Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser
No. No, that's not it at all. It's hard to advocate a 'choice' in which one party doesn't have it. Still, I must ask, isn't forcing a man to pay for a child he doesn't want a manner of 'control based on money'? Why, yes. I think it is. Who knew...? Isn't that the same thing you're vehemently arguing against. Really. Just how hypocritical can one person be?
|
If a man doesn't want to pay for a child, he should realize the consequences of unprotected vaginal sex before he engages in it. I know there are other circumstances of which a child might come about by mistake, but it still stands: A man should realize the risks and consequences of his actions, especially when there are children involved. Sex is how most children come about; men shouldn't be sexually irresponsible.
More of the stock of the choice over abortion lies with the mother because she has much more invested biologically and emotionally. The man can take off at any time, which is why there are laws that force the child-support issue. This is not to say that men have nothing invested, because they do. But to give men the power to opt out of child payments if he wanted an abortion opens up many other problems. Could a mother who doesn't want a baby opt out of the responsibility, passing it off to the father because it was he who instigated the sexual relation?