If the father of the child is to held financially responsible should the woman choose to give birth, then he should have a have a say if she chooses to have an abortion.

I would take it a step further. If the mother of the child chooses to give birth but the father doesn't, then he's not financially responsible. Why should the mother alone make that decision?

I would take it a step further. If the mother of the child chooses to give birth but the father doesn't, then he's not financially responsible. Why should the mother alone make that decision?

I would take it two steps back: The mother SHALL bear the child, and the mother and father SHALL be financially responsible for it. And if they cannot or will not, the child will be placed in an orphanage or foster care awaiting adoption.

And I'll take one step into reality: The 15-year-old mother will have the baby, the child-rapist father is nowhere to be found, and the rest of us will pay through the nose to support both the mother and the baby until the baby is old enough to be sentenced to prison for crimes committed.

Then the rest of us will pay through the nose to support the inmate. Mom, meanwhile, will rinse and repeat, having babies until she can no longer attract males into her bedroom.

Note: If mom puts her crack baby up for adoption she foregoes all federal benefits. Better to have her mother raise the child while she goes shopping for another baby-daddy at the clubs.

Yeah, that probably will happen sometimes.

The alternative is to kill babies.

Given the choice between two bad alternatives, you take the one that doesn't involve killing.

Now, if you want to specifically earmark those individuals who give up babies for adoption and force them to pay additional taxes over the course of their lives to offset the cost of having the child, well, that seems like a good idea financially.

But in Realityville what that will do is give a tremendous incentive for illegal abortion providers to pop up everywhere.

So, in the end, you can either kill or pay. We'll never get around that.

"The alternative is to kill babies."

Or sterilization.

Perfectly said. With responsibility comes rights. If you are to be responsible for caring for someone financially, you either have the same rights as the Mother or you have no responsibility.

You can even get the "brotha's" voting for this one. Imagine all the NBA players and the "playa's" in "the hood" saying they weren't informed of the pregnancy, therefore they had their rights violated. If the baby is born without notice and permission, they have no financial responsibility. If they find out of course they can sign up for it, but also demand an abortion or opt out of paying. It is the next logical step for this mad mad mad mad country.

If we are going to live in a country that subsidized giving birth to children, we should make it mandatory that those who are not married are temporarily chemically neutered. Both sexes, and all 52 genders will be stopped from having children unless in a committed relationship... sounds cool and 1984ish to me.

"If the baby is born without notice and permission, they have no financial responsibility. If they find out of course they can sign up for it, but also demand an abortion or opt out of paying.

Exactly. Shared responsibility.

Now, to be fair, if she wants an abortion but he doesn't, he must raise the baby without her financial assistance.

"If we are going to live in a country that subsidized giving birth to children, we should make it mandatory that those who are not married are temporarily chemically neutered."

I agree, but only after the first baby. Everyone makes mistakes. 8 children is not a mistake.

Either that or society simply stops the funding after the first child and offers free, optional sterilizations.

I don't want government treading on the fertility of people, but this is the end of the path we tread when Socialism is the rule. We were and would be better off when people live or die, succeed or fail on their own. If you sweet little child needs a $250,000 operation to live, and you have no way to pay it yourself, beg for help but never tell the government that it must take from others to save your child. I have run the scenario through my head before, what I would do if I had a fortune of $2,000,000 and came down with an illness that would require me to spend it all to live a few years more, or pass in a natural time, what would I do? In the world of today, people would say, hide the assets, get the government to force others to pay for it, and go on vacation for the rest of your life. In short, our lives are being lived so unnaturally. Even those who work hard and save, want govt to pay their way too.