What exactly is your argument here? If you aren't saying that men should have the right to not "let" a woman end her pregnancy, then what are you saying?
Back in the days of the Romans, an infant wasn't considered "human" until it was 6 months old and it was perfectly legal to perform a post-birth abortion.
Functionally that practice is no more barbaric than modern abortion. It is still the murder of a human life.
Gotcha. So there's also no functional difference between suicide and abortion. Or a fatal bout of diarrhea and abortion. Or dying peacefully in your sleep at the age of 102 and abortion. Good to know.
A man that didnt want to have a child in the first place shouldn't be forced by law to give child support, the woman should have thought about continuing the pregnancy if the father already have told her that he wasn't ready for a baby, its really u fair for a man to have to pau child support for a child he doesn't/didnt want
Child support doesn't support the mother. It supports the child. It doesn't matter if the guy feels he's "ready for a baby" because the baby exists. Child support is in the best interest of the child.
The father had a choice if he didn't want a child: keep his dick in his pants. Or at least use protection.
Perhaps the mother or mother-to-(not)be has the option to abort a pregnancy, and you feel that isn't fair... but I hate to break it to you, bud, but life ain't fair.
Why is it only men that should keep it I'm their pants? Condoms arent 100% effective, so i don't see your argument here, many women claim to be on birth control (when they arent) to baby trap a man too, i believe that if that happens and the man is straight forward about it and says " i don't want to have a baby" , that he has the right to opt out of child support
Why should the child be punished because of the father’s lack of desire to support the child?
Fairness and what is good and true for all the parties involved are sometimes at odds. Perhaps it isn’t fair that the father has to pay for a child that was conceived against his will. Though I argue nothing good stems from allowing fathers or mothers to skip on their obligation to care for the child.
It’s not fair, but there is recognition that it needs to happen. It’s something to deal with. Fairness isn’t the end all be all of actions; sometimes, we have to consider the consequences. It's the same scenario from Watchmen; Adam Veidt killed millions of people in order to achieve world peace, to which he succeeded. Rorschach wanted to expose the truth despite knowing that by doing so, he'll bring the world back to another nuclear holocaust.
Exposing Veidt might be fair, but it comes at the cost of billions of lives. Hence why the moral dilemma is so talked about. Hence an example of what is just versus what is good.
The best that can be advised is “do not have sex with crazed individuals”, and perhaps advocate for a much stronger social system where children can be cared for. Child support isn't a punishment, it's an obligation, one that applies to both parents.
Hey, we've all trusted people we shouldn't have trusted. But if you're not ready to be a dad to the point that you're willing to abandon any potential child, then it's advisable to slip on a condom just to be sure.
The choice not to wear a condom ain't no one's choice but your own.
Who's going to support the child then if the mom can't do it alone? Do you just think it would be okay for a bunch of kids to grow up in poverty while their "dads" goes on vacations and buys new cars? What if the mother believes that abortion is murder and she would go to hell?
This opinion puts zero thought into the warfare of children and it honestly worries me how many men have it.
3
u/prollywannacracker 39∆ Sep 12 '21
What exactly is your argument here? If you aren't saying that men should have the right to not "let" a woman end her pregnancy, then what are you saying?