Does the father have a say in Abortion?

[levi501]

He should have to take full rights of the baby after it's born. The instance of maternal death is so incredibly low in this country that I doubt that would be a problem.

so murder in the off chance the woman dies..
..and if she doesn't die he pays for the tummy tuck and any other reconstructive surgery not to mention she can successfully sue him for any other resulting health complications later on. Also you would need to include financial compensation for pain and suffering that the woman endures in caring an unwanted child to term... including compensation for all therapy.

So basically any multimillionaire should be able to force a woman to have his child... or at least in return the man should be forced to carry a mellon up an orafice of her choosing for 9 months.

yah, this makes sense..

 

[DJ_Ghost]

He should have to take full rights of the baby after it's born. The instance of maternal death is so incredibly low in this country that I doubt that would be a problem.

The incidents of maternal death still occur, hand waving them away is not an answer. Further more your answer is American centric, not everyone on this forum is in the USA, note my national icon for instance. So are you saying that in states with a high maternal death rate the law should be different?

My point stands, if a man forces a woman to have a baby he has infringed her rights, he has abused her and he is guilty of that abuse. If she dies in child birth as a result he is guilty of murder.

No one should ever force anyone else to carry an unwanted child to full term, that is an incredible violation of their rights. Object to abortion all you like, there are many legal practices I object to, but I would not dream if abusing some ones rights because of my personal convictions that their choice is morally wrong.

Ghost

 

[Jonathan David]

Abortion is not just about maternal death and rape... it is a fundamental right to control what happens to our bodies. You maintain this right until you commit a crime at which point the state can assert control over your body.... abortion is legal.... nobody can tell a woman what to do with her body except for her. If she decides that she wants an abortion, that is her right. If she decides that she does not want to have an abortion, that is her right. Until abortion is illegal, this is the way that it is.... and in my opinion, the way that it should be.

If a woman chooses not to have an abortion, the man with whom she got pregnant has responsibilities that come with deciding to engage in heterosexual sexual intercourse and the risk of unwanted pregnancy. Both parties, man and woman, are responsible for the child. Ideally, they are both involved in the upbringing of that child. If the man does not choose to be, he is still financially responsible... if the woman does not choose to be, she is still financially responsible... neither has the right to unilaterally prevent the other from being a part of the child's life. Only the court has that power.

 

[The Seeker]

women don't have to worry about this either if they decide to have an abortion, so what's your point?

My point is that unless they can decide to have an abortion, they don't have that choice.

well I guess you might as well be happy seeing as you don't have a choice... unlike the mother.

Suits me fine.

 

[DJ_Ghost]

Just to follow up on my previous post, lets get a look at that negligible figure that probably wouldn’t be a problem shall we;-

The average maternal mortality rate in the USA for white women of average income groups is 6.1 per 100,000. May not sound like many, but according to the US census the number of women of child bearing age in the USA is 60,288,000. Now using the 6.1 mortality rate this gives us a potential for 422 maternal deaths per year, every single year.

Ah yes i hear you say, but not every one of those women is pregnant all the time. True, however this is balanced by the fact that the maternal mortality rate amongst black women in the USA is 4 times larger than that for white women, Hispanic women are 3 times more likely to die in child birth than white women in the USA, the poor have a vastly increased mortality rate in child birth but the rich only have a marginally lowered death rate, and the 6.1 figure is based on women under 35 years of age. Over 35 years of age the chance of dying in child birth is vastly increased (in triples in white women and increases slightly more than 3 times over in black and Hispanic women).

In short over 500 women a year die in child birth every year in the USA. Every, single year. You may think that's an insignificant number that would “probably not be a problem” but I don’t agree.

And that's just in the USA. In the 3rd world over half a million women die from child birth every single year. To put the numbers in perspective that means that over my life time over 17 and one half million women in the third world and almost 14 and one half thousand women in the USA have died in child birth.

And that's just the ones that died in pregnancy or labour.

Furthermore for every 1 woman that dies in child birth approximately 30 suffer serious injury infection or permanent disability as a result. That's another 15 million women in the 3rd world and another 12,660 in the USA. That's every year by the way.

So frankly, any man that tries to force a woman to carry a child to term against her will should be arrested and charged with reckless engagement at best.

Lets compare that with the paternal mortality rate shall we.

In the USA its zero, in the UK its zero and in the third world its zero. No man has any right to demand a woman carries his child, simple as that. When the paternal mortality rates match the maternal ones I may re-consider but frankly as a man my life is not endangered by childbirth. Yes I would be hurt if my partner aborted my child when I didn’t want her to, but its her decision not mine, as I said, i think she owes it to me to listen to my opinion but if she overrules it then that's fine.

Ghost

Sources;

UNICEF
US Census Bureau
Women's health USA 2002

 

[jesusfreak3786]

Just to follow up on my previous post, lets get a look at that negligible figure that probably wouldn’t be a problem shall we;-

The average maternal mortality rate in the USA for white women of average income groups is 6.1 per 100,000. May not sound like many, but according to the US census the number of women of child bearing age in the USA is 60,288,000. Now using the 6.1 mortality rate this gives us a potential for 422 maternal deaths per year, every single year.

Now add into those statistics how few men would actualy take full rights of there child, can you come up with a number then?

So frankly, any man that tries to force a woman to carry a child to term against her will should be arrested and charged with reckless engagement at best.

As also the woman in the event of the intended death of the dad's child.

By the way do you have the mortality rate of the babys killed in the womb, try comparing those once.

 

[Seeking...]

I hate to be harsh, but when 2 people who are not involved in a relationship with each other hook up - their only rightful expectation is a good time. He doesn't expect that she wants to be mommy and have him play daddy, and vice versa. So if she gets knocked up - I do believe she is on her own. He gets no rights and no responsibilities. If she wants to abort or have the baby - it is up to her. She shouldn't expect to be able to use the courts to gain support - financial or otherwise. If the one-night-stand and sperm donor volunteers to play dad & the DNA matches up - then they can petition the court for her to allow him parental rights & him to take on parental responsibilities & there would be no turning back.

In a relationship though, there is an expectation of shared responsibility to each other. In the case of a marriage, a cohibitating relationship, or an intimate relationship that can be documented for 6 months or more - the guy should not be shut out of the decision making process or able to shrug off responsibility. The guy should never be able to force an abortion - that is an invasive procedure with many risks. He should also not be able to force a pregnancy ahead if the woman can document that she or the child are at significant risk by continuing the pregnancy, or that the conception was not consensual, or that the relationship that caused the pregnancy is abusive and dangerous to continue. Other than that - the woman should have spousal/partner consent to abort a child conceived within a relationship. Whether or not the relationship ends - the man would also be responsible for child support.

People might just be a little more careful with their B.C. in and out of relationships as well as more careful about who and how much they trust someone in their bed. Should cut down on unwanted pregnancies, abortions and STDs.

P.S. - Why are people so freakin' lax about protection anyway - If there is no serious committment on the table (I mean discussed/clarified/proven and not just assumed) why aren't both parties always using protection? When did getting pregnant unexpectedly stop being a big deal?!

 

[The Seeker]

P.S. - Why are people so freakin' lax about protection anyway - If there is no serious committment on the table (I mean discussed/clarified/proven and not just assumed) why aren't both parties always using protection? When did getting pregnant unexpectedly stop being a big deal?!

Even if you use protection, sometimes accidents will happen. Besides, sometimes both parties are really really drunk

 

[levi501]

If a woman chooses not to have an abortion, the man with whom she got pregnant has responsibilities that come with deciding to engage in heterosexual sexual intercourse and the risk of unwanted pregnancy. Both parties, man and woman, are responsible for the child. Ideally, they are both involved in the upbringing of that child. If the man does not choose to be, he is still financially responsible... if the woman does not choose to be, she is still financially responsible... neither has the right to unilaterally prevent the other from being a part of the child's life. Only the court has that power.

The woman does not have to be financially responsible... she has a choice. If she doesn't want the child she'll abort or give it up for adoption thereby ducking all financial responsibility. The guy has no such luxury. His pocketbook is at the whim of her decisions.

Can you grasp the inequality of this now? Of course your response will be, “but he chose to have sex... he should keep it in his pants.” Well by giving the woman 100% control over whether to have the child and then saying the father must pay because he chose to have sex is one-sided and inconsistent with the view that two people are equally responsible for the pregnancy. It unfairly lays the blame for the resulting pregnancy on the father. The woman chose to have sex also, but unlike the father, she gets to choose whether or not to pay.

This is why I believe in order to equalize the situation the father should be allowed before the time has passed to have an abortion to give up his rights and responsibilities to the child. If he makes this clear and the woman decides to have the child knowing that it's unwated by the father, she should expect no financial help from him.
The price for 100% of the decision is 100% of the responsibility.

 

[Donut Hole]

All throughout my school, woman's right to choose slogan is rampant, but got me to think, "does the father have any say because he is half responsible for the conception?" I know people have responded to me saying "the fetus is not in the man's body but woman's," which is true, but it still leaves the question unanswered.

Why is it that men pay child support when a woman pregnant and he doesnt want the baby? Dont men have the right to choose as much as the woman who decides the fate of the baby? This is hypocritical.

Isnt my argument valid, that if a woman has the right to have an abortion after unplanned pregnancy, the man has the right to not be bound to the fetus which he did not want?

If my dog strolls into my neighbor's backyard and takes a dump and harms the grass, shouldnt I, as the owner of the dog have a say before the neighbor decides to shoot the dog?

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7024930/

No. In a recent court case, a woman gave a man a blow job and then later surreptitiously froze the sperm. Then she artificially inseminated herself with the sperm. Then she sued the man for not paying child support. The man claimed that the woman had stolen the sperm, and that it was theivery. The woman won, and the judge said "the sperm was hers to keep." This has established a judicial precedent which we must now dutifully follow.

So no, the father has no claim to any of the decision over any abortion. While it's true that he is half responsible for the conception, once a man impregnates a woman, he is giving her a gift, and the sperm is no longer his. So the foetus that begins to grow inside the mother's womb is now hers, because it has been given to the woman by the man, implicitly by the act of [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]. Incidentally, this seems to imply that the foetus is the mother's property. If it is property and also a person, as those who oppose abortion tend to claim, then having a baby is slavery. That is unconstitutional. Because the 13th amendment says that having slaves is unconstitutional, that means that every woman who has ever been pregnant since the end of the civil war in the United States is unconstitutional.

So that's my understanding of the current state of the US law.

 

[Jonathan David]

The woman does not have to be financially responsible... she has a choice. If she doesn't want the child she'll abort or give it up for adoption thereby ducking all financial responsibility. The guy has no such luxury. His pocketbook is at the whim of her decisions.

I believe... and I can only imagine... that adoption has to be agreed upon by both birth parents... I would need to see a case where a woman has given a kid up for adoption against the father's wishes to believe that this could happen (unless of course the courts deem him unfit as a parent and she is not prepared to raise the child). So, we are back to the proposition that a woman can choose to have an abortion and a man cannot because it is her body.... that they enter into an agreement to have sex (which comes with risks) and to take on the responsibility should a child be born... and Yes, a woman retains the final decision on whether a child will be born should a pregnancy occur. Until you find a way for men to get pregnant, I think that's something that we are just going to have to live with...

Can you grasp the inequality of this now? Of course your response will be, “but he chose to have sex... he should keep it in his pants.” Well by giving the woman 100% control over whether to have the child and then saying the father must pay because he chose to have sex is one-sided and inconsistent with the view that two people are equally responsible for the pregnancy. It unfairly lays the blame for the resulting pregnancy on the father. The woman chose to have sex also, but unlike the father, she gets to choose whether or not to pay.

Sorry... I mean, in a perfect world every decision around sex, pregnancy and child birth would be a discussed and mutually agreed upon one... and we should do our best to only get into relationships where this is the case... but, once that breakdown occurs... once there is a disagreement, yes, it is the woman's choice... again, because it is her body that will go through nine months of sickness, weight gain, social stigma (if she is unmarried and/or young, etc). It is her body that will be lying on a hospital bed. It is she who will go through labour. It is she who will.... well, you get my drift.

I am curious how it "lays the blame for the resulting pregnancy on the father." I don't know what that means.

This is why I believe in order to equalize the situation the father should be allowed before the time has passed to have an abortion to give up his rights and responsibilities to the child. If he makes this clear and the woman decides to have the child knowing that it's unwated by the father, she should expect no financial help from him.
The price for 100% of the decision is 100% of the responsibility.

Doesn't solve the "it's her body" part of the problem. I do know what you mean... and I see why it is frustrating.... trust me, I have felt the same way at a point in my life (that is meant to be honest... not condescending. If you want to talk more about that particularly, PM me).

As far as that final equation goes, I see it differently... the price for 50% of the act is 50% of the responsibility. You make abortion sound like a very easy decision to make. For even the most ardently pro-choice women that I know, the thought of having one is scary and only ever undertaken with the most serious consideration... and is always followed by a period of self-questioning... and sometimes pain, guilt... and in one case that I know of, regret. Just because a guy does not want a kid, does not give him the right to subject the woman to the choice between that... or taking on the responsibility of as ingle self-supporting mother... but given the physical/emotional/psychological/stigmatizing/etc elements of pregnancy/childbirth, it is the woman's choice to either go through that or have an abortion.

I think that what is lost in this is that there is no great solution. When two people (fling partners or married couple... or anything in between) are at a different place about what should happen, it sucks.... it is going to suck... for everyone.... NOBODY WANTS IT... but when it does happen, we need to find the BEST (which in this case means the "least bad") solution... at least that's the way that I see it.

Peace.

Jonathan

 

[Jonathan David]

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7024930/

No. In a recent court case, a woman gave a man a blow job and then later surreptitiously froze the sperm. Then she artificially inseminated herself with the sperm. Then she sued the man for not paying child support. The man claimed that the woman had stolen the sperm, and that it was theivery. The woman won, and the judge said "the sperm was hers to keep." This has established a judicial precedent which we must now dutifully follow.

So that's my understanding of the current state of the US law.

I read that too.... and I am going to have to pull that case and read it because it doesn't make sense to me.... it sounds "off".... I mean, I think that oral sex should be an option for a couple that doesn't want to risk pregnancy. I appreciate that this may be the law but shouldn't that be seen as a unilateral act for which the man is not responsible? It certainly wasn't theft on her part... but I am not sure that her act of freezing the sperm and impregnating herself with it should affect him... I am not sure that the man should have been held responsible... is there anything else to the story that you know of (background, etc)? For instance, how did she do that without him noticing? Doesn't sperm die quickly in the air?... anyway, that is for another thread... but I want to follow that case.

 

[Donut Hole]

I read that too.... and I am going to have to pull that case and read it because it doesn't make sense to me.... it sounds "off".... I mean, I think that oral sex should be an option for a couple that doesn't want to risk pregnancy. I appreciate that this may be the law but shouldn't that be seen as a unilateral act for which the man is not responsible? It certainly wasn't theft on her part... but I am not sure that her act of freezing the sperm and impregnating herself with it should affect him... I am not sure that the man should have been held responsible... is there anything else to the story that you know of (background, etc)? For instance, how did she do that without him noticing? Doesn't sperm die quickly in the air?... anyway, that is for another thread... but I want to follow that case.

I really don't know. All I read about it was what was in the news articles. Maybe they have it on lexis-nexis or something by now though.

 

[InRemembranceofHim]

I was suprised to read all four pages of replies and not one mention of the only FATHER who always has a say. There are babies who were thought to have been aborted only to be born full term minus an arm or leg. I wonder what God thinks about all this people arguing over who has a right to kill and yuck language in a Christian forum?

 

[Donut Hole]

I was suprised to read all four pages of replies and not one mention of the only FATHER who always has a say. There are babies who were thought to have been aborted only to be born full term minus an arm or leg.

So why doesn't god intervene and give them a helping hand? Or a helping arm or leg?

 

[InRemembranceofHim]

So why doesn't god intervene and give them a helping hand? Or a helping arm or leg?

He does, He gives them life. And if they choose to share their story with others- it may keep others from making the same mistakes. And if they don't share their story, He still had His way.

 

[Jonathan David]

I really don't know. All I read about it was what was in the news articles. Maybe they have it on lexis-nexis or something by now though.

Good point....yeah, I saw an article about it but never followed up.... I will check it out once I am done exams.

 

[DJ_Ghost]

Now add into those statistics how few men would actualy take full rights of there child, can you come up with a number then?

What exactly are you asking for and how is it relevant to the topic at hand? Because frankly it looks like what you are saying is that its okay for all those women to die as long as the father opens his wallet to pay for the baby. I really hope I am misunderstanding your point.

As also the woman in the event of the intended death of the dad's child.

You miss my point, in typing that line I was attempting to show the ridiculousness of the argument that criminal law should be brought into play at all in these instances. You seem to place the rites of an unborn and unviable foetus above everyone else's, and I just can’t see eye to eye with you on that.

By the way do you have the mortality rate of the babys killed in the womb, try comparing those once.

Why don’t you look them up and present them?

Or am I the only one that researches things anymore? Has it gone out of fashion whilst I was in the lavatory?

Frankly that's got no bearing on my argument so you need to look up the figures, construct a discourse and convince me of why your viewpoint should be my viewpoint. Currently I fail to see what abortion rates has to do with the argument about if a man should have a say and to what degree his say should be weighted. So if you think their is a coherent argument about how the abortion rate relates to whether the mans view should be equally weighted, make it, lets see it on the table so we can all analyse it.

Ghost

 

[DJ_Ghost]

Okay Jesusfreak, since you seem to want me to do all the leg work here is some raw data for you to build your discourse from (see what a nice guy I am? I do the dull bit for you!)

In the USA in 2000 the number of legally induced abortions numbered 857,475

This is a decrease of 0.5% on the figures of the previous year. The decrease is a continuing trend, and according to the Centre For Disease Control there has been a steady decline in abortion rates in the USA since 1980. with the overall fall between 1980 and 2000 being 9%.

Breaking the figures down we see that the decrease is most noticeably in the under 19 years of age age group, where the abortion rate fell from 29.2% in 1980 to 18.8% in 2000. A decrease of 10.4%, slightly above the total overall fall in abortion rates.

To counter balance that the abortion rate amongst women over 25 has increased from 35.3% in 1980 to 48.4% in 2000, that's an increase of 13.1% in the abortion rate of that age group.

So Abortion is becoming less popular with younger women and more popular with older ones.

88% of all legal abortions carried out in the USA are carried out in the first 13 weeks, and 83% are carried out in the first 8 weeks.

The vast majority of these abortions are medical none surgical procedures.

The maternal death rate during abortion is less than 1 in 100,000.

There's your data, you will have to construct your own argument from it.

Ghost

Sources,
Centre For Disease Control.
Division of Reproductive Health
National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion

Foot note.

The figures for 2001-2005 are not yet available as far as I can find, so I used 2000, the most recent available to me.

 

[Ledifni]

Stay in your own yard and keep it in your pocket or be prepared to be a parent.

I'm afraid I don't have a pocket. As such, I've been forced to borrow.