The male has no say in whether the female keeps it. But as the child of a single mother, i believe the father shouldn't be forced to pay child support. If you can't support the kid, and don't want to give it up to people who can, then you don't deserve any money for your stupid choices. You had the kid, you carried the kid, you ignored the father's wishes, you suffer.
Whoever wants, and can afford the kid, should get to have it. Love means nothing if you can't provide for a child who didn't ask to be born.
Ah. Are you saying if the man wants the child but it's ultimately up to the mother whether to have an abortion or not, if she chooses no against the mans will and goes ahead with the abortive procedure she'll have to pay child support to the man for 18 years even thou the fetus has already been flushed.... That's an interesting perspective
Hmm? If the fetus has been aborted then there isn't any reason for talk of child support at all.
If the man is hurt that his kid wasn't born he can easily go make more. Hopefully with a woman who actually wants to carry his child
I'm saying that fathers have no say in whether the kid is aborted or not. And mothers who had a kid as a result of consensual adult sex deserve no sympathy or money for their actions.
If a man wants his kid and can provide for it better than the mother, then the kid should go to him.
It's a very slippery subjust because this one can go into a third trimester abortion aka "partial birth abortion" There's no such thing as "a little bit pregnant" either you are or aren't.
I'd say if it was consensual and she got pregnant and he wanted the kid he can pay her spousal support for 9 months and have the kid sparing the tax payer the Partial Birth Abortion procedure cost for her mistake.
The public shouldn't be funding procedures for people that said "whoops I made a mistake, oh well" just like they shouldn't be funding sex change operations
That last bit of my comment means tax payers shouldn't be paying for someone elses mistake (abortion) especially when there's countless contraceptives out there which boils down to irresponsibility, the next step is already here, tax payers paying for sex changes.
I don't think you see the part where people need to take responsibility for their actions, its like having car insurance except there's no "abortion insurance" and somebody has to pay.
"but she may not find the experience worth the money"
Ok sure fine but what if she doesn't have the money for an abortion due to her irresponsibility? Then either the FATHER provides support for 9 months and gets sole custody of the baby or oh yeah, it isn't worth the MONEY to her, then she shall get one publicly funded abortion and if it happens again it's mandatory sterilization, although I'd opt for the first. Sound fair?
Some women do need to stop having children without settling down.
If it happens more than once it's no longer an accident.
First time abortions can have valid reasons, mainly health related. Though that risk alone should warrant greater caution when having sex.
If the government can put a price on children, then they can pay for the children.
For your idea, in addition to the 9 months, the father should also provide for the time it'll take the woman to heal and fully recover. Once the woman is healthy enough to work and continue on with her life his job would be done.
And since you bring up sterilization, keep in mind that is easier for a man to have his "tubes" tied and they can still be untied. Whereas its permanent for a woman and not all of them can have it.
Hypothetically Speaking
← View full post
The male has no say in whether the female keeps it. But as the child of a single mother, i believe the father shouldn't be forced to pay child support. If you can't support the kid, and don't want to give it up to people who can, then you don't deserve any money for your stupid choices. You had the kid, you carried the kid, you ignored the father's wishes, you suffer.
Whoever wants, and can afford the kid, should get to have it. Love means nothing if you can't provide for a child who didn't ask to be born.
--
LittleGirlBeatenAndSodomized
7 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Ah. Are you saying if the man wants the child but it's ultimately up to the mother whether to have an abortion or not, if she chooses no against the mans will and goes ahead with the abortive procedure she'll have to pay child support to the man for 18 years even thou the fetus has already been flushed.... That's an interesting perspective
--
Grimaldi
7 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Hmm? If the fetus has been aborted then there isn't any reason for talk of child support at all.
If the man is hurt that his kid wasn't born he can easily go make more. Hopefully with a woman who actually wants to carry his child
I'm saying that fathers have no say in whether the kid is aborted or not. And mothers who had a kid as a result of consensual adult sex deserve no sympathy or money for their actions.
If a man wants his kid and can provide for it better than the mother, then the kid should go to him.
--
LittleGirlBeatenAndSodomized
7 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
It's a very slippery subjust because this one can go into a third trimester abortion aka "partial birth abortion" There's no such thing as "a little bit pregnant" either you are or aren't.
I'd say if it was consensual and she got pregnant and he wanted the kid he can pay her spousal support for 9 months and have the kid sparing the tax payer the Partial Birth Abortion procedure cost for her mistake.
The public shouldn't be funding procedures for people that said "whoops I made a mistake, oh well" just like they shouldn't be funding sex change operations
--
Grimaldi
7 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Pay her to carry the baby and give it to him once its born? Sounds reasonable, but she may not find the experience worth the money.
And if the government isn't willing to pay for abortions, then it needs to lower the cost of adoption.
As for the last bit of your comment, that's a bit random and highly irrelevant
--
LittleGirl-BASHEDandSODOMISED
7 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
That last bit of my comment means tax payers shouldn't be paying for someone elses mistake (abortion) especially when there's countless contraceptives out there which boils down to irresponsibility, the next step is already here, tax payers paying for sex changes.
I don't think you see the part where people need to take responsibility for their actions, its like having car insurance except there's no "abortion insurance" and somebody has to pay.
"but she may not find the experience worth the money"
Ok sure fine but what if she doesn't have the money for an abortion due to her irresponsibility? Then either the FATHER provides support for 9 months and gets sole custody of the baby or oh yeah, it isn't worth the MONEY to her, then she shall get one publicly funded abortion and if it happens again it's mandatory sterilization, although I'd opt for the first. Sound fair?
--
Grimaldi
7 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
See More Comments =>
Some women do need to stop having children without settling down.
If it happens more than once it's no longer an accident.
First time abortions can have valid reasons, mainly health related. Though that risk alone should warrant greater caution when having sex.
If the government can put a price on children, then they can pay for the children.
For your idea, in addition to the 9 months, the father should also provide for the time it'll take the woman to heal and fully recover. Once the woman is healthy enough to work and continue on with her life his job would be done.
And since you bring up sterilization, keep in mind that is easier for a man to have his "tubes" tied and they can still be untied. Whereas its permanent for a woman and not all of them can have it.