Search results

Respect

Yes If she wants to keep the child then yes, she should be obliged to support it. That's a no brainer. There is no need to enforce this. She should not be obliged to keep the child, however.

Straw man.

Pfft - idealism.

Precisely.

She's not obliged to have it if she cannot support it financially.

Yeah that's exactly what I said. And the alternative is they don't agree. In the case of a disagreement: if the woman wants an abortion, she should have one. If she wants to keep the child, she should keep it, but the man should not be obliged to pay. I'm not sure that needed further...

If a man doesn't want a child why should he be forced to pay for one?

Of course. I'm not saying that at all. Both parties should agree. If they cannot agree, woman gets the final say, because at the end of the day it is her body. I've already said that somewhere but I feel the need to clarify as simply as possible. I love this. Zero Child Policy.

This. Both man and woman should have a say.

So poetically faux. Although the rest of your post, while overly optimistic, could be somewhat helpful.

You've got it all wrong. With the way the current system works a man can be heavily impacted if a child is born that he did not want, via compulsory child support payments. If the man was not affected by the kid being born, then sure - he need not have a say. No one is saying that one party or...

Exactly. While he shouldn't necessarily get the final word on what happens to the baby, I don't think he should be obliged to support or take responsibility for it if he didn't want it.

If both the man and the woman involved disagree adamantly and persistently on whether the woman should have an abortion, who gets the final say? If both forces are equal, who wins? Or who should win?

Why should anybody have any say in something which only involves someone else's body? It's not about the passive statement "not my body". It's the affirmative statement "someone else's body". Rights to do with your own body as you please. "Reproductive rights" are merely a product of the rights...

Who gets trumps when both parties adamantly disagree?

My point was we shouldn't be trying to preserve us as a static society. I am aware. I was commenting and not rebutting.

Of course - a legal document nearly 40 years old is relevant in our static society.

Just a bunch of extension students and teachers from the region got together in the function room and discussed different topics.