"The right of abortion is not there to give women a easy way out of financial responsibility. It is there to give woman a option to decide what happens to their body."
You should go pro-life then, because that is exactly what abortion is used for. I can't say "the majority of the time" but I'd wager it.
"Her reason for this decision is independent of her right. In this moment the child reaches the state of being able to live independent of her body she has to fulfill the same responsibilities as the father toward the child."
No. She doesn't. She never did have to. So why is it her descision to force the father to do so if she never had to?
"No, because it is about the child’s right to be supported by its parents after it is born."
As cruel as this sounds, the child has no such right. Children never did. It's why there are orphans.
edited 18th Jan '11 5:04:53 PM by CommandoDude
Actually, Commando Dude, non-custodial mothers also have to pay child support. Once a child is born, neither parent can just up and disown it if the other one wants to keep it.
The system is as fair as we can make it unless we a) manage to defeat biology or b) decide, as a society, that children are important enough to support communally (i.e. with taxes) when necessary.
"non-custodial mothers also have to pay child support."
Only if the father takes custody. And if there's a custody battle, the mother has somethink like an 80% favorage over the father.
Which pretty much means, if the mother doesn't want the child but the father does, there's a high probability that she'll abort.
She is not legally empowered to compel him to bear a child on her behalf.
Going through a pregnancy is not equal to financially supporting a child, not least because both sexes can do the latter but only one can do the former. It's as fair as we can make it for the time being. Child support isn't a payment demanded of the man by the woman, it's a payment for the child demanded of the non-custodial parent by the state.
I was talking about financial support not pregnancy.
"Child support isn't a payment demanded of the man by the woman"
This is however, the de facto state of things.
edited 18th Jan '11 5:45:50 PM by CommandoDude
It's not fair to demand money from someone who doesn't want anything to do with said child or was even intentionally misled into having fathered the child.
Great, it's the only thing keeping me and my mother afloat after my father died.
edited 18th Jan '11 6:13:32 PM by thatguythere47
Is using "Julian Assange is a Hillary butt plug" an acceptable signature quote?Because if you do that, the one person who literally had no choice in the matter—the child (remember the child?)—is deprived of adequate support. Unwilling paternity sucks, but it's literally the best we can do for now. It's not fair that I have to spend money on tampons and Midol every month and you don't, but you don't see me demanding a socialist "That Time of the Month" fund. I just soldier on.
Sorry if that sounds like I'm making light of the issue; I'm sick and can't think of a less eye-rolling analogy.
"Because if you do that, the one person who literally had no choice in the matter—the child (remember the child?)—is deprived of adequate support."
That's not always the case. In fact, child support abuse is quite common. How is the mother forfeiting her responsibilities any different? She'll either prevent the child from ever being born or throw the kid into social services.
"the best we can do for now."
That's only your opinion.
"It's not fair that I have to spend money on tampons and Midol every month and you don't, but you don't see me demanding a socialist "That Time of the Month" fund."
It's not fair that I have to spend money on dandruff shampoo every month and you don't, but you don't see me making bogus comparisons that aren't even close to the same.
Many, many parents raise their children alone already and deadbeat parents don't pay what they owe and the courts can't do much about it. If the parent isn't willing to pay the child goes without assistance anyway.
Is using "Julian Assange is a Hillary butt plug" an acceptable signature quote?The most common reason why women get abortions is because they cannot afford to raise a child.
I think that it's up to the woman whether she wants to keep or terminate her pregnancy, but the man also has the right to sever all legal ties to the child if he does not want it.
Would you kindly click my dragons?Lets turn this around. Lets say a woman hires another woman to be a genstation surrogate for her, after a few weeks the surrogate gets cold feet and has an abortion. Should the woman have the right to stop the surrogate from having an abortion?
edited 18th Jan '11 11:40:34 PM by joeyjojo
hashtagsarestupidWith the "paper abortion" issue, though, the debate isn't over men's bodies, but men's money. Why people keep equating the two is beyond me. You can make an argument that people have the right to use the money they earn as they see fit, but it's not in the same league of argument as autonomy over one's body.
In the case of the surrogate, I see no reason why the genetic mother can't get an injunction against an abortion. The surrogate mother made a legal contract of her own will. At the very least, the genetic mother should be able to sue her for considerable damages, considering the nature of the broken contract.
Belief or disbelief rests with you.

thatguythere just came up with the only elegant solution to this problem I've ever seen.
If someone else pays child support, the father is released from all legal responsibility without leaving the child unsupported. And of course, the only entity that can give money to all single mothers is the government.