Tale of a 19th-century abortion provider

[delalluvia]

Right. Maybe I wasn't clear. If the woman aborts the baby that the man wanted, she should compensate him. This is similar to suing someone in civil court for a wrongful death.

It's not comparable.  The woman has a perfect right to abortion if that's what she wanted.

What you're suggesting is that the partner is owed something.

If that's the case, and the man is owed money by the woman for not having his child, then if he doesn't want anything to do with the child, then not only does he owe her money for child support he also has to pay her as well because he didn't act as she might have wanted.

I get that part, but why should he have to pay to help raise a child that he didn't want. The woman who has the baby (against the man's wishes), and also gets child support, is literally having her cake and eating it too.

Because as my post said - did you read it?  - few men are willing to take all precautions necessary.  They usually have some bonehead excuse "She told me she was on the pill."  or "She's the one who gets pregnant so she should be the one who takes responsibility for birth control." for not going over the top in preventing conception.  So yes, unless they did all but have a vasectomy, when accidents happen, the male partner needs to be carefully scrutinized to see if he did all he could to prevent conception.  If he didn't, then yes, he bears responsibility as well as the woman.

[milomorris]

this is a very weird comparison. The woman isn´t commiting a crime when doing an abortion. Therefor no compensation should be awarded the male.

Civil court is not for criminal offenses.

[serious crayons]

I get that part, but why should he have to pay to help raise a child that he didn't want. The woman who has the baby (against the man's wishes), and also gets child support, is literally having her cake and eating it too.

I think men just have to get used to the idea that if they have sex with a woman, she may get pregnant. That's part of the deal, and the possibility of winding up with a child to support is a responsibility they take when they have the sex in the first place.

[milomorris]

I think men just have to get used to the idea that if they have sex with a woman, she may get pregnant. That's part of the deal, and the possibility of winding up with a child to support is a responsibility they take when they have the sex in the first place.

And likewise a woman has to get used to the idea that if she has sex with a man, she may get pregnant. But I do not believe that child support should necessarily be compulsory. There are so many permutations. What if the man want to get married, but she does not? Is he still liable for child support? And I still say that if the woman retains the right to carry to term, but the man wants an abortion, the woman should shoulder the responsibility for raising the child. She is, after all, making a unilateral decision to become a parent...in spite of the father's wishes.

[milomorris]

Few men are willing to take all precautions necessary.

Precautions are a two way street. And women do lie sometimes about their use of birth control. Both parties bear equal weight when it comes to conception. Just because the woman makes the ultimate choice as to whether or not to carry to term, does not mean that the man is not allowed to disagree with that, nor should be held responsible for the outcome of a decision that she made.

[Kelda]

I'm myself not totally comfortable with the idea of abortion - although I'm not sure how I;d react if I was in the situation.

I personally, don;t think I coud do it - but that's me.

I would say I am pro-choice becasue there is so many sceanarios where the choice is deserved, whether that be rape, disability of the child, or whatever.

What I do not agree with is women using abortion as a form of contraception. Too lazy to take precautions and think thats the easy way out.

[delalluvia]

And likewise a woman has to get used to the idea that if she has sex with a man, she may get pregnant. But I do not believe that child support should necessarily be compulsory. There are so many permutations. What if the man want to get married, but she does not? Is he still liable for child support? And I still say that if the woman retains the right to carry to term, but the man wants an abortion, the woman should shoulder the responsibility for raising the child. She is, after all, making a unilateral decision to become a parent...in spite of the father's wishes.

Because it's still his child.  She didn't get pregnant by herself.  The child needs care - why should it suffer just because one parent doesn't want to take responsibility for his own actions?

Child support isn't about funding a mother's lifestyle, it's about supporting a child.

[delalluvia]

Precautions are a two way street. And women do lie sometimes about their use of birth control. Both parties bear equal weight when it comes to conception. Just because the woman makes the ultimate choice as to whether or not to carry to term, does not mean that the man is not allowed to disagree with that, nor should be held responsible for the outcome of a decision that she made.

Yes, some women do lie, hence the need for men to not take any claim at face value and to take their own precautions.  If they don't, then they have an equal responsibility in whatever happens - whether abortion or bringing a child into this world.

Big responsibility isn't it?  Guess men need to think more before whipping it out of their pants and not worrying about birth control.

[Kelda]

Right. Maybe I wasn't clear. If the woman aborts the baby that the man wanted, she should compensate him. This is similar to suing someone in civil court for a wrongful death.

I get that part, but why should he have to pay to help raise a child that he didn't want. The woman who has the baby (against the man's wishes), and also gets child support, is literally having her cake and eating it too.

But surely if the woman is made to have the baby the man then should:
 
a) compensate the woman for making her go through months of unwanted pregnancy.
b) compensate the woman for having to deal with the child post birth.

[milomorris]

Because it's still his child.  She didn't get pregnant by herself.  The child needs care - why should it suffer just because one parent doesn't want to take responsibility for his own actions?

I'm not talking about absolving men of their responsibilities to their children. I'm talking about a man and a woman coming to a mutually beneficial arrangement regarding family planning. If she wants the child and he wants an abortion, he can't force her to have one. But to then deliver the child, and turn around and demand that the man pay child support is selfish and greedy. More to the point of this conversation, it takes away the man's choices, while leaving the woman's choices 100% intact.

The way I see it, leving the man's finances out of a situation like that is a win-win. The woman gets her baby, and the man keeps his money. He should be able to go to family court, state his case, and let the court decide whether or not child support should be waived.

On the flip side of the coin, when the woman wants to abort, but the man wants the child, I think either civil or family court should make itself available to address the issue of compensation due the father for the loss of his child. While a child cannot be replaced by the court, they can certainly compensate the man for his investment (time, money, etc.) in the relationship, as well as for the emotional trauma of losing the child that he helped to create.

The man gets compensation, and the woman get to make her choice. Again, its a win-win.

Child support isn't about funding a mother's lifestyle, it's about supporting a child.

Riiiiiight. And people use the company cell phone only for business calls. In spirit I agree. In practice, things are quite different.