Reply #261: your entire post SCREAMS "allowed"

[Scout]

look at the words you chose to use (my emphasis):

I think a woman should have to pay the father if she is aborting his baby against his will

That would solve the financial conundrum.

As another poster said, if a woman chooses to have her child against the father's wishes, he is liable for child support.

Then it should work both ways.

Children are of great value, although they are costly in the beginning. If a woman is going to destroy a man's child, she should have to compensate him.

i find it interesting that she is "just" a woman, yet he is "a father" ... if she's aborting against his wishes then it's his baby ... if she is carrying to term against his wishes it's her baby ... if she's destroying "his" child she should have to pay him.

you really are very transparent.