|
Mooseman3000, No, however a father rights should be altered means that you do not agree that a father should have a right to "legally abort" his child however feel that the current system is unfair to fathers, they should have some kind of rights but I have not covered them.
I agree that there should be some cost paid for the "abortion" to stop it becoming a simple way out however that money should not go to the mother unless she actually has the abortion (as she has not actually "lost" anything unless she goes through with the procedure). I was assuming of course that the guy loses all right to the child, as he is aborting it it is no longer his so he has no visitation rights etc if the woman does decide to keep it.
KinkyKiwi, how would you feel as a male if your wife, girlfriend or Fuck Buddy had a kid (without agreeing previously that a child would not result from this) suddenly decided to abort your child (which you wanted)? While you cannot force a woman to have a child there should be perhaps some system in place where by men are not punished unfairly.
Cimarron29414 you say that the tax payer will support these "aborted" children, should a woman who agrees to raise a child on their own gain anything above and beyond a two parent family, after all they have assumed sole responsiblity. Again I feel here that a single parent family who decided to raise a child themselves should essentially be treated as a two parent family as it was their choice not one that they did not choose to take.
After a divorce etc of course a man cannot abort a child (thats what we call murder...) however if he loses all contact with his children should he still be forced to support them (say he has been denied access to his children), if he has access to them (even if he chooses not to use it) then he should of course support them however again the courts generally rule in favour of women in these cases.
Thanks for the answers so far, its very informative to see what people think on this topic.
|