If a woman decides not to get an abortion, I would first like to say thank you for not killing a baby out of convenience. With that out of the way, most people know the consequences of having sex; the possibility of having a baby. This child not only belongs to the woman; it also belongs to the man, so child support should come from both sides. Otherwise, if a woman had n help, she may be encouraged to have an abortion, which wouldn't be good.
He more than likely knew what the possibility was in the unprotected sexual situation...And consented to a chance in having a baby. And its the womens body if she wants to have the baby, then theres nothing he can do because he consented when he had unprotected sex to the chance of fathering a baby. I think ppl should discuss this before they bother with sex. I did.
If a woman is going to be forced to have a baby (theoretically making abortion illegal), it makes no sense to disclude the man from the equation. Making a woman produce the child and the man has no part in it completely makes this entire thing one-sided when both were incomes to the outcome.
If a woman says they are on birth control methods then why should a male be scammed into paying immense sums of currency to help raise the child if the couple is separated. Also if the father ants ro not have the baby then he has no opinion or option. In the state of California it is actually impossible for a man to get his partner an abortion. Theoretically, a poor prostitute could get impregnated from a rich client and the prostitute could sue the man for child support. Also if the baby is wanted by both parties then why is tis even a debate. If two married people or even just a couple want a baby wouldn't they have mutual bank accounts. This debate is completely invalid if not given context of situation.