Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Cimarron29414
Well, it seems to me that your position is to suggest that men should be able to give up their parental rights if they didn't want to have a child.
My position regarding that sentiment is simple: if the father is allowed to do this, I (the tax payer) will be paying for his child. Personally, I think this is a terrible idea. Sounds to me like the guy needs to consider
a) condoms
b) controlling his penis so that it doesn't come into contact with anything that could create an unwanted child.
|
You can't make a blanket indictment of all men. You're acting like it's the man's fault the pregnancy happened. It's 50% the woman's fault. After all she could consider
a) birth control
b) controlling her vagina so it doesn't come into contact with anything that could make it pregnant.
And how many times have both the man and the woman agreed before having sex that they will abort the pregnancy if it should happen, but then after she gets pregnant the woman changes her mind. It's very easy to think about the abortion in the abstract, much harder when you actually have to make the call.
But should the man be held responsible for that? He had sex with the clear understanding that no child could be produced by it. Then the woman switched it around on him, and he's still expected to finance the kid? That's ridiculously unfair.
The father should not have the right to order the abortion - it's HER body, not his.
The father SHOULD have the right to make the ultimatum that either the abortion happens, or he withdraws support.
Now the woman has a clear choice. Have the kid and pay for it yourself, or don't have the kid. If she can't live with the consequences of either choice, then she should not have had sex.