Should a man who has gotten a woman pregnant be able to force her to have an abortion because he can't afford

Question

child support?

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Apw7Cm1tCpRhmXHap.dD.FbY7BR.?qid=20070805102208AANqmip

Answer 1

No, he should have kept it out of there in the first place if he wasn't using protection! An abortion is something very personal. It isn't him who is having the life ripped out of him . . . And, I am pro choice for those of you who might wonder. But an abortion should never be used for birth control. In a best case scenario, the couple should discuss the options. If they can't agree, then it is the woman's decision. And not being able to afford it is the lamest excuse I have ever heard. Get a job!

(can you tell I have a bit of an opinion on this?)

Answer 2

This is such a touchy subject on so many notes.

Let me preface this by saying...
1st) And foremost, I am anti abortion. I feel that life begins at conception. 2nd) I am an atheist. I say that to say that my views on abortion are not skewed by religious beliefs. 3rd) I have only had one biological child that was born in while I was married. No little kids running around wondering who I am. 4th) I do have a step child that I only call my step child in this forum. She is my daughter that I love with all of my heart. 5th) My daughters biological father is rarely in her life. He has seen her once in the 6 years that I have known her. The door has never rang on her birthday with as much as a card. And yes you guessed it, he pays little to no child support. If I thought like most people I would call him a deadbeat.

Like many other laws that I don't like on the books today, abortion ain't going away. So to the question at hand.
Should a man who has gotten a woman pregnant be able to force her to have an abortion because he can't afford child support? Absolutely not! However, we do need to amend the rules.

Under the current law, if a man doesn't want to have a child then he should either:
abstain,
use a condom,
or get a vasectomy.

The woman has more birth control options at her disposal. She has:
abstinence,
the pill,
the morning after pill,
the patch,
Norplant,
IntraUterine System,
Depo Provera,
Tie her tubes,
she can use fertility awareness as birth control,
NuvaRings,
Diaphragms,
Spermacides,
Lea's shields,
Cervical caps,
Vaginal sponges,
and suppositories.
All to prevent the pregnancy.

So them, if she becomes pregnant, she still has more options. She can decide to have the child or have an abortion. She has nine months to decide whether to give birth or have an abortion. If she decides to have the child she still has the options to either, keep and raise the child, place the child up for adoption or simply abandon the child in a safe place.

Unless married to the mother, the father legally has a minimal role in the decision. The final decision could create a new father who is obligated pay for a child for at least the next 18yrs. The same reasons that 91.8% of women surveyed say is the reason for their abortions. This is where I take issue. Under the 14th amendment of the US Constitution, all men and women /should/ receive equal protection under the law. This is not the case when it comes raising a family. The tables are not slanted in the favor of the woman; they are literally stacked and flipped!

So how do you fix this injustice? You start by allowing men to opt out of child support. This should be declared prior to the birth of the child allowing a woman ample time to decide whether she wants to bring the child to term. Then, for the mothers whose partner did not opt out, require both parents to consent to the final decision on what to do with the unborn child. If there is any disagreement then the case should be heard in court to decide the final custody as would if the child had been born already.

I feel like this along with stronger sexual education would vastly reduce both the number of unplanned pregnancies.

Answer 3

No. No one should be forced to have an abortion that is really up to the woman. Even if the man isn't man enough to take responsibility for his actions he shouldn't even try to make a woman have an abortion. Abortion is murder I don't care what other people say it is still murder. If you want to have the child then that is up to you. You don't have to keep it you can put it up for Adoption if you don't want it but do not get an abortion you will regret it later on in life.

Answer 4

The principle here is that the woman always makes the choice....she can't be forced to make any decision either way. This is a gender specific issue. There is no male equivalent. Neither the state, the 'church' or any other individual has any kind of final say in the matter. I wish people would just leave this alone...even our Chief Justice said that this issue is 'settled law'....of course he was lying through his miserable teeth when he said it because the first chance this Jesus freak mother$%#^er has to overturn Roe/Wade he will.

Answer 5

No. What is this obsession with forcing women?? If a fetus develops inside the body of a woman, the woman (who owns the body we are discussing) calls the shots. Why is that so hard to understand?

By the way, while I am here, let me ask you a question. Why do sane women who live in the desert wear a burka? Can you explain that? Is it as simple as their men still living out their "the women will do whatever men tell them to do" mentality?

Answer 6

That is an excellent question!!

I wish I had an excellent answer!!

All I can tell you is that the financial aspects of raising the child would have to be decided upon either mutually or if the mother is on any kind of welfare the court would still take what they are legally entitled to take from the biological father.

This differs from state to state.

But as far as determining whether or not the woman decides to have the child or not.....that still is solely the mother's decision.

Fair?

Probably not!

Answer 7

No -- I don't think ANYONE has the right to force her to abort the child, or to force her to carry the child.

The right to choose means the choice is hers, and hers alone.

Y'know, if we had medical technology to allow an embryo or fetus to be transfered to an artificial incubator after 2 weeks -- we could eliminate 95%+ of abortions....

Because the woman only has the fundamental right to decide if she is going to give bodily fluids out of her body -- that's it. And if we can find a way to allow her to not be pregnant but still allow the unborn to grow in an incubator, that would give both sides what they want.

Answer 8

No, but some try to do it anyway.

I think we should consider the possibility of allowing him to trade his parental rights to adoptive parents who would take on his share of parental responsibility in return. The adoptive parents would have to be approved by a government agency. His child's mother would have the option to seek help from the adoptive parents if she is willing to give them the father's share of parental rights (partial custody or visitation rights, etc. ).

It might turn out to be a bad idea, but considering the threats, attacks, and pressure put on some women to "choose" an abortion, the equation needs to change somewhere.

http://www.yaktivist.com -- A place to discuss developing nonlethal weapons and nonlethal pregnancy termination technology.

Answer 9

The question you cited has nothing to do with yours except the word "abortion," so I am a little confused about why you cited it.

When a man figures out a way to carry a child to term using his own body to do so, THEN (and ONLY then) he may be the decision-maker with regard to abortion. Until then, tough luck.

Answer 10

you're able to make that argument. you could additionally make the argument that we could have sufficient money Social secure practices if we legalized the 12-20 million unlawful immigrants at the instant residing in the U. S. besides. you could additionally make the argument that we could get rid of Medicare, like Republican Paul Ryan's budget plan does, and enable the poorer between our senior electorate only die off so as that we don't could help them. you could additionally argue that we could enable the perfect a million% pay 3% extra in taxes, only as they did below the Clinton administration (in the process the longest growth of the financial device in American history), and use that to pay for Social secure practices. you could additionally argue that we could decrease spending on the protection rigidity by means of a million% (we spend very nearly two times as lots extra on our protection rigidity than any 2 different countries mixed; Russia and China are available numbers 2 and 3, and mixed their protection rigidity spending equals approximately fifty 5% of our protection rigidity spending) and use that rate reductions to disguise the shortfall in Social secure practices. Why not ask approximately those techniques, or possibly a mixture of a few or all of those plans...nevertheless i in my view only as quickly pass Paul Ryan's budget plan and shop Social secure practices and Medicare.