It makes sense this way. Both should have a say in this case, not just one...BOTH!!! If she decideds to keep the child the whole thing is on her and he should not have to have a part in paying child support or anything else if he doesn't wish to or cannot.

That's absurd. It's HER body.

Not his body. Hers.

If a woman gets pregnant and decides to keep the child, she will be responsible not only for that child's financial development, but for its emotional and physical and spiritual wellbeing, education, social development...all the responsibilities of parenting. Yet, she is only half the "parents."

A child has a right to parental support. Not the child's mother - the CHILD. What you are suggesting penalizes children by condemning them to partial support, which often means poverty and the state dole.

A woman has a right to bodily integrity. Not a fetus - a woman. What you are suggesting robs women of a fundamental and federally-protected liberty right.

Those two things are totally different rights with totally different interests at stake. And BOTH those rights are more important by far than a man's privilege of sex without consequences.

What's next - if she doesn't agree to have sex, he gets to rape her? If she doesn't agree to hand over her income, he can steal it?

How's this instead: if a woman wants to get pregnant, she should be able to FORCE a man to give her his sperm.

What, no? Why not? Oh, bodily integrity? Hmmm.

Absolutely.....I dont claim child support. I firmly believe no ifs or buts that if two people concieve a child, then both parents are responsible for raising that child ..but if the father requests that the mother have an abortion and the mother declines then she should bare ALL responsibilities for that child.

Very well described by Shari Schreiber, M.A.

"Tremendous advancements have been made in the field of contraception, yet countless males are still being trapped into marriage and/or fatherhood, and the repercussions are vast. Historically, females never wanted to be pregnant out of wedlock, so men have naively continued to hand the issue of birth control over to their partners. While it's the responsibility of both parties to insure against conception, males are easily seduced and infinitely more vulnerable to getting entrapped than they believe--particularly when their voiced concerns/queries are met with assurances that, “it’s safe.” Think this won't happen to you? Think again!

Women with agendas to have children give men no say in this matter, and are often looking for a ‘free ride’ in terms of financial support. They could harbor significant abandonment wounds from childhood that cause them to frantically grasp at opportunities for emotional security, so having a man’s baby insures that he cannot sever all ties with her, if he needs to leave. But ask yourself this; would an emotionally sound female want to keep a guy around, knowing he doesn't want to be there? Conception doesn’t “just happen,” and with very few exceptions (such as rape) I’ve always believed that if a woman is clear about not wanting to conceive or mother a child, she won’t. Ambivalence is too often the cause of unwanted and 'unplanned' pregnancies--but tragically, the children of these mishaps suffer most, as they're the unwitting victims of unstable relational dynamics that began long before they were born.

Any woman (straight or gay) who yearns to have a baby and is equipped to provide a loving/stable home for this child, may adopt or use the services of a fertility doctor or clinic. My point is, this is a conscious adult choice, which entails accepting full financial and emotional responsibility for this decision. But when a couple's faced with an unintended pregnancy and they disagree about keeping it, neither should be forced to pay the terrible, life-altering price for this occurrence! Inequities may always exist between females and males in every society--but in my view, this one's the most hideous. Until our legal system mandates that women are equally financially responsible for these "accidents," men will continue to be brutalized by governing bodies that persistently ignore this travesty. Furthermore, if we sanction a woman's "right to choose," how is it even remotely fair that a man's denied this same liberty?"

I can't help but wonder, if we gave those fathers the first right of refusal to choose primary custodial care, (in other words if she chooses to have an unplanned baby) then the father is given the first right to become the primary caregiver over the mother and she were required to pay child support to him, how many of those women would actually choose to risk a pregnancy?

It's only fair. A man can't tell a woman that she must give birth to a baby if she doesn't want it and that he'll take care of it so he should be allowed to request an abortion instead of being held financially responsible for 18 years for a child he doesn't want.

Makes sense, if we are to live in a world of equality then a man should be able to choose not to be a father seeing how a woman can choose not to be a mother.

I don't think the woman should have to abort but I do think the man should have a choice in being a parent just as much as a woman does.

Well would help the men to have alittle choice but its like with anything women are #1 in america next to blacks we gotta spare there feelings and men are all dogs....

Another possibility would be to abort only those fetuses that have been determined to be liberal because conservative fetuses would be against abortion. ;)