If a guy get a girl pregnant, but is not financially able to support the child, and requests that the girl have an abortion, but she choses not to, should he still be sued for child support?

Comments

• Well said!!!

  • Report
  

  by NightOwl on June 2nd, 2007

• I suspect the hidden point is why. If she can make the decision alone. Then why not suffer the consequences alone? For example in the reverse. What if he wanted the child but she did not. Does he then have the right to force her to bear. The answer in most cases is no. There you see the disparity.

  • Report
  

  by -O-uknow on June 2nd, 2007

• The point is: She didn't make the decision to have sex alone, therefore the man is just as responsible no matter what she chooses to do (have the baby or not). It was his choice to have unprotected sex when he wasn't ready for a child, now he has to deal with it.

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on June 3rd, 2007

• The "missing" point is the decision to have sex was not alone. Then why is the decision whether or not to have the child done alone? What if he is ready and wants to "deal with it" but she is not?

  • Report
  

  by -O-uknow on June 3rd, 2007

• It's ultimately NOT the man's choice. She's ready to accept her responsibility for having sex, so why should he have to do the same?

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on June 3rd, 2007

• Why is it her choice alone to have or not have the child?

  • Report
  

  by -O-uknow on June 3rd, 2007

• Because she is the one who has to carry and give birth to it, not to mention the fact that SHE'LL be tied to it for the rest of her life, while in most cases the father runs off and shirks his responsibility.

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on June 3rd, 2007

• There you go. I've been waiting. It's "her" body and she is more "invested". Therefore she carries the "greater" responsibility for not getting pregnant, but luckily tis a matter resolved in the courts.

  • Report
  

  by -O-uknow on June 3rd, 2007

• I don't see how the woman possibly carries a greater responsibility for not getting pregnant, since it takes TWO people to engage in the sexual act (which last time I checked, aside from artificial insemenation, is the ONLY way to get pregnant). that's why BOTH parties are equally responsible once the child is born.

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on June 3rd, 2007

• Aye..once the child is born..agreed, but don't be naive. The one who bears the greater consequence as you yourself have indicated. Bears the greater responsibility..right or wrong. No one is more apt to look after your best interest than you are yourself. Don't think that because the law makes him responsible he feels this way himself.. despite your pleas. Although both participated in procreation. The decision to have the child is not equally his. Until this disparity is resolved socially, not just in the courts. You can expect resistance from the male to take on the responsibility both the law and society demands.

  • Report
  

  by -O-uknow on June 3rd, 2007

• I never said that the woman carries the greater responsibility. I said that in most cases it's the WOMAN who ends up BEING the responsible one after the guy runs out on her. You're the one being naive. It takes TWO people to conceive a child. It only takes ONE woman to carry and birth a child. When men start becoming pregnant, then they can decide whether or not to HAVE a baby. Until then, they are legally bound to provide financial support for any children they helped conceive. They aren't legally bound to be a FATHER to those children, just to be financially responsible for them (AS IS THE MOTHER, by the way).

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on June 4th, 2007

• "I said" the woman ultimately carries the greater responsibility since it is her choice alone whether or not to have the child. We both understand that legally they both share equal responsibility if she does decide to have it, but as you indicated this does not bound the male to be a FATHER to the child. The unfortunate consequence of the female making the sole decision is that the male in too many cases often opts not to be. This is the issue I believe receives little attention and cannot be settled in the courts due to a woman's rights over her body. So it must be settled socially.

  • Report
  

  by -O-uknow on June 4th, 2007

• I don't think it's "unfortunate" that a man who obviously isn't cracked up to be a dad in the first place refuses to be a father to their child. In cases like that, the kid is better off without some resentful "father figure" in their life anyway. The reason it's the woman's choice is because it's her body. It's also because if the woman chooses to have the baby, it's already pretty obvious that she's going to be a mother to that child as best she can. A woman doesn't usually have a baby and then say "oops, I didn't mean to do that!" (although it DOES happen, but it's not what I would consider normal). Like I said, you can't force a man to be a father but you CAN force him to take responsibility for his bad decision making by being financially responsible for a child he helped create (even if he never wanted it in the first place)

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on June 4th, 2007

• Very well said!! You are so right

  • Report
  

  by supermommy6 on December 10th, 2007

• It's not a question of who carries the "greater" responsibility for not getting pregnant. It's a question of who is going to suffer for nine months and then risk her life in childbirth.

  • Report
  

  by purplecows on August 13th, 2011

• condom

  • Report
  

  by Nutsy_Rail on December 11th, 2011