years under law?
2006-12-24 15:12:04 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
How DARE you ask such embarassingly logical questions!!! ;)
2006-12-24 15:14:55 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
Hmm....so he has decided "You shall have an abortion regardless of whether you agree or not!". She is taken into custody, shackled to a hospital bed and knocked unconscious while someone performs an abortion that could wind up with complications that result sterility or worse, death. Who would take responsibility for THAT? Who would come and tell her family...."well, we're so sorry but he just didn't want to have to pay for the next 18".
Now the question of a father's rights become even more complicated when he actually WANTS the unborn child and she doesn't. What then? He could be scarred emotionally for the rest of his life. But the simple fact is, it is HER body regardless of the issue involved (i.e fear of paying child support, father's desire for the child).
If it were somehow legal to force women to have abortions based on the father's wishes, then it would probably be just as easy to enforce a law that would support the castration of men who would obviously make undesirable fathers.
2006-12-24 23:45:24 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Because it's the womans body that will suffer the changes and excruciating pain of childbirth and risking her life to do so. If she chooses to have the child then the financial responsibility SHOULD fall on both parents. Most men duck out anyway and never get involved with their children. If a man doesn't want a child then he should either abstain or use condoms or have a vasectomy. If he plays then he can expect to pay whether he wants the responsibility or not.
2006-12-24 23:23:00 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
You cannot force medical procedures on anyone. Your input to the birth process is deposit of the sperm. The female has just a TAD more of a role and responsiblity, thus her options also being more. Right or wrong is immaterial...it's simply the physical reality of the issue.
It's a separate issue if that deposit results in a birth, then the needs of that citizen must be met, no matter whether wanted or not. She also has to pay for it.
2006-12-24 23:16:21 · answer #4 · answered by American Spirit 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
it must be happening to you for such a question. my question is if she wanted to keep it and you didn't want her to, where would you have the right to commit murder of a child you helped create? and paying for a child you created should not just be looked at as money, but what you can pass down from your heart to give to the next generation. i feel a man should have a right to prevent a woman from killing the child he helped create, but where the law can be there we will never know. as far as 18 years i think a Father should support their child no matter how old they are.
2006-12-24 23:24:44 · answer #5 · answered by angelchele 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
If a woman took possession of my genetic material and used it against my wishes, to produce a child, I would be pissed off. I NEVER want to bring a child into the world and feel my responsibility ends at a termination clinic. Of course I take all precautions and if any kid of mine gets born, it will have to be named Houdini. If it gets past the pill, the condom and the surgeon's knife, it will have to be an escape artist.
2006-12-25 00:10:18 · answer #6 · answered by iknowtruthismine 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Depending on what state you live in.....anymore....the courts are leaning more towards 50/50 custody these days....its only fair that the children spend equal time with both parents....the courts are finally starting to see this....
2006-12-24 23:18:03 · answer #7 · answered by Triton 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
That is not an R&S question.
It is about man's law.
And that is why it exists, man determined it would be that way.
A man has sex with a woman, she has to have it, raise it, pay for it, and he can just move on? That does not sound very fair.
So man has said that if you father a child you will pay your share of its support until it is an adult.
Seems very simple to me.
2006-12-24 23:17:39 · answer #8 · answered by Theophilus 6 · 4⤊ 1⤋
The law doesn't make any sense because if the woman wants to keep it, it's considered to be a baby. But if the woman doesn't want to keep it, they don't call it a baby. People will go to great lengths to try to justify wicked deeds.
2006-12-24 23:14:49 · answer #9 · answered by Life 2 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Because our society has become so p.ussy whiped that even common sense things like both parents deciding the faith of a child are mandated by women.
2006-12-24 23:15:49 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋
Because it was originally BOTH parties choice (or lack thereof). The decision to keep or abort is the woman's choice because it is her body. If men could get pregnant then it would be their choice.
2006-12-24 23:15:11 · answer #11 · answered by Voodoid 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋