I mean "should" as in "if she doesn't want to raise it herself, she 'should' have an abortion". That can easily be changed to could. She could if she wants to, or not. Her choice. No duty nor obligation. Sorry...
Abortion is not the same as flippantly signing a piece of paper disavowing legal responsibility for one's offspring. Many people view it as tantamount to murder and would never even consider it. Many others view it as something that's not quite that bad, but still something that's awful and would be extremely upset if they had to make that decision. To just callously say that she "should" have had an abortion unless she wants to raise the kid herself is the opposite of choice: it's making abortion into a DUTY...something that she had better do if she wants to avoid getting shouldered with the ENTIRE financial burden of caring for the child.
It is all about her choice and talking about when it is concieved is to miss the point entirely...
Umm it IS about conception. That's why the courts don't order random people to pay child support for children they had nothing to do with; the responsibility is on the biological parents unless otherwise specified.
It is NOT "all about her choice"; it's a child who needs to be supported, not a punishment for the actions of one or both parents. The adults in question are not the only ones whose interests are at stake...and more specifically, the MAN in question is not the only one whose interest is at stake.
The man chooses to do the right thing and care for his kid.
The man to run away from his financial obligations.
Jeez. Such emotional hatred.
It isn't a "kid". It is a zygote.
It will soon become a kid and need to be supported. Actually, it needs to be financially supported even as a zygote. Many woman don't bother to press the issue legally and it's usually not resolved until after the birth, but in most states a man is technically on the hook for half of her maternity costs as well. As he should be.
And I notice you didn't address the actual point of that section: A woman unilaterally deciding to have an abortion doesn't make the man any worse off financially; a man unilaterally deciding to disown his kids DOES make the woman worse off financially.
That being said, I pay far more than 50% and I would bet that most men do that have some custody of their children. I pay for 100% of my time with them, around 50% of the week and I pay her for much of her time with them as well.
I had a feeling that this was all about you and your selfish desire to avoid paying for your children. What an immature rant.
I have pointed out that this is a disingenuous argument at it's core. It is analogous to saying that a homosexual can marry equally as a heterosexual can. If a man can't get pregnant, to say that he has equal rights to an abortion is dishonest and misleading.
Abortion is not the same as a man disavowing responsibility because if a woman has an abortion, it doesn't make the man any worse off financially. In fact, it makes them both better off (financially) than if she'd had the child. If the man disavows responsibility for his kid, it makes himself better off and the woman worse off.
She has the ultimate birth control... abortion. If she does not want to raise a child on her own she "COULD" get an abortion. It is her choice. There is no kid yet, it is a zygote. Neither have any responsiblity since there is no kid.
This is simply incorrect. From the moment the offspring is conceived (whatever label you want to use), both parents are expected to contribute to its financial wellbeing until it becomes an adult or until it dies. There are some states where women are unfortunately expected to bear the cost of the entire pregnancy, but I believe they are in the minority. And they should be nonexistent.
She CHOOSES to let the pregnancy continue. It is her CHOICE to let the zygote evolve. Nobody is or will force her... certainly not the man in question. She has free will to abort or not abort. If she chooses to abort, fine. If she chooses to not abort, fine. Forcing that man to be repsonsible for her "CHOICE" lacks logic at it's core and you have said LITERALLY NOTHING to refute that.
If you want to turn the "right" to an abortion into a "duty" to get an abortion, you are entitled to that ignorant opinion. But don't pretend that that isn't what you are arguing. No one is "forcing the man" to do anything; he was on the hook for his share of the financial costs for raising the kid to age 18 the moment that their child was conceived. And regardless of whether or not the woman has an abortion, her actions will not increase his share of the costs. It will either eliminate them entirely (if she has an abortion) or maintain the status quo in terms of his financial responsibilities (if she doesn't).
There is no "kid". There also is no "child" or "baby". It is a group of cells known as a "ZYGOTE". Got it?
It is her choice to continue the pregnancy until it becomes a kid. Deal with that and about her choice. All you are doing with the rest is to create tangents and alter the point of the argument away from her choice and onto some mythical "responsibility" that he has for a zygote.
Call it what you like. I use "child" as a neutral term to mean their offspring at whatever stage of development. But depending on where you live you may be incorrect if you believe that the man's financial responsibilities are "mythical" until the baby is born. That may have been YOUR experience if you didn't help pay for maternal care and no one forced you to, but it's not what the law of many states says, and it's not what common decency would dictate REGARDLESS of legal responsibility.
