It may sound cold, but I view abortion in terms of contract law. The parties involved made an implied agreement. That implied agreement should have some legal status and give rights to the potential mother and potential father. Unless the woman's health is directly threatened, the issue must be decided by both parents. This allows the fathers to have true parental rights instead of what they have now which is simply the right to support a child regardless of personal input.
debateman Wrote:Unless the woman's health is directly threatened, the issue must be decided by both parents.
When the man is pregnant for half of the pregnancy, I'll agree with that.
Spirit Wrote:debateman Wrote:Unless the woman's health is directly threatened, the issue must be decided by both parents.
When the man is pregnant for half of the pregnancy, I'll agree with that.
I'll agree to the woman have the exclusive right when the man has the right to not pay a single dime to raise the child if he is opposed to the birth. In the status quo, the man has few rights and many responsibilities. If the man wants the child, he should be able to rent the womb considering the fact that the woman consented to conception in the first place.
This of course does not apply to rape and incest and in cases where medical professionals deem the mothers life to be in grave danger.
debateman Wrote:I'll agree to the woman have the exclusive right when the man has the right to not pay a single dime to raise the child if he is opposed to the birth. In the status quo, the man has few rights and many responsibilities. If the man wants the child, he should be able to rent the womb considering the fact that the woman consented to conception in the first place.
This of course does not apply to rape and incest and in cases where medical professionals deem the mothers life to be in grave danger.
But who does that hurt in the end? The child. It's not the child's fault that daddy didn't want him/her so that means that he doesn't have to pay child support.
If the man doesn't want to pay child support, well. He could get away with it. Let's face it. This society fails its mothers and the children involved. Why else is it that, upon a divorce with children involved, the woman's general standard of living falls ~20-25% and the man's rises ~10%? It's because men can get away with not paying half of the medical bills and the child support. I know my "father" did.
Spirit Wrote:debateman Wrote:I'll agree to the woman have the exclusive right when the man has the right to not pay a single dime to raise the child if he is opposed to the birth. In the status quo, the man has few rights and many responsibilities. If the man wants the child, he should be able to rent the womb considering the fact that the woman consented to conception in the first place.
This of course does not apply to rape and incest and in cases where medical professionals deem the mothers life to be in grave danger.
But who does that hurt in the end? The child. It's not the child's fault that daddy didn't want him/her so that means that he doesn't have to pay child support.
If the man doesn't want to pay child support, well. He could get away with it. Let's face it. This society fails its mothers and the children involved. Why else is it that, upon a divorce with children involved, the woman's general standard of living falls ~20-25% and the man's rises ~10%? It's because men can get away with not paying half of the medical bills and the child support. I know my "father" did.
Terminating the child is the ultimate hurt. It's not the child's fault that the mother doesn't want him/her.
If you want to terminate or proceed, both parties should have, and uphold responsibilities. We should also have stricter enforcement of current laws to ensure the children we are having are taken care of.