It's the father's choice!

I agree that the rights of fathers aren't recognized enough but i disagree that simply because he doesn't want the child, that he shouldn't pay child support. As long as the child is born, it's his, and only someone of questionable character wouldn't want to support their own flesh and blood once it's born. Whether or not he supports the mother's choice to keep the child, it is still his child. It is a life he has a part in creating, so he is still responsible. That's "my" opinion.

 

True restraint, but I think that the father must also have some input in the choice if it gets aborted or not.
I'm talking about the situation where the father wants to keep the child but the mother doesn't.
Not the other way around.
I just think that if one of the parents wants to raise it, it shouldn't be killed.

Of course, the woman has to carry it for 9 months.. and give birth.
So there is no possible right or wrong.

 

I am pro choice, always have been, but I have a problem with all this, If the man refuses child support and the woman cannot get an abortion for her own reasons...why is it fair for the father to be abdicated from supporting the child? If the consensual sex resulted in offspring I do not think the woman due to a moral objection, or a connection with the unborn child, should be left to support the child alone.

In extreme situations, if a male demanded an abortion against the woman's choice, or he wont support the child its an ultimatum...should he have no responsibility in the making of a child then? The child was made, you cannot change that, but puttting that kind of ultimatum on a vulnerable emotionally charged new mother is outrageous...

this is just one woman's opinion. I think the man should have more rights in this situation, but I think giving into option two is only geared toward the male side of the story.

 

My question is that basically

 

If the mother wants to keep the child it is her choice, and also the responsibility of the father to help raise it. As far as I am concerned, if the father is advocating for aborting that child, he is doing so in order to avoid the responsibility of raising it.

In that case, he shouldnt've had sex in the first place. Or at least used better protection.

However, if the mother wants to abort the child, then it is completely her choice. The reason I state this is because the mother will have to bear the child for 9 months, and there's the factor that natural consequence involved for aborting. If the male wants the child and the female doesnt, then the male can simply find a mate who WILL bear a child.

This solution gives all parties the maximum amount of choice available, and as far as I am concerned, provides the most happiness for all parties (when losses are taken into account).

 

QFT

I have no further input in this thread.

 

I think this option would be fair, as long as the state absolves all parental rights the father has in regards to the child, and he gives up any right he may have to see or be involved in the child's life.

 

And the double-standards argument is an extremely valid point. In addition, I also just realized that even when an unfit (to care for the child) mother has an abortion, she can experience years of long-term regret and angst at having done so.

Both of these cause me to change my opinion altogehter.

In this case, I think that if at least one parent wants the child, then the child should be kept in the care of that parent, but still with the other parent helping to support that child. Especially given the fact that most likely both parents consented to the sex which brought about the child in the first place -- so even the one who does not want the child should share responsibility.

 

You would want to be forced to carry a child to term even if you didn't want the child? Pregnancy, and childbirth are NOT pretty, pleasant, or nice.

no one here disagrees that there is a double standard. there is. but the reason there is, is this. When a woman has a baby she is out of commission for months...No one will hire a pregnant woman, (i should know I tried to get a job while pregnant) You are out for the last two or three weeks because you can hardly walk youre so huge, then your out for at least four weeks to heal. so for a month and a half the woman cannot work, how is she supposed to support that child on her own?

I agree there is a double standard.

Lets throw this one out there

Since were going for equal...Shouldnt the man get 50% of labor pains?
OO 50% of delivering the baby,

Or 50% of the abortion.

50% of the sex

The problem here is it is a one sided issue. The woman does all the work in child birth. or abortion.

 

What?

 

Enty, of COURSE the woman will have to bear it, but in the grand scheme of things 6 months of unpleasantness is nothing compared to the knowledge that you have voided a life that somebody wanted (your mate) -- and the possibility that you might have to endure years of regret at having done so.

And the thing is when the physical pain of labor is over, it's over. The psychological trauma of having aborted would be far more lingering, I would imagine (and I also imagine that it would depend on who you are as a person). I say this because someone I know aborted a child and they also have deep and lasting regret at having done so.

 

In my opinion it is pretty easy to ditch out of child support anyway. If a guy REALLY wants to get out of paying child support, it won't be too hard if he is ok with getting paid under the table and potentially moving to another state.

I think abortion would have to be fully accepted by society before it could be a plausible option in legal terms. Some women simply would never think of getting an abortion and this law would be unfair in their eyes.

I disagree with an "opt out" option for men. But then again I am also not a huge advocate of abortion. It is unfortunate because many times the person desiring abortion is an unfit parent and they know it.

I like your idea, and I definitely hadn't thought about it from your perspective.

 

I'll say that I probably agree with you, slant, but there is a practical bone to pick: exactly how long should the father have to make his decision? Timing makes a huge difference as to the difficulty of the abortion, both in terms of cost and pain caused to the mother. You seem to assume that the abortion itself is no inconvenience, and therefore the father can abruptly leave the mother with a choice between abortion and financial ruin anytime he chooses, provided the baby has not yet been born.