. The numbers greatly increased starting in 1962.
Let's ignore married couples. Marriage is a special contract, Dick has more to worry about than just child support from Jane.
Let's talk unmarried couples. Why should Dick pay for Jane's decision to keep the child?
I'm only including married couples because poster are saying all men should be able to opt out due to abortion being legal because that is a logical, consistent compromise.
Aside from the fact that Dick should not have had unprotected sex to begin with, our society if family oriented with emphasis placed on the best interest of the child. We also like to hold parents responsible for their own children and not put that burden on the taxpayer.
As I have stated, way, way back up thread, in situations where conjoining was casual with no expectation of a relationship or future children, I do feel there should be a way for a man to legally opt out. This should also include stipulations that he may never have any form of contact with the child.
And lo and behold it is within a judge's power to terminate parental responsibility along with parental rights, so technically it is already legal for a man to opt out.
In reality such situations where, basically strangers created an unintended pregnancy and the mothers actively seeks child support are rare. Most child support orders result from divorce or break ups of otherwise committed relationships.
It is a difficult, stressful and time-consuming process to get child support from one who is not willing to pay it. Most women would forgo all that to have the unwilling father out of their lives. I do believe in some states if a woman files for assistance she is required to go after the biological father first. Perhaps the states should remove that requirement.
A woman can take her income into consideration when deciding if she wants to keep the child or not. I don't see how a man should be held accountable for her choice to keep it.
I assume you have never struggled with abortion, adoption and a child.
Perhaps we should put that to all the families out there with children that apply for any government assistance. Lets go back about 100 years and have the state take children and scatter them out in foster care when a person's income or lack of cant pay their bills and put food on the table.
What you pass off as remote situations are not as "remote" as you think. In any case, these "remote" situations as you call them affect real women.
Pregnancy and childbirth in the US are not without risk, no matter how much you want to pretend otherwise.
This is one of the primary reasons a woman's choice to go forward or abort is hers and hers alone. She faces a physical risk that no man can face. So trying to equate males opting out with women opting out makes no sense.
Oh for God's sake! What is your point of bringing up any case of a pregnancy or childbirth that wasn't normal or resulted in a bad result for the woman? We all know that it happens sometimes so as I asked just what is your point?
Where did I say that there isn't risk to "some" women and since that's the case again what is your point?
Are you actually saying that any woman should be able to abort based on because she might be among the minority of women who might have problems with pregnancy or childbirth even though there is no indication of that? WTH? Are you serious?
The states and they alone have the right to set limits on abortion and the reason why or why not they will allow them!
Oh for God's sake! What is your point of bringing up any case of a pregnancy or childbirth that wasn't normal or resulted in a bad result for the woman? We all know that it happens sometimes so as I asked just what is your point?
Where did I say that there isn't risk to "some" women and since that's the case again what is your point?
Are you actually saying that any woman should be able to abort based on because she might be among the minority of women who might have problems with pregnancy or childbirth even though there is no indication of that? WTH? Are you serious?
The states and they alone have the right to set limits on abortion and the reason why or why not they will allow them!
<800 women die in childbirth/childbirth related complications annually in the US = About 2 women a day
>900,000 babies die from abortion annually in the US = About 2,500 babies a day
The amount of abortions for medical issues? 12000-14000 per year
I assume you have never struggled with abortion, adoption and a child.
Perhaps we should put that to all the families out there with children that apply for any government assistance. Lets go back about 100 years and have the state take children and scatter them out in foster care when a person's income or lack of cant pay their bills and put food on the table.
I have stories on 2/3 above, but let's not go there.
It's a very simple, hypothetical question: why should the man be responsible for the medical decisions of the woman, especially if they're unmarried.
If they're married, I agree, because in marriage you share everything. If you buy a home, even if you made all the money for that home, the woman is entitled to half (unless there is a pre-nup!). So it would work the same way with a child.
So I want to keep this for unmarried couples. You seemed to agree earlier.
In reality, I'm only interested in this thread because it's a classic "Mars vs Venus", "Men vs Women" thread. This is about women giving up a right they already have (to expect child support from the father), and even in the interest of fairness, women will not give up this right. Even in a hypothetical.
I have no delusions that "financial abortion" will ever be practical. But I don't see how you can expect a man to shoulder the consequences of the woman's choice - in fairness. We can end this topic flippantly - life is not fair. And that's true.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What is your point of bringing up any case of a pregnancy or childbirth that wasn't normal or resulted in a bad result for the woman? We all know that it happens sometimes so as I asked just what is your point?