I was reading this blog article in HuffyPost from about 2 years ago. The author brings up a point where she says:
"While pro-choice legislation makes the rights of the mother clear, at what point is a father able to say,'I do not want this child'? Whether pro-life or pro-choice, we should all be able to agree that the quality of life is just as important as life itself, and when faced with the pivotal decision of whether or not to continue a pregnancy, both parents must be included in the dialogue. If not, ultimately, it is the child who suffers."
She goes on and provides data of situations of children growing in fatherless homes
• 63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes
• 90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes
• 85% of all children who show behavior disorders come from fatherless homes
• 80% of rapists with anger problems come from fatherless homes
• 71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes
• 75% of all adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers come from fatherless homes
• 70% of youths in state-operated institutions come from fatherless homes.
• 85% of all youths in prison come from fatherless homes.
So undoubtedly the right for a woman to choose is obviously non negotiable. If a woman decides based on her situation that she does not want a child because of her reasoning, she has the right to abort her pregnancy without the approval of anyone other than herself. But the does the same rules apply for no one being able to endure a man to be financially responsible for a child that he did not want?
Another question to look at is if a man and woman have sex, they both know the consequences of a possible pregnancy. To which a woman can abort out of. But if a man and woman have sex, does the man have the right to have the woman to carry his child to term even the woman does not want to? (Talking about consensual sex, not rape or any of that stuff). Keep in mind that she knows the consequence of a possible pregnancy as well.
Keep in mind this is about a specific situation such as consensual sex not rape. Obviously matters of rape would nullify the discussion which I am aware of.
Moderators, I've now received BR's reply here three times several hours apart. Is there a bug in the software?
What if the woman lies to the man and says she is on the pill, or infertile? Lies are rife when it comes to persuading another person to have sex. Lies are not a male prerogative.
Under the current circumstances, adults are aware that sex can cause pregnancy. If the 'Morning After' pill is readily available, and/or contraception is seriously contemplated and applied, then pregnancy aversion has already been decided upon. If a man is aware that he can be legally bound to finance any potential child, then he really does have fair warning.
It seems that there is no clear answer to equality, or even parity in this matter. If I was a fertile male in the current legislative environment, I guess I'd be damn careful where I planted my seeds.
True...in the current legislative environment. Both parties should be taking precautions, but a someone who's experienced enough sex to have brought a "mistake" into being (my daughter, who I love like life itself), I can tell you that in the heat of the moment...well, you know the rest. We don't always do what is wise when sex is involved.
Have you read my analogy of the couple who win a puppy that the woman wants but the man does not?
Yes I read it - but the law doesn't insist he carries on paying the vet bills, inoculations, food and other care if the couple split up.
I think that's at the heart of the topic we're talking about: what's the key difference between the pet analogy and supporting a child the man doesn't want? It's the law butting in.
Women only have the upper hand when they stop being so easily romanced by taking male blabberings at face value and by taking personal (not shared) responsibility for both birth control and for the aftermath if conception occurs. If you want a guy to have to follow up on verbal commitments, turn them into written contractual commitments. If he rapes her, of course he should be financially liable for the child but totally without visitation rights.
P.S., what ass is going to believe commitments made by a guy with a raging hard-on?
what if the man lies to her
Probably not the best choice of partner to have a child with then. What situation is this likely to occur in? a one night stand (terrible choice for a child), a young relationship (still terrible)? I don't think this would ever occur in a mature relationship. Maybe I am under-estimating my gender... in which case, I don't want to live on this planet anymore (or at least not with other men on it).
This may seem cynical about my own sex, but I would want my daughter to know never to trust a hard-on.
Yeah, that's why I said don't trust a hard-on. Just as many men wanting sex will say whatever it takes, there are also women who have a figurative hard-on (conscious or unconscious) to get in the family way.
This question involves a thorny legal dilemma. On the one hand, it's the woman's body and she is certainly entitled to the last word when it comes to whether to carry a child to term or end the pregnancy through abortion.
Our sympathies go to the man who should at least have the right to say "Okay, but I'm not prepared to be a parent and disown the product of this pregnancy."
At the same time, the courts generally want to see that any child who is born has the parental financial support. The interest of the child is paramount.
I can see the issues. Do I have a solution? No.
Unseen, you've come closer to a solution than anyone else who has posted: you've seen that taxpayers have a right to not have to pay for irresponsibly conceived children.
Of course they don't, but they choose to in the interest of the children who, after all, didn't ask to be conceived.