Quote:
|
Originally Posted by robbdn
The biggest problem this solution poses though, is what implications does this have in the case where the father wants to keep the baby and the mother does not? Should the consenting father have the legal right to prevent abortion (except in cases of medical emergency) by agreeing to pay the mother medical expenses, lost wages, etc, and agreeing to release the mother from any financial obligation to support the baby after birth?
|
Not at all; it's still her body. I think that's a much bigger issue compared to the financial obligation. If a woman is not physically and mentally prepared to carry a fetus and then give birth, and she does not even WANT a child, then she retain the right to have an abortion. However, given the special rights women have concerning the fate of fetus while it is still part of her body, my sense of fairness makes me amenable to the idea that a man should not ALWAYS be held financially responsible. I mean, if we're talking about better legal systems to make both sexes behave more responsibly, that would surely do it.
Say a woman does decide to have a baby - she carries it in her body for 9 months (give or take) and that often leads to later scenarios where she wins custody battles but also where she is left with the responsibility of pursuing legal measures to care for the baby when the father is being a deadbeat (that refers to both welfare programs for single mothers
and suing the biological father for child support). To say that the responsibilities of both parents are equal is a nice idea, but it's simply not the truth because women clearly have greater rights and responsibilities, as it should be.
I happen to think that physical rights and financial responsibilites (though they often go together) are separate issues. In cases where the man and woman want different things, this is how it breaks down:
A man never has a right to make the ultimate physical decision about having a baby, but he always has a responsibility to pay child support for it if the woman decides to have it. The woman always has the right (let's hope) to make the ultimate physical decision about having a baby, but she does not always have the financial responsibility for it because she can always sue the man for child support. This system has a built-in incentive for women who don't have physical concerns about having a baby to behave irresponsibly about birth control.
That being said, it seems reasonable to me to allow a man being sued for child support to counter sue the woman for either lying about birth control efforts or breaking a verbal agreement to not have the baby. This does not stop her from having the baby if she wants to - it has nothing to do with her physical state. It merely recognizes that women should also behave responsibly and protect herself when choosing to have sex. The current system just gives men a lot of reason to distrust women.