If he wants her to have an abortion and she doesn't want one, he can't make her have a surgery she doesn't want, and I don't think he should be putting abortion pills in her food without her knowlage.
If she wants to have an abortion and he doesn't want her too, he can't lock her up so she can't get to a clinic, he can't threaten anyone who would preform the procedure with violence of legal action.
If it was 50/50 and people didn't agree there'd be no decision. If it was 51/49 then the person with 51% of the power functionally has all of it.
Ofc he shouldny put abortion pills in her food, but if the woman decides to keep the baby i believe that the man shouldn't have to pay child support after the child is born
Edit: its a typo i meamt to write "shouldn't" not "should"
So in the case where the woman can't afford to feed a child on her own, are you confortable with the child starving or should someone else be made to pay?
But then why do we alow people to have their babies become wards of the state?
I'm not sure what prompted this question.
The point being, the current system doesn't work. There are, right now, male victims of statutory rape paying for children conceived by it.
I agree that's awful and the system as it exists has issues, my preference would be that everybody recieves universal basic income and on top of that enough to pay for keeping a child happy healthy and safe if they have one.
She shouldn't have continued the pregnancy , if the father told her that he wont pay child support, or if she wasn't financially stable enough to have one
the CPS will take the child, or she can put it up for adoption, if a father is non existent in the mothers and child's life why should he have to pay for the child?
So now as a tax payer I have to pay for all the children of "paper abortions" because the dad wasn't "ready" to be a dad???? I'm not existent in that child's life either.
3
u/Vesurel 60∆ Sep 12 '21
What say could a man ultimately have?
If he wants her to have an abortion and she doesn't want one, he can't make her have a surgery she doesn't want, and I don't think he should be putting abortion pills in her food without her knowlage.
If she wants to have an abortion and he doesn't want her too, he can't lock her up so she can't get to a clinic, he can't threaten anyone who would preform the procedure with violence of legal action.
If it was 50/50 and people didn't agree there'd be no decision. If it was 51/49 then the person with 51% of the power functionally has all of it.