LogFAQs > #931455619

adjl posted...

If you truly know better than me and believe my interpretation to be wrong, you should be able to educate me. Begin.

If you don't understand the meaning of a word, ask the dictionary instead of me.

Unbridled9 posted...

Is it though? I mean, what if the father doesn't want her to have the child because he knows/believes that the courts will force him to pay for it and he is incapable for various reasons of doing so? Is it fair to force him to have to support a child he doesn't desire and may have even taken every precaution against? What if he believes that it isn't his and that his wife is cheating on him with the pool guy? What if she actually is? Is he now going to have to support someone who isn't his kid because the mother decided she wanted to keep it? What if the doctor forces their political viewpoint on the mother and starts to bring up all the negatives of having the child and persuades the would-be mother to abort when she wouldn't have otherwise? Possibly recommending a clinic run by a friend in doing so as well? What if the father desires the child and offers to take full care and responsibility but the mother aborts simply to spite him? What if the mother's reasoning for aborting is race or gender based or because she believes that the child will be homosexual and doesn't want to have a homosexual in their family?

That's just a few of the situations I can think of where maybe it should be more than just the two of them making the decision. Even in those I'm sure that there are caveots and conditions that would change the situation. It's not a clear-cut problem, doesn't have a clear-cut solution, and there will be no 'perfect' answer of equality or whatever else.

This, tbh. Otherwise regardless it involves killing a baby without the baby's consent.


---

(\/)(\/)|-|
There are precious few at ease / With moral ambiguities / So we act as though they don't exist.