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.
This may seem cynical about my own sex, but I would want my daughter to know never to trust a hard-on.
Once a baby is on the way it's a little too late to assess the quality of partner, don't you think Unseen? At that point you simply have to make a decision in the here and now.
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.
taxpayers have a right to not have to pay for irresponsibly conceived children.
There's a difference between irresponsibly and accidentally...
@Rocky Is there another Rocky, or are you talking to yourself?
Anyway, I don't think anyone is asking to give the man control over the woman's body. The issue is that once she makes a decision independent of him, doesn't that make the birth and the consequences of the birth her responsibility as well rather than a joint responsibility.
See my example of the couple who enter a contest to try to win a trip to Ibiza but end up with a puppy instead. He doesn't want it, she does. How much responsibility should he have for the puppy if she gets her way and keeps it?
So, here's the analogy. The one couple wants to have sex (wants a trip to Ibiza) but get something different and not anticipated, a conception (a puppy). He doesn't want the baby (puppy), but she decides she does.
You are arguing then that since winning a puppy and not a trip was a possible outcome, he then should be equally responsible for the woman's puppy even though he doesn't want a puppy?
The puppy is linked to both by both having entered a contest to win a luxury trip. As long as abortion is a possibility and the choice whether to have it or not is 100% the female's, I think she assumes 100% of the responsibility at that point. I don't see that the sex linkage adds much to the equation. Not without some premises you haven't stated. Some women want to have their cake and eat it, too.
Besides, you have a major problem in convincing me. I believe all morality is subjective and not factual. You can't make it a fact that a father should support a child he doesn't want. You can legislate it and enforce it, but morality doesn't come into it at all.
If you like, though, llet's talk about the morality of bringing a child into the world without a father. Forcing the father to provide financial support doesn't thereby make him a "dad.' In fact, some women may want the money but may decide that the biological father isn't what they want as a father for the child. Once again, the male often has no choice in the matter. What about the morality of that situation?
I assumed we were discussing whether a man should have the legal right to abort/not care for a child that is his.
Not exactly. The question in the original post isn't about giving men the right to force a woman to abort, but whether she, through deciding to carrythe unexpected pregnancy to term, should be able to effectively create an obligation for him to support the child. Right now, typically, in the United States, she can.
Or, should a male be able to say, "We didn't go into this intending to create a child, so I want no part of it. If you want it, fine, but that is your decision and it is you, then, taking on the responsibility.
Creation, by its nature, is necessarily an intentional act. If God (you know, the imaginary one) had created the universe as a kind of "Oops!" nobody would be calling him the creator.