Does it seem fair to you that if....?

Question

if a woman wants an abortion she can and the man has no say in it (even if she agreed to have a baby in the first place) but if she decides to keep it and the man doesn't want it then it's too bad and he has to pay child support.

I want real answers. Answers like ''keep it in your pants'' or ''you're a crank'' (you know what I'm talking about Baba Yaga) will get reported.

Opinions?

Great answers so far.

Baba Yaga: What I answered on another question does not matter. But if you wish for me to prove to you there is some truth to what I say I will and by using YOUR questions and answers as examples.

1) http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AqrsqChodHVXlBo_YApMR_Hsy6IX?qid=20070222013539AAenUtb

2)http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AuNgVl0G.EPiryua_.BPbn3sy6IX?qid=20070114025431AAbRwCg

3)http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AuboVUyw0lVjXTiWdgXR.1Hsy6IX?qid=20070207221551AAQv0uU

3 questions out of 11 which makes for a grand and enormous total of 30%.

Now let us look at your answers.

Oh geez after looking at a few of your answers I just realized they are all pretty much the same, calling other cranks with the definition of crank from wikipedia. If they do not give the definition of crank, they are either giving the difinition of something else from wikipedia, insulting the asker or attacking the question as faulse.

I tried copying and pasting one of your typical answers but they are so long I can only copy and paste a third of them.

Well I'll post the link and you can Baba Yaga's answers for yourself.

1)http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Ag6mthniLn2inCRFuE.57Tnsy6IX?qid=20070226095807AAj1doC&show=7#profile-info-0b13c821dcab072f1de94aa832fdd6bfaa

2)http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AtKGaSlrrJun50Y6K1XzclHsy6IX?qid=20070226055507AAFzoUL&show=7#profile-info-HGjpAzyqaa

3)http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AmqVsMUtBlVWjDbNebblkUfsy6IX?qid=20070226064904AAbsSPk&show=7#profile-info-XBH1vr67aa

4)http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AspQ305hIKhxR6W.L_Ml8prsy6IX?qid=20070226051455AACgqN9&show=7#profile-info-6516e8e18c469b231c9f13f145e99c92aa

5)http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AkqOcnNnIStqCWyYHPULPkbsy6IX?qid=20070226094236AA4cPft&show=7#profile-info-aM545r22aa

Answer 1

It is very unfair.
I've thought about this lots.
I cannot come up with an idea that would be fair to everyone.
Should a woman be forced to carry and deliver a child she never wanted?
Should a man be forced to pay child support for a kid he never bargained for?
What about the child and his/her choices?
The child never asked for life and probably would prefer to come into a loving, welcoming situation.
The only thing I can say is that people who are ready for sex MUST be ready to confront the vagaries of Parenthood.
They both are ultimately responsible for their decision.
Good luck.

Answer 2

Well, it goes back to the question of did the mother love and respect the man with whom she conceived the baby? I mean, if they have a loving, trusting relationship then she would tell him and they would decide together the best course of action. Otherwise, if he's just some guy she didn't really know well, then I would think she wouldn't even tell him, or if she did, it would be so that he could pay half the abortion fee if she decided top go that route.

You know, ultimately it's the woman's life that is affected most and it should only be her decision what to do about an unplanned pregnancy. If a man doesn't want to pay child support for any offspring conceived, then he needs to be clear about birth control or simply abstain. I do not think that a woman owes a man the same say in whether or not to terminate an unplanned pregnancy.

Men come and go. Some pay and some don't. A woman has that baby all of her life and with all of the responsibility. It should only be her decision what to do about it. However, if it truly was an accident in a mutually exclusive, loving relationship, I'm sure that most women would tell the potential father and they would come to a decision together.

Answer 3

This is a difficult position to be in for a woman and a man no matter which way you look at it. The woman has the choice, but the man is obligated financially if she keeps it and has no choice if she terminates it. If the laws change so men can either volunteer resposability or reliquish and have no contact, then the government has to bear the financial cost for the child in the latter (even if the mother works, the government will have to subsidise income, childcare, healthcare etc).

This is a major problem in western societies' and we will not get anywhere with this argument because children need at the bare minimum both parents (what about grandmothers, grandfathers, uncles, aunts, nieces and nephews with regards to this situation?) Even with the current laws of mandatory child support, the government is subsidising single mothers, left right and centre. These women are not independent no matter how much feminism indoctrinates them. This is part of the reason why taxes are so high in the west, social services, we are all paying for it one way or another. To compound the problem further, it costs more to live, with people living separately so the standard of living goes down (again the govenment has to pick up the tab in many cases)

Maybe we need to look at the behaviour of society to get to the route cause of the problem and find a solution?

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ps, I can resist mentioning that women's independence has also caused a great increase to the cost of living because there is more competition for jobs so wages have gone down over time (inflation hides this well, eh) Women now have little choice but to work, whether they are single or married etc. Extra cars, insurance, childcare fees (subsidised by the government) maternity leave (employers must pass on somewhere, guess where?) all drain income further directly or through taxes.

I think feminism has alot to answer for, eh.

Answer 4

My take on this matter is that the actual decision to keep the baby or not has to be the woman's ultimate choice. It would be a breach of human rights otherwise, considering it is the woman's body that is being put in danger, not the man's.

However, if a woman does go ahead and have a baby against the man's wishes, then he should have absolutely no olbigation whatsoever to be part of the child's life, nor should he be ordered to pay any kind of maintenance.

I think that is a pretty fair deal, don't you?

HTH.

Answer 5

It's always sad when abortions have to be resorted to - no matter what the circumstances. Personally, I find it so unfair that the man has no say at all in abortions - it always takes two to tango, right? BUT I think when this law was passed, they were thinking mostly of the woman's welfare - it is her body, after all. Noble as it may seem, it is still unfair.
The other side of the spectrum is the girl wanting the baby, the boy doesn't like it yet he is still legally bound to pay child support...kinda unfair too, right? In this instance, however, the law sided with the baby. Whatever the issue is between the mom and the dad, the baby is not to be blamed and therefore should suffer no consequences of the parents' bad action/decision. Therefore, the man has to pay child support, period.

Answer 6

I don't think a man should have any say whatsoever in abortion;however, you make a valid point about child support. A woman can terminate her responsibility to the child via abortion or adoption, but the man has no way out... Is there a legal venue through which a man can give up all parental rights and responsibilities? If not, maybe there should be ...

Answer 7

I would say I agree with "Croa" on everything. It IS unfair, to a degree, but you can't force a woman to carry a child she didn't want, AND you can't force her to have an abortion...what if her religion is against it? So, what is the solution? Men AND women who engage in unprotected sex should know that the consequences can result in an unwanted pregnancy, so EACH INDIVIDUAL MUST protect themselves against unwanted pregnancy. Meaning, even if the woman says she is using birth control, the man should STILL do "his part" and wear a condom, so that he KNOWS he is protecting himself, and not leave it up to someone else. If he engaged in unprotected sex, then he was being negligent, and there are consequences for that negligence. Otherwise, you are talking about a woman who falls pregnant, CANNOT have an abortion because of religious reasons, and must support her child on her own (assuming she cannot bring herself to give the child away.) How is that fair to the child, how is that fair at all? The man willingly (and negligently) participated in the act that would bring about the birth of the child, and now he gets to walk away? How is THAT fair? It's a tenuous situation, but courts are more and more adopting the attitude of "you play, you pay." It may no be perfectly fair, but it DOES make sense legally, (willful negligence=culpability). I think we need to give men more options when it comes to "male birth control (although condoms ARE still best because they also prevent against STD's) but once the women is already pregnant it is really too late...that should have been thought out ahead of time.
And think about it this way. Do you REALLY think our government is going to allow men to "walk away" from their children and financial responsibilities? The government knows that often single moms ( especially young single moms) will need to have government assistance if the father bails...they are not about to pass laws that have the potential to create more families on welfare, again, the way they look at it, you play, you pay. Women may have more options, but they also have more responsibility because of the biology of pregnancy.

So the only answer I can think of for now is...DON"T HAVE UNPROTECTED SEX IF YOU DON"T WANT CHILDREN! That is fair, and it's good common sense, too.

Answer 8

Both of the partners should agree on a solution. If a guy wants to have the baby and the girl does not, there should be some law advising that she must carry the child to term and then hand the child over to the father who wants to have that child. A human should not have to die when there is someone who wants it. As far as if she is keeping it against the father's wishes I think she should be responsible for that child on her own. My dad didn't want me...my mom raised me on her own and never got a dime in child support. Only if you have a child together and one partner decides to leave do I feel that child support should be paid. It all comes down to if you want to have something, a child included, you are responsible for it...on your own...whether it's a man or a woman...

Answer 9

No, it isn't fair. If a woman can "walk away" from the responsibility of child-rearing, I believe that a man should be able to, also.

I'm still a little fuzzy on my opinions about "repeat offenders"(both male and female) though.

Answer 10

and your proposal to remedy the world of this is? what?
-men having a right to force a woman to either abort or bear a child? (is THAT fair??)
-men being able to walk away from any children they may spawn, leaving mother & child to leach of welfare? (is THAT fair?)

or perhaps you have a completely new idea that might me of use?? no??

how about a "pre-humptual"--the amorous couple draws up a contract saying what will occur in the event of a pregnancy, or std before they have sex...
or you could do what the rest of us do and communicate rather than blindly have sex with people you don't know well (that is, not in a committed relationship with)