Quote:
Originally posted by ktsnake
I agree, but if this were to be allowed, what other restrictions would you think would be permissible to place on women seeking abortions?
How about the case of a man wanting to compel a woman to have an abortion? What then?
What if he didn't want to have the kid and doesn't want to be on the hook for child support for the next 18 years?
The way I see it, there are always going to be inequities as long as women are the ones carrying the kids around for 9 months. The best way that I know to cure the inequity is to change the test for custody -- in other words, place the child with whichever parent is best able to care for them, and reject the premise that women are necessarily the better caregivers (an untrue stereotype).
We'd have a whole new ballgame if women who decided to carry the child to term against the wishes of the father would also have to face losing custody and ending up being stuck with the child support payments.
|
I know of one. Two friends were getting a divorce, because she stopped taking her pills and oopsed her then husband. He tried to convince her to have an abortion, since it was in their prenup that there would be NO KIDS. Since she had the "baby rabies" she refused. He signed away his parental rights, and refused child support.
After the divorce, he got a high paying (6 figure) job at Xerox.
She's stuck raising a brat on welfare.
Threaded Mode