why is abortion acceptable but dodging child support is not?
if a woman can abort a child against the father's wishes, and it is socially acceptable for a woman to kill the fetus because she doesnt want it, even though the father did, then why on earth is it not ok for a father to leave and refuse to support a baby he did not want, but she did? where is the morality in that double standard? a father leaving and refusing to pay child support, in and of itsself, will not kill the child. abortion on the other hand, is the direct intentional killing and removal of a yet to be born child. what is wrong with this picture......?
also at any point during the pregnancy, mommy can change her mind and abort her once upon a time wanted baby, so dont try the one sided wanting the child arguement crap.... if it is acceptable for a woman to back out because she doesnt want it, then why is it unacceptable for a man to do the same?
- Anonymous2 weeks ago
May you NEVER have children cause you don’t deserve them!!!! You piece of shiiiiiit!!!!!
- KillmousekyLv 72 months ago
Legally & scientifically, your argument has no merit. No "child" has ever been aborted. A fetus isn't a human being. It merely has the potential to become one. As it isn't human, it can't be referred to as "child" or "baby." There's no "father," only a sperm donor. Unless & until a fetus survives a live birth & takes a breath, none of your emotion-laden terms apply. The pregnant woman has absolute hegemony over her own body.
In 1988, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in R. v. Morgenthal that the limits on abortion under S. 269 of Canada's Criminal Code denied a woman's rights under S. & of the Canadian Charter of Rights & Freedoms. The Section guaranteed to "everyone" the right to "... the security of the person ...". S. 269 was ruled to be "ultra vires" to s. 51(2) of the constitution of Canada & was struck down as having "no force or effect." Since that time, Canada has had no legislation pertaining to abortion at all.
Once a fetus achieves a live birth, it attains legal status as a "human being." It can then be referred to as a "child" or "baby." If a man had no wish to become a father, as he would be if the fetus becomes a human being, he had the option: No one put a gun to his head & forced him to have intercourse with the woman.
It's allowable for the woman to change her mind on the issue because she's the one who must carry the fetus & care for the child. If it should ever come to be that a man does that, then he may get an equal right. At present, the security of his person isn't denied or even infringed to any degree. He has no legal argument to make because he has no legal standing.
- 2 months ago
Very interesting topic. I think you've brought up a valid point that needs to be looked at. I've seen men close to me be financially destroyed due to unfair child support obligations. Of course each case is specific and small details can change.
- hiLv 52 months ago
Liberalism is a diabolical ideology which makes no sense.... Reminds me so much of communism which caused so much pain and destruction in Europe and it only came to an end because of Pope John Paul II..
If abortion isn't murder then why men who kill pregnant women are charged with double homicide?
if abortion isn't murder then why liberals get hysterical if you ask them whether they would support a parent's right to abort their gay child if it was possible to predict the child's sexual orientation in the womb?
Now, even though abortion is advertised and promoted as a "woman's right", I suspect that more than 50% of abortions take place because the father encouraged the mother to do it.. now, I'm not trying to excuse those mothers who decided to listen to their boyfriends (yes, boyfriends... abortion is usually the result of premarital sex)
The solution to this issue is not to allow men to also abuse their kids! the solution is to teach women and fathers about how life is sacred from conception until natural death.
- What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
- FoofaLv 72 months ago
Largely because an abortion costs the tax base less than a live birth but once a child is born it's not the responsibility of the taxpayers to raise it. Guys who don't want to get stuck with child support should be more careful about whom they have sex with and how they're having sex. Condoms were much cheaper than the pill the last time I checked. Your failure to use birth control isn't my problem.
- Katy MLv 72 months ago
Neither should be acceptable. But, it's supposedly because the fetus is not actually a human yet (untrue) and in the case of dodging child support, well, a child is (at this point anyway) considered a human.