Should father have any say about abortion?

[Deleted]

Ofcourse not!!!!!! He should be fullly dependant on the women's will and, if she pleases to have the child, pay child support for the next 20 years.

Oh how I wish I could say what I just said is just my sarcastic comment and not reality.

[Wælcyrie]

So a man is told to pay child support payments for 18 years LOL but if he wants any sort of say in the abortion the he shouldnt have a say in it?

That's fine because it screws men over, but if it screws women over prepare for a war.

Double standards are fine, until it effects women.

[Jtbrig7390]

A man being one half of that parenting equation you blame.

Anyway, actually, you aren't forced to pay child support under all circumstances. You simply have to give up your parental rights, and you don't have to pay child support.

My sister's oldest daughter's father gave up his parental rights and he doesn't pay a dime. Consequently, he doesn't get a say in how she is raised. Win/win.

If the law/court lets him give up his rights and 9 times out of 10 this dose not happen also if the woman gets to a lawer first before he can good chance he has to pay anyway. This is something that just depends where you live on how it works.

---------- Post added 2012-12-06 at 06:50 PM ----------

Yes, yes, I know we're terrible hormonal bitches that you can hardly stand to be around, but hey, you wanted the kid too right?

*PS: Don't mind the snark, it's not serious. I am pregnant with my first child and I am in a feisty arguin' mood.

Well like I said if a woman can abort and nothing can be don't to change that a man should be able to cut all tie's.

And I think the best way it would work is do it before the birth of the child. that is really the only way to make any of it far.

[Fairelight]

He can speak his thoughts but he can't exactly force a woman to go through an abortion if she wants a kid or force her to give birth to a child if he wants a kid.

and the reverse? you're saying the man can't force her to abort or not abort, but she can force it on the man?

[Purlina]

and the reverse? you're saying the man can't force her to abort or not abort, but she can force it on the man?

It's not like the man is forced to get a medical procedure done....

[Deleted]

and the reverse? you're saying the man can't force her to abort or not abort, but she can force it on the man?

http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/...3#post19333533

I've linked it more than I like to by now. I don't like the way the law works now but there's nothing that I alone can do to change it you know.

[Deleted]

He can speak his thoughts but he can't exactly force a woman to go through an abortion if she wants a kid or force her to give birth to a child if he wants a kid.

By that logic, the couple would create a binding legal contract at the time the decision is made, if she chooses to stay pregnant and give birth- he should be freed from all responsibility if he does not want it.
But if he wanted the child but she didn't- tough luck.

That would be ''fair''. And the guy could get on with his life instead of being forced to communicate with a woman he doesn't wish to see, and a child he didn't want.

Edit: Ignore my post, I just read the comment you linked to :3

[frownface2000]

The Father's only say in an Abortion should be that if HE does NOT want a child, and the woman gets pregnant, then there should be a legal course of action available to him to exempt himself from responsibility for the child (child care payments, etc.) if he is willing to pay the full cost for the abortion.

I know this kind of a law / bill was being considered in some states here in the U.S, and it's pretty much a no-brainer. This way, both parties are fairly represented.

Now, if the father WANTS the child, and the mother DOESN'T, then too damn bad. She's having an abortion. And no, the father should have no possible way to stop her in that case.

[eternalwhitemoon]

If the law/court lets him give up his rights and 9 times out of 10 this dose not happen also if the woman gets to a lawer first before he can good chance he has to pay anyway. This is something that just depends where you live on how it works. And I think the best way it would work is do it before the birth of the child. that is really the only way to make any of it far.

Yes, perhaps instead of giving the man the ability to force a woman to abort or keep, then we can simply loosen the restrictions on giving up parental rights--in both cases, for the mother and the father. If the father wants to keep it and the mother doesn't, then she can give up rights too.

However that still gets a bit complicated with the whole "there's a fetus in there changing your entire life for nine months that you didn't want" bit, but it's an imperfect solution.

[Jtbrig7390]

It's not like the man is forced to get a medical procedure done....

No the man is just forced to pay on a child he didn't want for 18 years....

[DisposableHero]

I don't disagree with you one bit. However, wouldn't it be a bit hard to prove that a woman "tricked" a man into getting her pregnant? I don't mind attempts to rectify that, but giving a man the same control over a woman's pregnancy has unintended consequences that I'm not willing to let happen to prevent women from abusing the system.

All she would have to prove is that she made reasonable effort to inform him of the pregnancy in a timely fashion. My father in law had a child he did not know about until the child was 11 years old, and he had to pay child support payments (he had a brief relationship with the boy's mother, and she moved away after finding out she was pregnant but without telling him, had the child, and raised it 11 years, then fell on hard times and decided to go after him for child support as a way to supplement her income). That is the sort of circumstance I'm talking about here. In this case all that is really necessary is to ensure the man was aware of the pregnancy in enough time to make his decision, after which he can be on the hook if he doesn't take the correct actions, and she can get an abortion in light of his decision if raising the child without child support payments is going to be too much of a burden for her.

[eternalwhitemoon]

The Father's only say in an Abortion should be that if HE does NOT want a child, and the woman gets pregnant, then there should be a legal course of action available to him to exempt himself from responsibility for the child (child care payments, etc.) if he is willing to pay the full cost for the abortion.

I know this kind of a law / bill was being considered in some states here in the U.S, and it's pretty much a no-brainer. This way, both parties are fairly represented.

Now, if the father WANTS the child, and the mother DOESN'T, then too damn bad. She's having an abortion. And no, the father should have no possible way to stop her in that case.

It is currently possible if the man gives up his parental rights, which can be done at any time. However as Jt pointed out, the courts appear to be a bit strict on allowing this to happen. I am starting to think they should be less so, so that then we can have more fair representation.

[Jtbrig7390]

Yes, perhaps instead of giving the man the ability to force a woman to abort or keep, then we can simply loosen the restrictions on giving up parental rights--in both cases, for the mother and the father. If the father wants to keep it and the mother doesn't, then she can give up rights too.

However that still gets a bit complicated with the whole "there's a fetus in there changing your entire life for nine months that you didn't want" bit, but it's an imperfect solution.

Right and to be somewhat fair *And there really is no way to be far* the law should be changed where if the guy didn't want the child he can't be forced to pay on it.

[Fairelight]

It's not like the man is forced to get a medical procedure done....

if the man doesn't want the child and she does he is then forced to accept responsibility for it for the next 18yrs, if the man want's the child and the woman doesn't by the logic i quoted he doesn't get a say in the matter and is forced to lose the child. physical and emotional problems of pregnancy and birth are generally temporary (not always i know that) but a child is for the rest of a parents life.

I read the post and i do agree, except for the parasite part. My main argument is for the event the male want's the child and the female doesn't. i would not be a happy camper if my child was aborted

[Dispersedshadow]

Except children are not pets.

Children are not property.

1) We're talking about a zygote, embryo or fetus here - not a child.

2) The concept of bodily autonomy (i.e. My body, my choice) follows from property rights. One is in possession of their own body, therefore they have the right to determine how that body is used.

[eternalwhitemoon]

In this case all that is really necessary is to ensure the man was aware of the pregnancy in enough time to make his decision, after which he can be on the hook if he doesn't take the correct actions, and she can get an abortion in light of his decision if raising the child without child support payments is going to be too much of a burden for her.

Well, OK then, but what happens if he starts trying to avoid her? How does she make her contact efforts clear to the court? She shouldn't be accused of deception if she tried but he vanished.

Right and to be somewhat fair *And there really is no way to be far* the law should be changed where if the guy didn't want the child he can't be forced to pay on it.

I would be OK with something like this AS LONG AS the man makes it clear in a legally binding agreement or statement BEFORE or within 3 months AFTER the child's birth that he doesn't want anything to do with it. I wouldn't want this law to be used as a loophole for the guy to say 3 or 4 years into it "Sorry, I didn't want you, now you don't get my money".

[isadorr]

More like pressure from the community,friends and family who all see the baby as a gift from god. Entering a binding agreement would be a great idea and i would be for it but as i am doing the friends with benefits i havent. But we have talked about if she gets pregnant and i made it clear i dont want a baby which is what people should also do, make it clear from the start and if she doesnt like it then let her walk. I would rather make porsche payments than pay for a kid i didnt want for 18 years.

Be honest from the start and you really need a contract of sorts it is time to walk away before she uses the baby to blackmail you into marriage. Oh shes pregnant do the right thing and marry her then you can divorce her and pay her to live and pay for the kid, gratz on that lifelong black hole.

[Purlina]

1) We're talking about a zygote, embryo or fetus here - not a child.

2) The concept of bodily autonomy (i.e. My body, my choice) follows from property rights. One is in possession of their own body, therefore they have the right to determine how that body is used.

If it's truly a gift, it's both freely given and freely received and taken into possession. If it's a gift - then it's her property to do with as she pleases and her sole legal responsibility. If I gift someone a pet whale and they accept it, it becomes their possession. They don't have the legal right to demand I pay for half of the building costs of a marine facility and half of the krill budget.

The child, once born is still yours. I was not referring to the zygote, embryo, or fetus.

[Tastyfish]

Males do not have to deal with the extreme physical and emotional changes that come with pregnancy and labor. You have no idea what it's like.

Really.
Thats funny saying that in an age of constant digital voyerism. We know what it's like, and that petty, elitist line does not fly.

And you are rite, Men go threw nothing when there is a child gestating in the body of their partner. How obtuse you need to get?
Are they the same? NO, do men suffer too? Yes.

But I guess the loss of a child, only would affect the mother, because anything else would be not sexist. LOL and I Love how psychology used here is so one sided. All you can argue is the QUANTIY of suffering not that it exists only for one party. LOL Sexism

My Haploid cell is renting space in your uterus. It's not longer just "just yours"
IF it was "just yours" you would not be preggers.
YOU gave up rites to calling your uterus JUST YOURS the second 2 haploid cells went diploid.

ANd if your body, your cells are your property, that means I can sue the fuck out of you for destroying MY property in your body.
^_^ That is the beauty of the world today. Sue over hot coffee? SURE! Sue because your cells are destroyed without your concent? SURE!

[DisposableHero]

Well, OK then, but what happens if he starts trying to avoid her? How does she make her contact efforts clear to the court? She shouldn't be accused of deception if she tried but he vanished.

If the burden on the mother to inform the father to be is due diligence I think that works out for everyone. As long as it can be shown that the mother made reasonable efforts to inform then I think the father should be on the hook.

I'd actually go farther than you on a statute of limitations and say the father needs to declare his choice while the mother still has a reasonable option to get an abortion if she wants the child but can't financially support it on her own.

Edit:

The child, once born is still yours. I was not referring to the zygote, embryo, or fetus.

He was, ergo your reply was a strawman.