Danielle,

I prefer the reverse of your solution. Currently men ARE financially responsible for the children whether they want them or not. I believe men should be able to abort the baby. If a woman vetoes this abortion and decides to continue with the pregnancy, then the man then no longer has any responsibility whatsoever.

This would be equitable, giving the man equal rights to abortion that women have.

Dear Houellebecq,

I see no justification for granting men a right to interfere with a woman's body: men should be able to kill their babies only after they are born, once independent of the woman's body, then it is equal: any of the parents may object to killing the baby, but then they should raise it on their own.

Naturally killing anyone is not a good idea, but lets face it - in a society which kills animals daily to put their corpses on the table, killing a creature less-developed than most other victims on one's plate would not make a big difference.

Houellebecq,

Many males get a female pregnant and just walk away. The females either have to have an abortion, a not inconsiderable procedure, or are left responsible for the child until it reaches 18 yrs. In fact, the tax-payer is to quite a degree.

If all conceptions came to term ... and the numbers are staggering ... should the tax-payer have to foot the bill, or the males involved take responsibility.

Incidentally, I know of two cases where the husbands insisted on their wives having a termination, which the women did not want. But both women had abortions as insisted by their husbands.

It is also reasonable, if a man is in are relationship and does not want a child, then he should take the necessary precautions.

Danielle,

'Many males get a female pregnant and just walk away'.

So men can get women pregnant without any action from the woman? Surely they could close their legs. I think it shows a very irresponsible attitude to say 'someone got me pregnant', as if it's none of your responsibility.

'should the tax-payer have to foot the bill, or the males involved take responsibility.'

The tax payer provides a safety net for the children's benefit. I notice you don't mention the woman footing any of the bill. The law reinforces it with child support legislation, what's your point? Really what world do you live in? The 60s?

'But both women had abortions as insisted by their husbands.'

More fool them. Are they not adults? They have the power of this decision, but refuse to exercise it, then blame their partners.

'It is also reasonable, if a man is in are relationship and does not want a child, then he should take the necessary precautions.'

Of course it is but if contraception fails, it's out of his hands. That's my point, a woman has abortion rights, a man does not. The next best thing is for the man to be able to financially abort his child, as the woman always has the option to physically abort the child.

That would be equitable. Or else let men kill the baby just after birth as the other poster suggested.

Houellebecq,

Caring for a child until it is 18 yrs is a long term commitment, it also means a very different life from that a woman might have chosen. There is considerable sacrifice. The women is in this for the long haul.

And yes, as you say, it takes two to have a baby. I do not know any men whose lives have been changed irrevocably like that of an unwed mother.

'I do not know any men whose lives have been changed irrevocably like that of an unwed mother.'

I suppose any chance of that is nipped in the bud as if the man wants the baby and the woman doesn't, she has an abortion regardless of his wishes. I don't know of any women who would have the baby and then hand it over to the man to raise.

You totally discount the many men who struggle to make ends meet paying for the financial needs of the mother and children they rarely get to see. Posters on OLO have often related that inequity of being in a position of funding the upbringing of the children while the mother continues educating herself at the expense of the tax payer and the father, who due to his commitments has no time or money to do the same.

With power comes responsibility. Women have all the power over the life after conception, so are lumped with more caring responsibility (Which BTW also comes hand in hand with preferential bias when it comes to custody decisions). Men have zero power over the decision to abort or not, but still have financial responsibility.

Such is life, but I object to your statement 'This seems all very inequitable. ' Your idea of equitable seems to me to mean women should have all the power and men all the responsibility.