How did we come to conclude that an inconvenient pregnancy automatically produces clinical depression?Nova Andromeda wrote:--Yes, she chooses to get an abortion, but that is the least costly alternative and part of that cost is emotional distress. Furthermore, mental health is dependant on emotional well being. Depression severly inhibits a person's ability to be productive and in some cases it kills or didn't you know that? Perhaps you would like to ignore that fact instead?NapoleonGH wrote:Ohh get off it, she CHOOSES to get the abortion, if she gets emotionally distressed because of it, its her own damned fault and she bloody well should be paying for it out of her own pocket. If the man had any say in whether an aborition happens, then you MIGHT have a case. Otherwise you should cry me an even larger river.
And we arent talking about mental health, we are talking about emotional health. mental health, according to many definitions, only deals with mental problems with a definite physical cause, ie schizophrenia, alzheimers, bi-polar disorder. Not emotional distress.
Ohh So then as i said, if you say they should each only pay 50%, then once again you are screwing over a bunch of kids, one person is richer than the other, yet they pay the same amount, if you make the amount payed the maximum that can be afforded by the poorer parent, you then are giving the child a lower quality of life than should be provided. Basically if one parent has an income of 12,000 dollars a year the other is making 90k, and you say each should pay 4000 dollars a year to pay for the child, you have the child getting only 8000 dollars a year worth of being raised, that is NOT equivalent to the proper cost of providing the child with a decent standard of living.
Okay, first thing I want to do here is ask a mod to split posts on this abortion subject to an appropriate thread. This "abortion" jack has turned into its own subject.-I don't understand why you think a parent shouldn't go into debt to either the other parent or to the gov. to pay for the cost of raising the child. Let me repeat it yet again. Raising a child costs X dollars. Each parent is responsible for .5X dollars. If one parent doesn't make that much then they should be forced into debt for it (either to the gov. or to the other parent if that parent can afford it). This is applicable for any child BTW. If the parent's can't afford it out of pocket they should be forced into debt to pay for child rearing basics (which can be objectively determined) since no child should be left out in the cold regardless of how they came into the world.
Second, if a man has consensual sex with a woman, he's responsible for the outcome (pardon the pun). There is one exception I want to make -- if a minor male has sex with an adult female, the minor male should not be held responsible. I'm making that statement on legal, not moral, grounds. A minor of either sex AFAIK is not considered to be of the age of consent -- thus, the sex should be legally considered non-consensual and the victim should not be held responsible for the outcome of that event.
In all other cases, however, an adult male and an adult female who have sex know the possible consequences of the act. The responsibility to take precautions against those consequences lies equally with both partners, and both partners should share equal responsibility in either a) raising the child, or b) the cost of terminating the pregnancy.
On the subject of whether a man should have a say in an abortion: I would like to say that he should, but I see too little benefit in granting that status to men to make it worthwhile. Suppose a woman wants to abort, and the man wants to raise the child. Suppose he's given full custody. How is he going to support himself and the child? I imagine he could try to do it the way a single mother would, but would that work, realistically? I can't see it as a workable option for single men -- I know I don't have what it takes to raise a child by myself, and I don't know too many guys who could.
