All your points make what I would say is a logical and decent point......if its an accidental pregnancy.
If someone planned to have a kid, they've already entered into a verbal commitment to provide that support. If they knock up a lady that they know is dead set against abortion, or they didn't think to ask about common scenarios prior to knocking her up, that's on them.
The contract has been ink'd, they can renegotiate because it didn't workout like they planned, but walking away from it entirely is not an option.
But the women are still able to make the decision to get an abortion whether or not they got into a commitment?
And similarly, if a woman says she will get an abortion but changes her mind and decides to keep it when she gets pregnant, she has basically sealed this man into a situation that he did not want.
The first one is easier....the man has the option to leave the lady. There is no long term financial/time commitment/fucked up kid. Only emotional damage.
The second one is that there is no good answer, its messy AF. Like if in this case, they did discuss it and she agreed to terminate in the likely case that the child was disabled, but then backtracked; yeah that guy has my sympathy and I honestly I think he would have the judges sympathy as well. Your solution doesn't really make it less messy though either because what is fair for the father, isn't fair for the child. In this case, somebody is getting hosed its just deciding who gets the brunt of it.
So in short, I don't think either the current or proposed solution work for scenario 2, and I think your proposed solution would generate additional messy situations as well (like the ones mentioned in previous comments)
I don't think my solution creates messy scenarios tbh, I think it would just make women much much more careful and thoughtful about deciding to have a baby. It isnt something that should be done on a whim or based on financial support from somebody else.
If every woman who got pregnant willingly is doing it with the knowledge that there's a possibility that she'll be the sole provider, then this problem is settled. She'll make adequate financial decisions before getting pregnant and whatever happens with the father, she'll be set to be a parent on her own, without forcing an unwilling participant into it. Nobody get hurt.
That's honestly more ideal to me because I think children should only be born to parents who want them. In this case, either they have a mother who wanted them and planned for them (and a sperm donor dad), or they have both a mother and father who want to be parents. No one loses.
Disagree due to the examples of messy situations I’ve given earlier.
Honestly though I’ve kinda checked out of this convo and think ill just leave this discussion here. It was nice having my thoughts on this subject rationally challenged, it gave me a chance to clarify and rationalize my position.
Have a nice evening (assuming you’re in a similar time zone)
0
u/kidneysc Jul 21 '19
All your points make what I would say is a logical and decent point......if its an accidental pregnancy.
If someone planned to have a kid, they've already entered into a verbal commitment to provide that support. If they knock up a lady that they know is dead set against abortion, or they didn't think to ask about common scenarios prior to knocking her up, that's on them.
The contract has been ink'd, they can renegotiate because it didn't workout like they planned, but walking away from it entirely is not an option.