| DarthVolod said:
1. I would disagree ... the very presence of a condom would suggest that pregnancy was not the intended goal of the sexual encounter. It would be obvious to anyone that in such a situation the pregnancy was an accident. 2. An abortion should be conducted at the discretion of the woman. It is her body, and the ultimate decision to abort should be in her hands in the same way that the decision to undergo any medical procedure should be up to the individual (assuming they are competent to make such decisions). 3. The man, however, should not be legally required to care for the child. He can choose to if he wishes, but no legal obligation should exist. After all, it is the woman's decision to have a child, and it should be the man's decision to either support the child or to not support it. |
1. What does this have to do with the man being held accountable? Accidents should only invalidate responsibility when the parties were not aware of the possibility of such accidents. In the case of protected sex, it is well documented that condoms break sometimes (I think 2% of the time). If a man knows this, and decides to go through with the risk anyway, why does that somehow nullify him of accepting responsibility for his actions?
2. I agree
3. Just because the woman gets to make the final decision for the child, that doesn't somehow rid the man of responsibility; because it was the man's donation of sperm which contributed to the pregnancy in the first place. When a man has sex (protected or not), he knows that the woman could get pregnant, and he knows that the woman could decide to keep the child. As such, having sex means the man is taking a informed risk.
Everyone should be responsible for any consequences of any informed risks they choose to take. Do you not agree with this?
