Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: beandog
He had the choice whether to have sex with her and take the risk that she might get pregnant. If he didn’t want to take that risk, he could have kept it in his pants. The child didn’t have a choice.

Like I said, getting impregnated is a separate issue from deciding to abort or not. If the woman did not decide to participate in the process of getting impregnated she should have filed rape charges. The decision to carry a kid to term or not, is LEGALLY only the woman's, so it is wrong to hold a man LEGALLY liable for what is not his decision.

Now if abortion on demand for lifestyle choices was not the law, then one could start to make a case for child support. It would still be a difficult case to make because the current system is a fraud with the one making the payments having no say as to how the funds are spent.

21 posted on 01/04/2009 7:59:36 AM PST by Mark was here (The earth is bipolar.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]


To: Mark was here

The child is an innocent party to both the mother’s and the father’s choices (or lack thereof). The child deserves the support of both parents both financially and emotionally. The child does not deserve to die because the father was unwilling to pay for part of the cost of his upbringing. It’s not like the mother doesn’t also contribute to this.


23 posted on 01/04/2009 8:37:01 AM PST by ShandaLear (Where's My Stuff???!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson