Men don't want to pay for a child they don't want, and abortion is legal, so the mother can abort. No harm done, right? I hear women saying a woman should be able to abort for no reasons if she so wishes, and aborting because you won't be financially supported seems like a good reason to abort.
If a man and a woman have sex, and the woman gets pregnant, then she should abort if the man does not want it. If she doesn't, then she should be on her own financially. The only time men should have to pay child support, is after the baby is born, then he should have to pay.
This solution would make it more fair towards every party involved; the father because he won't have to pay for a child he does not want; the mother because she'll still be in total control over her body; the child because he won't have to be born and raised without a father.
2007-11-07 08:20:15 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Social Science ➔ Gender Studies
Steven D: it's irrelevant. Men don't control women's bodies: women do.
2007-11-07 08:29:21 · update #1
''I doubt that would work bc then most men would say they don't want it to avoid having to pay.''
Hmm no... If the man wants it, he'll pay for it. Duh!
2007-11-07 08:35:30 · update #2
If they don't agree with abortion, that's OK. They don't have to have one.
2007-11-07 08:49:08 · update #3
Yes, it does, Juniper. But doesn't having sex blackmails the man into paying child support?
2007-11-07 08:50:40 · update #4
Priscilla, women/people change their mind often.
2007-11-07 08:53:05 · update #5
I don't think that a man has the right to force an abortion on a woman, just as I don't think anyone, man or woman has the right to force a woman to not have an abortion. It is and should be the woman's choice as it is her body.
A man has a choice not to induge in sex that would result in a pregnancy, birth control is as much the responsiblity of men as it is the responsiblity of women. If a man doesn't want a child then he has the same obligation to ensure that a pregancy doesn't result.
2007-11-07 09:05:24 · answer #1 · answered by ajtheactress 7 · 7⤊ 1⤋
While logically I have thought about this too. It makes sense, but women will of course be outraged that the man will be left off the hook for the next 18 years. So no way would it last.
The reality is, it doesn't matter who pays for the kid as long as the state doesn't have to. Men who were not the biological father of some children have been ordered to pay child support until the child is 18 regardless if they are still dating the mother or not.
Us guys can all thank the dead beat dads before us for screwing us over and making child support ridiculously one sided against men.
2007-11-07 16:30:33 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 0⤋
Doesn't that basically blackmail the woman into having an abortion?
How about this: Stop having sex with people you wouldn't be willing to raise a child with.
If abortion were not an option, would you expect the guys to pay child support no matter what? Or would you just switch the discussion to adoption - i.e., "she can give it up for adoption, so the man shouldn't have to pay."
How about this - you try that as a pick-up line next time:
"Hey baby, if you get pregnant, I'm ouuuuttta here! What do you say, want to come back to my place?"
2007-11-07 16:45:52 · answer #3 · answered by Junie 6 · 6⤊ 1⤋
Like Ember Halo said, there are women who don't believe in abortion as a means of birth control. There are women who wouldn't be able to bring themselves to have an abortion. And in that case, who's really going to suffer? The child. I believe we have an obligation to consider the far reaching impact of any law. This one seems clear- more children growing up in poverty.
Christin: It doesn't make sense to think you can force someone to go through a pregnancy for 9 months so someone else can have a child. How can you be sure that a woman who doesn't want to have a child, and resents being forced to go through with an unwanted pregnancy, will take all the time and precautions necessary to manage a pregnancy?
A better solution would be that people simply practice communication and find out ahead of time what their partner's feelings and positions are regarding unplanned pregnancy.
Edit: Yes, women can change their mind. But your solution doesn't real change anything, just turns the tables. If this were the case, women who were anti-abortion would try to seek out men who were also anti-abortion and would want to help if she became pregnant. Once she does though, the man can easily change his mind and bow out, leaving her to raise a child in poverty.
2007-11-07 16:44:47 · answer #4 · answered by Priscilla B 5 · 8⤊ 1⤋
That's a horrible solution. Why not take a different angle, and focus on reproductive responsibility. What really bothers me about your suggestion is that this brings us closer and closer to using abortion as birth control. Abortion is the killing of your own baby. Your own flesh and blood. People who don't have their own children don't seem to grasp this, and most women who have had abortions, once they go on to have children under better circumstances, they are weighed down by the heaviness of the choice they made before. Anything that encourages or makes abortion easier is a move in the wrong direction, especially giving the power of that choice to a man, a man who does not have the responsibility of carrying that baby in his own body....
2007-11-07 19:01:49 · answer #5 · answered by reddevilbloodymary 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I do not agree that an abortion should be done without the consent of both the man and the woman. The child belongs to both parties. A woman should not be able to get an abortion without the consent of the father and vice versa. The only time abortion should be allowed without the consent of the father is in the case of rape. As far as child support goes, that should not be the only reason to want to abort a child. Sex like any other action has consequences; if two consenting adults choose to have sex then they should be ready and willing to accept the financial consequences involved should a child become the product of the act. If both parties agree that the financial consequences are not viable, and that abortion is the only alternative, then so be it; but just think about if you were the product of two consenting adults who had sex and they decided to abort you because they couldn't or did not want to absorb the cost; you wouldn't be here today debating this very question. Mmmmmm..........
2007-11-07 16:34:13 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 5⤋
I strongly doubt that it would work. Every man who had unprotected sex will SAY that he wants the woman to have an abortion, especially if he thinks she won't really go through with it.
It would also compel a lot more women to have abortions, and a lot more men to refuse to use protection. Is that really what people want?
2007-11-07 16:27:05 · answer #7 · answered by Steve-O 5 · 8⤊ 0⤋
Everyday some man posts this 'question' and everyday we note the child support IS FOR THE CHILD. The CHILD has priority here. Thats the way the law is and always will be.
2007-11-07 18:12:26 · answer #8 · answered by professorc 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Reasonable...
But what if the father wants the child, and the mother doesn't? Does he take on sole responsibility after the pregnancy? Does he help pay for the costs associated with pregnancy? Does he compensate her for her lost wages while she's out on maternity leave?
There are more tough questions that need to be addressed.
2007-11-07 16:29:11 · answer #9 · answered by abfabmom1 7 · 8⤊ 1⤋
Yes, but if the woman went ahead and had the child, and the man didnt want it, i think he shouldnt have to pay if she chose to have it, but then again i think they he shouldnt have had sex in the first place if he was unwilling to care/pay for his child.
2007-11-07 18:06:36 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋