i understand that blokes cant have a say in abortion because at the end of the day it is the womans body....
but... if a man expresses his wishes that he does not want to have the baby, he cant make a woman have an abortion, should he have to pay for the child benefits?
I'm not sure where i stand on this one!
2007-03-14 01:33:51 · 48 answers · asked by Aled H 3 in Pregnancy & Parenting ➔ Pregnancy
but if i wanted to keep it and she aborted it, then thats fair!?
this is all hypothectical!
2007-03-14 01:39:20 · update #1
LETS GET THIS CLEAR- I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT ME! I AM TALKING ABOUT MALE RIGHTS!
2007-03-14 01:44:33 · update #2
i think the law is different in America i am talking about the english way....
2007-03-14 08:38:37 · update #3
No, you made the child, so you've got to pay for the child.
2007-03-14 01:37:23 · answer #1 · answered by stoutseun69 4 · 8⤊ 4⤋
I feel your pain. It does seem like a double standard. If you don't want to have the child but the mom does and yet you still have to help pay for it. And lets say you DO want to have the child and the mom does not but she goes the back route and has the abortion without you knowing. Should the man get something for the women aborting the child you wanted? And if so What would it be??
It is a hard situation but that is why going around and having sex with someone who you don't really like (even with protection) is risky. I always had protection on but that still did not stop my sperm from getting my wife two kids of are own.
It is something that you and the girl need to talk about. But be prepared that is it not going to be a good talk. Once you two have an understanding get it in writing. But no matter what the piece of paper says be there when the child is born. It will change a man's perspective.
2007-03-14 02:05:49 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Wow... some angry answerers here. I understand this is not about you. At the moment, I don't think there is a law to protect male rights which sucks. I don't think that is right because if a woman decides to have an abortion, but the man wants to raise the child.... it makes me sad to think about but I'm sure it happens. Also - to everyone else out there: condoms aren't 100% effective... so for everyone who said "Use a condom and you wouldn't have this problem!" - You're wrong. Sorry but there is no 100% effective method of birth control.
2007-03-14 01:52:48 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 0⤋
If a man truly doesn't want the chance of making a woman pregnant, then really he needs to take responsibility for contraception. An abortion is NOT some retroactive means of contraception, it's a medical procedure with all the associated risks, and that's not even taking into account the psychological factors. The resulting baby has had no part in the decision-making process and deserves the respect - and financial input - of both parties, whether or not it was "wanted". To suggest that if the man says "yes, but I didn't want the baby, so I'm not paying" is immature and inane - if you ejaculate into someone, you take your chances.
2007-03-14 01:41:10 · answer #4 · answered by f0xymoron 6 · 4⤊ 1⤋
it is an unfair thing - You cannot say you WANT the child if the woman doesn't want it, but if she wants it, and you don't, you still have to pay for it.
Like you, I am not sure where I stand on this. I think there is an EQUAL responsibility for creating a life and it is hard that there cannot be equal responsibility for sustaining it. I know tjhat's because even though you may be paying for every single thing that the mother does to look after her unborn child, it's still her body - but that does somewhat negate the rights of the father!
I can't see how this can be resolved or improved, but I do get where you're coming from.
2007-03-14 03:43:03 · answer #5 · answered by jop291106 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
It's a tough question really. On some level, I think Dad should have the option of signing away his rights to a child and not having to pay child support/maintenance. On the other hand, though, forced child support is really the ONLY long term consequences that can be 'forced' on a father if he is irresponsible in his sexual behavior, while the mother either has to have a risky surgical procedure or the risk of pregnancy/birth.
On the surface, I agree that fathers should be able to give up 'rights' to their child and not have to pay child support, but after thinking about it a bit, I no longer think so. If possibly paying child support is the ONLY long term effect a man may have from irresponsible behavior, then we need to keep it in effect :P
2007-03-14 01:45:39 · answer #6 · answered by Christal 3 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Goodness, what a great question!
There are so many contradictions surrounding the abortion issue. I definitely agree that it seems silly that the man has no say at all, as you mention, what if he wants to keep the baby?
I think that there is an underlying question here though which relates to the purpose of sex. Think about the reason we eat, sure food tastes nice, and eating can be fun and sociable, but that is not why we eat. We eat because our bodies need food to grow and stay healthy. The same applies to sex. Sure sex is fun and it feels nice, but the reason we have sex is to bond with our partner and to pro-create. In the same way that we cannot eat without providing nutrition for our bodies, we cannot have sex with out bonding with our partner and reproducing.
Unfortunately modern society tells us that we can have sex without bonding (one night stands) and that we can have sex without reproducing (the pill, abortion), until we begin to re-discover the purpose of sexual intercourse the problems of abortion will remain.
2007-03-14 02:45:36 · answer #7 · answered by MrsC 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
With the added detail 21 minutes ago. That is two different issues.
Starting with the added thought..
If a man wanted the baby he should be able to have it. And she could pay support. But because it is only the womans choice without a court order she has the right to take his child.
And to get a court order she could of had the abortion allready by the time the courts settle it.
As for the first. If the man does not want the child he should pay for half the abortion. And if she wants the hild he should pay support.
Bottomline you play you pay kind of thing.
2007-03-14 02:11:50 · answer #8 · answered by charontheloose 6 · 0⤊ 3⤋
I am putting myself in a guys shoes and I asked myself if I were a guy and a woman fell pregnant with my child, after I specifically expressed that I did not want to have any children, and she went ahead and fell pregnant any way. The sole responsibility should fall on the woman who is pregnant with my child and therefore I should be except to pay any child support.
Then I would merely be a sperm donor.
2007-03-14 01:52:12 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think it's a great double standard.
I am very pro-choice, and believe at the end of the day that a woman should make the sole decision in whether or not she has a child. At the same time, I don't agree with "oops'ing" a guy who doesn't want to be a father and forcing him into parenthood. I suppose I'm just against backing anyone into a corner and taking their choice and freedom away.
2007-03-14 01:48:33 · answer #10 · answered by Morning Glory 5 · 4⤊ 1⤋
personally i went with my partners wishes to abort our baby a year ago as i think its unfair on men when girls keep the baby just to piss them off and get money out of them..not all women do that but i no some girls who do. thats how i feel that it should be an equal decision and if the father of the child has said he doesnt want it i dont think they should have to pay for it when they have sed they dont want it it the womans choice then to think ooh should i bring it up with no help. I thin men have a right to say what they want n dont want
2007-03-14 02:19:48 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋