I agree with you (mostly). I just wanted to clarify OP's position for the sake of healthy debate. I don't think this would work in practice. There are too many women who would choose to keep the foetus despite being unable to financially provide for the child, and probably too many fathers who would pressure their girlfriends NOT to abort despite withdrawing their responsibility to contribute financially (after all, we did evolve to spread our genes as much as possible).(Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
Ok then but that is going to have other considerations to take into account. The cost on society if the mother needs financial support etc. Are all the horrible oiks on here with their anti-welfare spiel seriously suggesting that a man can just bugger off his financial responsibility for the state to pick up the slack? Or instead of hypocrisy are they instead going for a poverty kick in screwing over a load of single poorer women? Do you guys really expect woman to have to make the decision between killing her fetus and having a child she can not afford because a man has had a "financial abortion"?
I'm fine with chucking money at people just for existing, child included. But then I'm a disgusting left winger
But in an ideal world where women would reliably abort if they couldn't afford a child, or if it wouldn't have a father, financial abortion would be ethically sound. Aborting a foetus at an early stage is unpleasant, but it's nothing compared to the 'father' being forced to pay thousands of pounds to the mother simply to fund a choice she's made. And that really is the binary choice before the mother: mild discomfort for herself or forcing another person to fund something only she wants for the next eighteen years.
Should men have the right to "abort" their unborn child? Watch
Last edited by Lavaridge; 04-02-2017 at 00:24.
- 04-02-2017 00:17
(Original post by Lavaridge)
- 04-02-2017 23:43
Aborting a foetus at an early stage is unpleasant, but it's nothing compared to the 'father' being forced to pay thousands of pounds to the mother simply to fund a choice she's made. And that really is the binary choice before the mother: mild discomfort for herself or forcing another person to fund something only she wants for the next eighteen years.
(Original post by orangestripes)
- 05-02-2017 01:30
I've listened to many women's true abortion stories and I disagree. It can be a painful procedure - a medical abortion can be somewhat akin to labour, occasionally there are complications, and there can be emotional fallout which can seriously affect the woman's quality of life for years or decades. I wouldn't describe this as mild discomfort.
Emotional fallout is partially cultural and wildly varies between women. Studies seem to suggest that serious emotional/psychological issues affect only a small minority of women who have had abortions. Having an accidental child with no father, I imagine, also raises those statistics. I'm sure that being forced to provide for an unwanted child has quite a serious emotional effect on the men in the situation as well, which has to be factored in as a counterweight.Last edited by Lavaridge; 05-02-2017 at 01:33.
- 05-02-2017 08:26
So yes once an unplanned pregnancy exists there are no easy options available any more. Which is why it is much better for both partners to take full responsibility for avoiding that situation, and as no contraception is 100%, for both partners to either avoid sex in a situation where they can't agree how to handle an unplanned pregnancy if it happens, or take responsibility in the event that it does.