Here's a suggestion: After DNA testing has identified the father, both parties (man & woman) submit an affidavit and declare whether they want the child (in case it was accidental). After this has taken place, there can be two ways to go about it. Option #1 if the baby is wanted by either party the baby is to be kept. Option #2 If the mother wants it, then she keeps it, if the father wants it, and the mother does not, she gets the abortion (that's how it is today). Either way the one(s) who want(s) the baby is/are to be held financially responsible. So say the father doesn't want it, he is not obligated to pay just because of a one night's mistake. Tell me, why doesn't that sound fair?
Because if the woman doesn't want it but the man does, she has to give birth to it. Violating her rights.
Nope, nobody should pay forever because of one mistake.....that's why abortion is legal. However, when the whining about "unfair" pops up it's good to remind folks that if there is a CHILD born it is the responsibility of the parents to support it ...it's about the CHILD and IT'S welfare, , not about some whiny man who thinks life is unfair.
Because men do not own women's bodies and he does not get to tell her that she must go through nine months of pregnancy then labor and childbirth all because he wants a child. That is wrong as it puts her body and life at risk when he does not have to face any risk of injury. If he wants a child so badly then he should find a willing participant rather than try to force his one night stand to give birth for him.
Do you ever wonder with all the whining some men do about supporting kids, abortion being legal, women having RIGHTS(!) just how many men would, if they could, become a woman....would actually WANT to be a woman....
Maybe I shouldn't have mentioned the two options, because nobody is answering the part about who gets to pay.
This thing about letting men off the hook financially isn't ever gonna fly. Two things would happen: 1. there would be a LOT MORE abortions, and 2. there would be a LOT MORE cost to taxpayers. Neither of those two things would be popular. It may not BE fair, but that's the way it is. It doesn't make much sense to deny choice to women just because men don't get to choose. By allowing women choice, at least 50% of men get off the hook because the woman chose abortion (approximately half of all unplanned pregnancies are aborted.).
While I agree that it is only fair to allow men to have an opt out option when it comes to child rearing, as in sign away their parental rights to the child, once it is born the courts only care about what is in the best interests of the child and whether the mother or father gets screwed financially doesn't matter to them.
While it might be true that it will cost taxpayers more, there are other factors to consider. For instance, if the father doesn't want it, is the child going to grow up in an appropriate environment? Will the child end up in foster care (which will cost taxpayers even more)? I didn't say anything that would explicitly deny women a choice, I only suggested that they should be the ones to raise the child in case the father does not want it. If you mean women will not be able to keep the baby, if they cannot afford it, then maybe an abortion is best for both.
A better way would be to simply get every male to bank sperm before being sterilised. That way they can start saving up to afford a child - when they have enough to keep the child they apply to a willing woman to become pregnant and then support her at least during the first year until she can return to work while taking fiscal care of the offspring My way would do away with abortions almost totally by making every pregnancy a wanted pregnancy
Yes and of course that is the best thing for the courts to do presently. But if what I suggested was the case, the question of who would be held responsible for the baby would have been determined prior to the child's birth, and therefore there wouldn't be a trial afterwards. I'm glad that you see where the problem lies, I understand that it's women who should have the choice because it's their bodies that will bear the infant, and by the way, I only suggested option #1 to address people with a "pro-life" perspective, but my only real concern is the financial part.
Women have been rearing children unwanted by their fathers for centuries, and while it may not be ideal, most children do OK. Men have the unfortunate habit of seeing greener grass elsewhere and leaving the children for mom to rear. I don't like the idea of women intentionally birthing children just for themselves if they know no father is going to be available, but as we say, it's her choice. I expect abortion would be the best choice in more situations, but people are already squawking about the number of them, and an increase because of deadbeat dads would be torrential.
I don't think Anti-Choicers like that term "Deabeat Dad". I think they prefer "King and Ruler who doesn't never needs to take personal responisibility because he has a penis". The Anti-Choicers in here think that men should decide if a woman should have an abortion or not and it's OK with them if he commands her to get an abortion. Then , when achild is born according to Anti-Choicers in here, , it should just be thrown out into the street with NO support from it's parents. They place no value on real live living children and insist that the father scurry away because they prefer to have more women and children on Welfare so they can beat them over the head for that!
I never said you did. It was about Anti-Choicers who: .... think that men should decide if a woman should have an abortion or not and it's OK with them if he commands her to get an abortion. Then , when a child is born according to Anti-Choicers in here, , it should just be thrown out into the street with NO support from it's parents. They place no value on real live living children and insist that the father scurry away because they prefer to have more women and children on Welfare so they can beat them over the head for that!
Thats right...your against any restrictions on abortion...even in the ninth month. So for you anything would be a violation of her rights. You give her total control. So then you also...should she have the child...believe that the financial burden should be hers, right? Especially if the father does not want it. Either way...her burden. - - - Updated - - - And you finger pointers....would just as soon kill the child out of the womb...if the mother doesn't want it. Again....Gosnell your hero. Your back is against the wall again...why don't you just give up? LOL
But you said the mother owns what she carries in the womb. That all decisions should be hers. So in that case....the financial burden...would be hers. This is how nature set this up..right? Since you don't believe in God...I won't bring Him up. For you nature was cruel right?...To force women's bodies... to have the children. Amazing how evolution worked. So why do you want to force something on the father that he might not want? How can you fault men for doing what men can do? Why call them names, that is horrible. How narrow-minded and cruel this is. The fact is the feminist hates men...and only wants to use them to their advantage, for what they can get out of them. And in most cases...it's only money. Even Sanger your hero said.....""The marriage bed is the most degenerating influence in the social order," Sanger said. (p. 23)
If the child is born, neither of the parents should get away without supporting it. That's unreasonable and immoral. I suggested a predetermination of responsibility to make sure the child will be supported and not end up in foster care, and to avoid trials afterwards. Would you be opposed to that?
What are "finger pointers' and what are they pointing at? Of course since you never have proof of anything you don't have proof that "finger pointers" ""would just as soon kill the child outside the womb"". MY back is against the wall? It's YOU who can't answer questions......seems like you have given up...that's probably for the best...
