The Student Room Group

How much input should the father have in deciding on abortion?

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Zargabaath
Do you think that he should be forced to pay child support if he doesn't want to keep it?


I think fathers having to be child support is a necessary evil. Yes it is unfair. But once a child is actually brought into the world then that child is the most important individual.

So whilst you may argue that it's unfair a father doesn't get to "financially abort" which yes it is unfair. The child didn't get any say in any of this, the child is the one who needs to be clothed, housed and fed now and it shouldn't really be the burden of the tax payer to foot this bill unless the father cannot pay for whatever reason.

In a perfect world the mother wouldn't bring the child to term if she couldn't afford it herself. But this isn't a perfect world and it never will be. So in my opinion the child is the top priority.
Reply 81
Original post by leinad2012
I don't think that at all, you are clearly getting emotionally attached to the situation, where as I am looking at it from a game theory perspective.

Yes, my post was positively gushing with emotion. Excuse me while I try to type through the tears.

There are 4 scenarios; both agree to keep, both agree to abort, mother wants abort and father doesn't or visa versa.

We ignore the 2 situations with no conflict and look at the other 2.

If the mother wants to abort but the father doesn't, THEN SHE ABORTS. She doesn't have any responsibilities be it financial or else to the child because it is aborted.

Quite. And neither does the man.

Now take it the other way, where the father wants to abort but hte mother doesn't, currently, THEY DON'T ABORT. So even though in both situations one party wants to abort, by YOUR logic, the father should be financially responsible for bringing up the child despite him wanting to abort, but in the other situation the mother doesn't because she can abort. THAT IS ****ED UP LOGIC, like,REALLY ****ed up, and the fact you can't see that is worrying.

Calm down dear, you seem to be getting emotional. It is your logic that is screwed up, and it's your bias that is doing it.

If a child is born, it needs to be supported financially. If no child is born, this is not an issue. It really is that simple. The woman chooses whether to undergo pregnancy or an abortion, because it is her body. The child does not pay for its parents choices.

If there is still the option to abort and the father wishes to abort, then I think he shouldn't have to pay for the child he doesn't want, as is the effective case if the mother wants to abort, but in the process, should lose ANY right to see the child, any custody, ANYTHING, for the father, it is as though the child isn't their's as they didn't want it.

That way the child suffers financially.

The way you're looking at this is from a REALLY twisted viewpoint with a CLEAR bias towards the woman in the situation, and frankly, it's disgusting to say the least that you believe a man should be financially crippled to leagally speaking look after a kid he doesn't want, when the mother would not have to the other way round because the option to abort is there for her.

Crippled? What do you actually know about child maintenance payments?

Maybe try answering the questions I've posed here and in my last post when you're not being hysterical.
Original post by Ronove
What possible reason do you have for preferring that a baby be carried to term and then put up for adoption?
Do you have any idea how many children there already are in need of adoptive/foster families? Why would you choose to make that situation worse?
In what way is any man 'held at ransom' by expecting him to pay towards the upkeep of a child he had a 50% role in creating? He can **** off and never play 'father' if he doesn't want to. That doesn't mean he can get out of paying and thus cause the child to be financially disadvantaged.
What duties does a woman have to a foetus?
If a child is born and the woman keeps it, she is forced to support it financially. Why should a man be able to wash his hands of that burden? If a woman aborts, no child is born - meaning both the woman and the man are saved a financial burden.


I agree that having a baby just to forsaking it (i.e. adoption) is pointless and cruel.
On the other hand, if the male sexes the female without the intention of reproduction (i.e. not reproductive sex) yet she gets pregnant and he does not wish to be the acting father of the potential child (and the female wishes to keep the potential baby), he should be able to give up his acting fatherhood as it was not his choice to have the baby but the female's. Having this male pay for a potential child he never wished to have is forcing consequences of a decision he never had the power to make (due to the 'my body my choice' philosophy). Forcing the consequences of a decision on someone who never had the power to make when such forcing can be avoided, is unethical. There is no instance of this type of consequence-forcing that we would consider ethical. I can give examples if you want them.
Original post by Motorbiker
I laugh at people suggesting they should have equal say.

There's two people. If you have a disagreement it's logically impossible to have equal say in whether it happens or not unless you get Schrödingers abortion.


'Schrödingers abortion' XD
I agree that a father shouldn't make a woman carry a child against her will, as, after all, she will be the one pregnant for nine months and birthing it.

However, if a man doesn't want anything to do with the pregnancy, he should be able to legally sever himself from the child and have no responsibility if she won't abort it. This is fair, as a woman can do this almost whenever she chooses - even after birth. Why would it be unfair for a man to rope a woman into birthing and caring for a child, but not vice versa? His wallet, hist choice! (I say partially in jest).

Which reminds me, "her body, her choice" isn't a good argument, and comes across as a little selfish. Another parent is still involved and is given responsibility, and there's also the baby's body to consider. The world doesn't revolve entirely around the mother and her interests.
Original post by Ronove
Yes, my post was positively gushing with emotion. Excuse me while I try to type through the tears.


Quite. And neither does the man.


Calm down dear, you seem to be getting emotional. It is your logic that is screwed up, and it's your bias that is doing it.

If a child is born, it needs to be supported financially. If no child is born, this is not an issue. It really is that simple. The woman chooses whether to undergo pregnancy or an abortion, because it is her body. The child does not pay for its parents choices.


That way the child suffers financially.


Crippled? What do you actually know about child maintenance payments?

Maybe try answering the questions I've posed here and in my last post when you're not being hysterical.


The problem is you are looking at it from an OUTPUT perspective rather than an input perspective. What you're saying, is that the WOMAN decides whether to abort or not (which I agree with as it's her body), but then that the man also has no say if the baby is born in whether he pays or not. That, simply put, is wrong, and I think that the reason you don't think it is is because it is a system with intrinsically gives the woman 100% control.

Are you genuinely suggesting that the man should have no say in the slightest as to whether he is going to have to pay financial support FOR THE NEXT 18 YEARS?

By any chance do you have a child who's being supported financially by an ex partner that you've held at ransom?
Original post by Juichiro
I agree that having a baby just to forsaking it (i.e. adoption) is pointless and cruel.
On the other hand, if the male sexes the female without the intention of reproduction (i.e. not reproductive sex) yet she gets pregnant and he does not wish to be the acting father of the potential child (and the female wishes to keep the potential baby), he should be able to give up his acting fatherhood as it was not his choice to have the baby but the female's. Having this male pay for a potential child he never wished to have is forcing consequences of a decision he never had the power to make (due to the 'my body my choice' philosophy). Forcing the consequences of a decision on someone who never had the power to make when such forcing can be avoided, is unethical. There is no instance of this type of consequence-forcing that we would consider ethical. I can give examples if you want them.



No, no, no you disgusting pig, it is ONLY THE WOMANS CHOICE, and if she WANTS to FINANCIALLY CRIPPLE her ex partner then that is HER CHOICE!!!!

(Obviously not srs, I'm not a raging feminist who hates men)
Original post by SophieSmall
I think fathers having to be child support is a necessary evil. Yes it is unfair. But once a child is actually brought into the world then that child is the most important individual.

So whilst you may argue that it's unfair a father doesn't get to "financially abort" which yes it is unfair. The child didn't get any say in any of this, the child is the one who needs to be clothed, housed and fed now and it shouldn't really be the burden of the tax payer to foot this bill unless the father cannot pay for whatever reason.

In a perfect world the mother wouldn't bring the child to term if she couldn't afford it herself. But this isn't a perfect world and it never will be. So in my opinion the child is the top priority.


Yeah that's a valid opinion actually, personally though I think the parents are more important than the child, but it's a matter of perspective I suppose.
It's up to the woman. It's also up to the man if he wants to provide any support in terms of the money for the kid. How on earth is it ****ing fair that he doesn't get absolve any responsibilities when the woman does?
Reply 89
None at all in my opinion. It should entirely be the woman's choice.
His word should be final.
Man is the head of the household, according to thousands of years of precedence, St Paul, the Qu'ran...the list goes on.
Why should 50 years of women suddenly undo the opinion of the history and scope of mankind?
Reply 91
Original post by Juichiro
I agree that having a baby just to forsaking it (i.e. adoption) is pointless and cruel.
On the other hand, if the male sexes the female without the intention of reproduction (i.e. not reproductive sex) yet she gets pregnant and he does not wish to be the acting father of the potential child (and the female wishes to keep the potential baby), he should be able to give up his acting fatherhood as it was not his choice to have the baby but the female's. Having this male pay for a potential child he never wished to have is forcing consequences of a decision he never had the power to make (due to the 'my body my choice' philosophy). Forcing the consequences of a decision on someone who never had the power to make when such forcing can be avoided, is unethical. There is no instance of this type of consequence-forcing that we would consider ethical. I can give examples if you want them.


Original post by leinad2012
The problem is you are looking at it from an OUTPUT perspective rather than an input perspective. What you're saying, is that the WOMAN decides whether to abort or not (which I agree with as it's her body), but then that the man also has no say if the baby is born in whether he pays or not. That, simply put, is wrong, and I think that the reason you don't think it is is because it is a system with intrinsically gives the woman 100% control.

Are you genuinely suggesting that the man should have no say in the slightest as to whether he is going to have to pay financial support FOR THE NEXT 18 YEARS?

By any chance do you have a child who's being supported financially by an ex partner that you've held at ransom?

If a man is not prepared to take the risk he can have a vasectomy or not have sex. If a man can prove that a woman actually tricked him into creating a baby then I would support his ability to take some sort of action against her. But the child should still not suffer financially as a result. No woman has 100% control over getting pregnant and making a man a father.

You've still to explain about all these men being 'crippled financially' and 'held at ransom'.

No, I do not have a child who's being supported financially by an ex partner that I've 'held at ransom'. If we're asking personal questions, have you ever actually had sexual contact with a woman?
Original post by Dandaman1


Which reminds me, "her body, her choice" isn't a good argument, and comes across as a little selfish. Another parent is still involved and is given responsibility, and there's also the baby's body to consider. The world doesn't revolve entirely around the mother and her interests.


True. Nine months of pregnancy isn't all that much of an ordeal for the mother compared to the eighteen years of raising a child which is the responsibility of mother and father both. At most, the woman is only putting in just over half of the total effort in creating a new human being.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by SophieSmall
I think fathers having to be child support is a necessary evil. Yes it is unfair. But 1.once a child is actually brought into the world then that child is the most important individual.

So whilst you may argue that it's unfair a father doesn't get to "financially abort" which 2.yes it is unfair. 3.The child didn't get any say in any of this, the child is the one who needs to be clothed, housed and fed now and 4.it shouldn't really be the burden of the tax payer to foot this bill unless the father cannot pay for whatever reason.

5.In a perfect world the mother wouldn't bring the child to term if she couldn't afford it herself. But this isn't a perfect world and it never will be. So6. in my opinion the child is the top priority.



It is not a necessary evil (unless you think that the forcing women to have abortions is also a necessary evil).
1. I disagree. "once a child is actually brought into the world then that child is the most important individual to the person who made the decision to deliver the child.". If that child is born, that child is not the most important thing to a person in Cambodia nor is his responsibility to take care of the child.

2. I disagree. I call it unethical, if and only if the make had no power to make the decision. And given any unethical situation, we shall do our best to prevent it.

3. Nope, the mother (not the child, the father or a person in Cambodia) did get a say (i.e. have the power to make that decision - the decision to have the child) and thus all the responsibility falls on her (and not on the child, the father or a person in Cambodia). Power to make a decision and responsibility are directly proportional. A very well known cartoon phrased it very well: "With great power comes with responsibility". Now, this is fair and solves the financial abortion situation. Clean and simple. Such is the power of logic.

4. Nor should it be the burden of any person who did not have a say in the child's delivery (have the power to make that decision - the decision to have the child). "Any person" includes the male as well.

5. No one talked about perfect worlds. We just want to prevent unethical situations. If the mother cannot afford to have something, she should not have it. Simples. This applies to houses, titles and offspring as well. Assessing whether someone is financially capable of supporting a child (at least during the child's first year) is feasible. You just have to crunch the data from that person's account. And if she can't, she should be willing to give up the child. Medical access should be provided to deliver a painless abortion and psychological support given. In this scenario, everybody got to have a choice and no one was given an unethical treatment. You might say "but what if she refuses to undergo the abortion". Well, you just refuse medical assistance for non-abortion purposes.

6. I disagree. "Ensuring that all babies are provided with financially robust parents is the top priority."

-- You might want to check this. For your own amusement. :wink:
On the other hand, if the male sexes the female without the intention of reproduction (i.e. not reproductive sex) yet she gets pregnant and he does not wish to be the acting father of the potential child (and the female wishes to keep the potential baby), he should be able to give up his acting fatherhood as it was not his choice to have the baby but the female's. Having this male pay for a potential child he never wished to have is forcing consequences of a decision he never had the power to make (due to the 'my body my choice' philosophy). Forcing the consequences of a decision on someone who never had the power to make when such forcing can be avoided, is unethical. There is no instance of this type of consequence-forcing that we would consider ethical. I can give examples if you want them.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Zargabaath
Yeah that's a valid opinion actually, personally though I think the parents are more important than the child, but it's a matter of perspective I suppose.


I think the parents are more important to the child prior to the child being born or viable. But after that the child has no say or chance to change anything for itself so I think at that point the child becomes the most important individual.
Original post by Juichiro
1. I disagree. "once a child is actually brought into the world then that child is the most important individual to the person who made the decision to deliver the child.". If that child is born, that child is not the most important thing to a person in Cambodia nor is his responsibility to take care of the child.

2. I disagree. I call it unethical, if and only if the make had no power to make the decision. And given any unethical situation, we shall do our best to prevent it.

3. Nope, the mother (not the child, the father or a person in Cambodia) did get a say (i.e. have the power to make that decision - the decision to have the child) and thus all the responsibility falls on her (and not on the child, the father or a person in Cambodia). Power to make a decision and responsibility are directly proportional. A very well known cartoon phrased it very well: "With great power comes with responsibility". Now, this is fair and solves the financial abortion situation. Clean and simple. Such is the power of logic.

4. Nor should it be the burden of any person who did not have a say in the child's delivery (have the power to make that decision - the decision to have the child). "Any person" includes the male as well.

5. No one talked about perfect worlds. We just want to prevent unethical situations. If the mother cannot afford to have something, she should not have it. Simples. This applies to houses, titles and offspring as well. Assessing whether someone is financially capable of supporting a child (at least during the child's first year) is feasible. You just have to crunch the data from that person's account. And if she can't, she should be willing to give up the child. Medical access should be provided to deliver a painless abortion and psychological support given. In this scenario, everybody got to have a choice and no one was given an unethical treatment. You might say "but what if she refuses to undergo the abortion". Well, you just refuse medical assistance for non-abortion purposes.

6. I disagree. "Ensuring that all babies are provided with financially robust parents is the top priority."

-- You might want to check this. For your own amusement. :wink:
On the other hand, if the male sexes the female without the intention of reproduction (i.e. not reproductive sex) yet she gets pregnant and he does not wish to be the acting father of the potential child (and the female wishes to keep the potential baby), he should be able to give up his acting fatherhood as it was not his choice to have the baby but the female's. Having this male pay for a potential child he never wished to have is forcing consequences of a decision he never had the power to make (due to the 'my body my choice' philosophy). Forcing the consequences of a decision on someone who never had the power to make when such forcing can be avoided, is unethical. There is no instance of this type of consequence-forcing that we would consider ethical. I can give examples if you want them.



I agree with you in a perfect world, but it's not a perfect world. And ensuring the child is given a life in which it is clothed and fed is more important in my opinion than whether it's father has to pay £33 a week in child maintenance (going off a minimum wage job at 35 hours a week).

If you don't agree with that then that's fine, they're called opinions for a reason. But that's my take on it anyway.
Original post by Ronove
If a man is not prepared to take the risk he can have a vasectomy or not have sex. If a man can prove that a woman actually tricked him into creating a baby then I would support his ability to take some sort of action against her. But the child should still not suffer financially as a result. No woman has 100% control over getting pregnant and making a man a father.

You've still to explain about all these men being 'crippled financially' and 'held at ransom'.

No, I do not have a child who's being supported financially by an ex partner that I've 'held at ransom'. If we're asking personal questions, have you ever actually had sexual contact with a woman?


Oh do **** off with the "shouldn't have sex" bull**** when it isn't the same the other way round for the woman. Also, aren't vasectomy non-reversible? Why should you force someone in their early 20's who can't afford a child but will want one in the future (a very normal case) to choose between no sex and a vasectomy? That just isn't right and you know it isn't.

If the woman cannot support the child after she decides to keep it, she can put it up for adoption. Are you honestly saying it is right for the mother to not have a job and sit at home on benefits whilst getting her ex partner to pay child maintenance? Because to me that is seriously unjust and if it was the other way round you would be in uproar.
Whilst I agree in an ideal world the father should have some input, I don't agree that they should have no financial responsibility to the child if it is born. They chose to have sex and pregnancy is always a possibility. If a child is born they should step up and be responsible as it takes two to make a baby.
Original post by katiiiiie
Whilst I agree in an ideal world the father should have some input, I don't agree that they should have no financial responsibility to the child if it is born. They chose to have sex and pregnancy is always a possibility. If a child is born they should step up and be responsible as it takes two to make a baby.


Then why should only 1 have any say in whether it is born or not?
****ing great argument love.
Original post by Ronove
1.If a man is not prepared to take the risk he can have a vasectomy or not have sex. 2.If a man can prove that a woman actually tricked him into creating a baby then I would support his ability to take some sort of action against her. 3.But the child should still not suffer financially as a result. 4.No woman has 100% control over getting pregnant and making a man a father.

You've still to explain about all these men being 'crippled financially' and 'held at ransom'.

No, I do not have a child who's being supported financially by an ex partner that I've 'held at ransom'. If we're asking personal questions, have you ever actually had sexual contact with a woman?


1.If a woman is not prepared to take the risk she can sterilise herself or not have sex.

2. If a woman can prove that a man actually tricked/forced her into aborting a baby then I would support her ability to take some sort of action against him.

3. But the child should still not suffer [existentially] [ as a result of her mother's wish to abort the child -against the father's wish to keep the child].

4. You can avoid getting pregnant. But you can abort the child. For all purposes, it is the same thing when it comes to parenthood. When pregnant, you have the power to remove/give parenthood by exercising the power of aborting or not aborting. Choice is power. Power is responsibility. Directly proportional. No excuses. No exceptions.

Quick Reply