Should father have any say about abortion?

[Laize]

What you do not seem to understand is that it is not about the man’s life. Forcing the father to support the child is better for the child, the mother, and society overall.

Why? Because a single mother supporting a child is not an easy task, when the father helps, the child ends up getting a better life style, better education, and better everything.

So sacrifice the individual for the group?

I don't want to live in a society that thinks it's okay to single people out as sacrifices for the greater good.

[Vanyali]

Her morals are not my concern. Her body, her choice. If her morals affect her choice that's her problem. Not mine.

You think there aren't men whose morals wouldn't compel them to care for the child?

So what you're saying is that it's okay for guys to sleep with women against abortion, but ALSO okay for them to turn around and demand an abortion because they don't want to pay?

You don't see how that's more fucked up than anything else in this thread? The man isn't paying alone. The woman isn't paying alone. BOTH are paying for a child that both created. If both were able to carry it, then both could share the "should it become a child" responsibility.. but a guy shouldn't assume that if he doesn't want a kid he can have sex, then saying "go have an abortion, i don't want to pay" regardless of the woman's ideas on it since it's HER that's going through the medical issue, not him.

[Laize]

So what you're saying is that it's okay for guys to sleep with women against abortion, but ALSO okay for them to turn around and demand an abortion because they don't want to pay?

You don't see how that's more fucked up than anything else in this thread? The man isn't paying alone. The woman isn't paying alone. BOTH are paying for a child that both created. If both were able to carry it, then both could share the "should it become a child" responsibility.. but a guy shouldn't assume that if he doesn't want a kid he can have sex, then saying "go have an abortion, i don't want to pay" regardless of the woman's ideas on it since it's HER that's going through the medical issue, not him.

I'll say it again.

Part of the understanding of feminism was supposed to be that women were adults capable of handling the consequences of their own actions without forcing a man to help.

If it's entirely her decision to bring the pregnancy to term and that decision goes against the man's wishes, there's no legitimate reason to hold his feet to the flame.

[Vanyali]

I'll say it again.

Part of the understanding of feminism was supposed to be that women were adults capable of handling the consequences of their own actions without forcing a man to help.

If it's entirely her decision to bring the pregnancy to term and that decision goes against the man's wishes, there's no legitimate reason to hold his feet to the flame.

If her decision is have the baby or go to hell, most people will chose to have the baby (don't argue that that's not the real choice for some people, at least in their mind). Then you have a single mother and child that could be supported by the state (which you hate) or the father (who would be the other responsible party) OR get no support. Kids in that kind of no-support environment tend to not do well, costing more in welfare, and most likely repeating the cycle.

Woman that keep the child specifically to spite or trap the man are the exception. Men shouldn't thing that the first option for unwanted pregnancy is always going to be abortion because it just won't be for most people. Abortion isn't an easy thing for most people to go through with, nor to live with, and it's made harder and harder by people promoting the waiting laws as well as the legality of people going to clinics specifically to berate women for getting an abortion, adding to the guilt and trauma.

[Laize]

If her decision is have the baby or go to hell, most people will chose to have the baby (don't argue that that's not the real choice for some people, at least in their mind). Then you have a single mother and child that could be supported by the state (which you hate) or the father (who would be the other responsible party) OR get no support. Kids in that kind of no-support environment tend to not do well, costing more in welfare, and most likely repeating the cycle.

Woman that keep the child specifically to spite or trap the man are the exception. Men shouldn't thing that the first option for unwanted pregnancy is always going to be abortion because it just won't be for most people. Abortion isn't an easy thing for most people to go through with, nor to live with, and it's made harder and harder by people promoting the waiting laws as well as the legality of people going to clinics specifically to berate women for getting an abortion, adding to the guilt and trauma.

I never claimed it was easy. Just that it was her choice. It's not an easy choice, but it is a simple one.

If the option for men is to "just not have sex with a person you don't trust" is considered valid, why isn't the reverse true? Why shouldn't it be up to women to not have sex with men they don't trust as well?

[mischa23v]

So sacrifice the individual for the group?

I don't want to live in a society that thinks it's okay to single people out as sacrifices for the greater good.

Then you have to choose not to live in any society that has ever been. Because every society in our world currently sacrifices some of its individuals rights and freedoms for the better of the group, and society. A.k.a., as long as it does not hurt others, you are free to do what you want.

[Vanyali]

I never claimed it was easy. Just that it was her choice. It's not an easy choice, but it is a simple one.

If the option for men is to "just not have sex with a person you don't trust" is considered valid, why isn't the reverse true? Why shouldn't it be up to women to not have sex with men they don't trust as well?

It is, in my mind.

Neither should expect very much of of a one-night stand. At the same time, a guy shouldn't expect the woman to abort because it was a one-night stand if he didn't bother to find out her values before sex.

Both parties should be aware of their partners opinions on children before sex. It's not like you're asking for their life goal or their SS number or anything - values are pretty damn easy to get through. If you jump straight into sex without realizing that this woman that answers "i was at church/ did this at church/ had a church event/ whatever" is probably against abortion you have zero right to complain about her not getting an abortion, but a woman that has sex with a guy that says "i don't want kids right now" should make damn sure they're both using protection if she doesn't want to abort. if they both are... that's another issue, and would suggest a deeper relationship.

[Laize]

Then you have to choose not to live in any society that has ever been. Because every society in our world currently sacrifices some of its individuals rights and freedoms for the better of the group, and society. A.k.a., as long as it does not hurt others, you are free to do what you want.

No, in this case you are sacrificing one individual for another. Directly. Not a group someone can enter or leave (such as being wealthy). "You, [your name here], must pay $X per week to support a child you never wanted because the woman slept with someone whose morals didn't match hers."

[mischa23v]

I never claimed it was easy. Just that it was her choice. It's not an easy choice, but it is a simple one.

If the option for men is to "just not have sex with a person you don't trust" is considered valid, why isn't the reverse true? Why shouldn't it be up to women to not have sex with men they don't trust as well?

Just so, you understand what everyone is saying, “No it is not fair that men don’t have a say”. However, it is a better option for society to exclude men from abortion process, and that is why it is how it is. If you believe it is not true, then please prove it otherwise.

[Laize]

It is, in my mind.

Neither should expect very much of of a one-night stand. At the same time, a guy shouldn't expect the woman to abort because it was a one-night stand if he didn't bother to find out her values before sex.

Both parties should be aware of their partners opinions on children before sex. It's not like you're asking for their life goal or their SS number or anything - values are pretty damn easy to get through. If you jump straight into sex without realizing that this woman that answers "i was at church/ did this at church/ had a church event/ whatever" is probably against abortion you have zero right to complain about her not getting an abortion, but a woman that has sex with a guy that says "i don't want kids right now" should make damn sure they're both using protection if she doesn't want to abort. if they both are... that's another issue, and would suggest a deeper relationship.

So it's up to the guy to determine if the chick he's sleeping with has morals that match his own? It's not a choice a woman is forced to make by society because "sexual revolution" and abortion.

What happened to feminism meaning equal treatment of men and women? When she makes a shitty decision she should be the one to accept the shitty consequences. She shouldn't be allowed to rope a man into it just because she didn't bother to find out if his morals matched hers.

---------- Post added 2012-12-08 at 09:35 AM ----------

Just so, you understand what everyone is saying, “No it is not fair that men don’t have a say”. However, it is a better option for society to exclude men from abortion process, and that is why it is how it is. If you believe it is not true, then please prove it otherwise.

I'm not arguing men should have a say in the abortion process.

I'm arguing if women keep the kid, the guy shouldn't be on the hook for child support if there was no reasonable expectation of said child support.

[Vanyali]

So it's up to the guy to determine if the chick he's sleeping with has morals that match his own? It's not a choice a woman is forced to make by society because "sexual revolution" and abortion.

What happened to feminism meaning equal treatment of men and women? When she makes a shitty decision she should be the one to accept the shitty consequences. She shouldn't be allowed to rope a man into it just because she didn't bother to find out if his morals matched hers.[COLOR="red"]

It's up to the party that has to handle the fact that the situations are different to realize what the options are. The FIRST thing that a man should think is "how am i going to support the child" not "how fast can i make her abort" because, if he does not know, he should not assume abortion exists merely to be his birth control.

I'd say the same thing if men got pregnant and women were bitching about paying child support with no choice in if it's born. It's a situation that will NEVER be equal. There will always be one shafted - either the guy will be forced into supporting his child (IF! the mother chooses to do so) or there won't be a child or the woman will be forced into carrying a child she doesn't want. Only one of these violations a person's body and right to decide what goes on with their own body. Given that we hold that higher than a finiancial burden that BOTH will share, a man should never assume his sex-buddy's first thought is "i'm pregnant, time to go to the clinic!".

[mischa23v]

No, in this case you are sacrificing one individual for another. Directly. Not a group someone can enter or leave (such as being wealthy). "You, [your name here], must pay $X per week to support a child you never wanted because the woman slept with someone whose morals didn't match hers."

What can you not understand?

If my husband decides not to pay for our child, I will have to raise her alone. I probably could not afford it and would not do a great job by myself. Society would have to deal with the consequence and would probably end up getting criminal or someone who poorly contributes to society. If my daughter had her father's support, then she is more likely to get a better life style, I would also have a better life style, and society overall would probably get a well-educated, well-raised happy new resident instead of a poor uneducated resident who is more likely to commit crimes.

That is why society overall benefits more when you force the father to pay child support. The same logic applies for why only the mother has a say about abortion. Please read my previous posts if you want to know my logic.

[Jokerfiend]

It is, in my mind.

Neither should expect very much of of a one-night stand. At the same time, a guy shouldn't expect the woman to abort because it was a one-night stand if he didn't bother to find out her values before sex.

Both parties should be aware of their partners opinions on children before sex. It's not like you're asking for their life goal or their SS number or anything - values are pretty damn easy to get through. If you jump straight into sex without realizing that this woman that answers "i was at church/ did this at church/ had a church event/ whatever" is probably against abortion you have zero right to complain about her not getting an abortion, but a woman that has sex with a guy that says "i don't want kids right now" should make damn sure they're both using protection if she doesn't want to abort. if they both are... that's another issue, and would suggest a deeper relationship.

See you're not getting it. The woman has just as much responsibility in the reasoning. Which makes her just as liable as the man at bad decisions. Should of, could of, could of, asked a lot of questions, most do not. Sex is easy and a driven biological need on both parties. To make a man liable because someone else makes a decision for him is flat wrong.

Sex doesn't mean child rearing. I know most people want to equate that, but that just needs to stop.

Keep the religion out of politics and law, if you do that, then it comes to light that the father has rights too. To dismiss that because a woman carries is unjust.

[Laize]

What can you not understand?

If my husband decides not to pay for our child, I will have to raise her alone. I probably could not afford it and would not do a great job by myself. Society would have to deal with the consequence and would probably end up getting criminal or someone who poorly contributes to society. If my daughter had her father's support, then she is more likely to get a better life style, I would also have a better life style, and society overall would probably get a well-educated, well-raised happy new resident instead of a poor uneducated resident who is more likely to commit crimes.

That is why society overall benefits more when you force the father to pay child support. The same logic applies for why only the mother has a say about abortion. Please read my previous posts if you want to know my logic.

I think you misunderstand. The fact that he's your husband creates a reasonable expectation of support.

A one-night-stand does not.

[Vanyali]

See you're not getting it. The woman has just as much responsibility in the reasoning. Which makes her just as liable as the man at bad decisions. Should of, could of, could of, asked a lot of questions, most do not. Sex is easy and a driven biological need on both parties. To make a man liable because someone else makes a decision for him is flat wrong.

Sex doesn't mean child rearing. I know most people want to equate that, but that just needs to stop.

Keep the religion out of politics and law, if you do that, then it comes to light that the father has rights too. To dismiss that because a woman carries is unjust.

I feel that you're missing my point.

You cannot force a woman to carry a child because you're against it.
You cannot force a woman to abort because you're against the child.

These are major, MAJOR things for a person. Carrying a child or aborting it isn't a ho-hum, there's no issue there's no problems condition. A man's first thought should not and never be that abortion will be the woman's first thought. He should not expect her to go through a medical procedure that carries many risks:

"FUTURE ECTOPIC PREGNANCIES:
Studies point out that the risk of an ectopic or tubal (not in the uterus but in the tubes that lead to the uterus) ;pregnancy is 30% higher for women who have had one abortion, and up to four times higher for women with two or more abortions.
When a woman has an Ectopic pregnancy she has a 12% risk of dying in a future pregnancy.
PELVIC INFLAMMATORY DISEASE (PID):
5% of women suffer PID following induced (or surgical) abortion. PID can lead to fever and infertility (not being able to get pregnant again).
There is a 23% higher risk of infection if you have an STD (Sexually Transmitted Disease).
40% of the sexually active are suspected carriers of STDs.
BREAST CANCER:
Reputable studies suggests that women who abort face a 50% increase in breast cancer. If the woman has a family history of breast cancer, this rate doubles with each successive abortion, if the woman is under 18 or over 30 years of age when the abortion takes place.

ABRUPTIO PLACENTA:
Abruptio Placenta is a condition in pregnancy where the sac holding the baby (the placenta) tears away from the uterine lining. This can result in extreme and severe life-threatening bleeding. Women who have experienced abortion have a 600% increase in their risk for Abruptio Placenta in future pregnancies.

INFERTILITY:
Infertility and sterility mean that a woman cannot get pregnant. Abortion causes sterility in 2-5% of the women who have an abortion.

PSYCHOLOGICAL/EMOTIONAL TRAUMA:
50% of women who have had abortions report experiencing emotional and psychological problems lasting for months or years. These emotions include, but aren't limited to:
acute feeling of grief
depression
anger
fear of disclosure
preoccupation with babies or getting pregnant again
nightmares
sexual dysfunction
termination of relationships
emotional coldness
increased alcohol and drug abuse
eating disorders
anxiety
flashbacks of the abortion procedure
anniversary syndrome
repeat abortions
suicide
Many of these women go on to report that they regret their choice and would do anything to go back and undo the decision that resulted in so much pain."

http://www.ramahinternational.org/abortion_risks.htm

Those are some pretty hefty risks to take because someone else doesn't want to deal with paying for a kid.


More than that, expecting someone to raise a kid on their own because you wanted them to get an abortion and don't want to pay is only going to make the child suffer. The parent won't suffer as much - it's the kid going to a worse school, living in a worse area, getting stuck in a worse place... in other words, getting stuck in being poor and creating more for other people to pay for, in addition to having paid for them to be raised like that.

[mischa23v]

I think you misunderstand. The fact that he's your husband creates a reasonable expectation of support.

A one-night-stand does not.

Not for society, he is still your child. Whether it was one nightstand, a friend with benefits, or your freakin wife. It still comes down to the same issue. Read my previous posts.

[Laize]

I feel that you're missing my point.

You cannot force a woman to carry a child because you're against it.
You cannot force a woman to abort because you're against the child.

These are major, MAJOR things for a person. Carrying a child or aborting it isn't a ho-hum, there's no issue there's no problems condition. A man's first thought should not and never be that abortion will be the woman's first thought. He should not expect her to go through a medical procedure that carries many risks:

"FUTURE ECTOPIC PREGNANCIES:
Studies point out that the risk of an ectopic or tubal (not in the uterus but in the tubes that lead to the uterus) ;pregnancy is 30% higher for women who have had one abortion, and up to four times higher for women with two or more abortions.
When a woman has an Ectopic pregnancy she has a 12% risk of dying in a future pregnancy.
PELVIC INFLAMMATORY DISEASE (PID):
5% of women suffer PID following induced (or surgical) abortion. PID can lead to fever and infertility (not being able to get pregnant again).
There is a 23% higher risk of infection if you have an STD (Sexually Transmitted Disease).
40% of the sexually active are suspected carriers of STDs.
BREAST CANCER:
Reputable studies suggests that women who abort face a 50% increase in breast cancer. If the woman has a family history of breast cancer, this rate doubles with each successive abortion, if the woman is under 18 or over 30 years of age when the abortion takes place.

ABRUPTIO PLACENTA:
Abruptio Placenta is a condition in pregnancy where the sac holding the baby (the placenta) tears away from the uterine lining. This can result in extreme and severe life-threatening bleeding. Women who have experienced abortion have a 600% increase in their risk for Abruptio Placenta in future pregnancies.

INFERTILITY:
Infertility and sterility mean that a woman cannot get pregnant. Abortion causes sterility in 2-5% of the women who have an abortion.

PSYCHOLOGICAL/EMOTIONAL TRAUMA:
50% of women who have had abortions report experiencing emotional and psychological problems lasting for months or years. These emotions include, but aren't limited to:
acute feeling of grief
depression
anger
fear of disclosure
preoccupation with babies or getting pregnant again
nightmares
sexual dysfunction
termination of relationships
emotional coldness
increased alcohol and drug abuse
eating disorders
anxiety
flashbacks of the abortion procedure
anniversary syndrome
repeat abortions
suicide
Many of these women go on to report that they regret their choice and would do anything to go back and undo the decision that resulted in so much pain."

http://www.ramahinternational.org/abortion_risks.htm

Those are some pretty hefty risks to take because someone else doesn't want to deal with paying for a kid.


More than that, expecting someone to raise a kid on their own because you wanted them to get an abortion and don't want to pay is only going to make the child suffer. The parent won't suffer as much - it's the kid going to a worse school, living in a worse area, getting stuck in a worse place... in other words, getting stuck in being poor and creating more for other people to pay for, in addition to having paid for them to be raised like that.

No one is suggesting she should be forced to get an abortion.

All we're saying is that she should have to take his wishes seriously when considering it. "Oh you're not going to be there for the kid? That's fine I'll still garnish your check." is not an acceptable amount of consideration.

[Vanyali]

No one is suggesting she should be forced to get an abortion.

All we're saying is that she should have to take his wishes seriously when considering it. "Oh you're not going to be there for the kid? That's fine I'll still garnish your check." is not an acceptable amount of consideration.

It's garnished directly for 18 years or indirectly for their whole life, as well as for THEIR kids, for a good deal of single mothers through taxes.

A parent can't raise a kid on their own. So either more food stamps, more grants, more whatever they can get to help from the government, or the guy steps up and helps his kid out. It's a shitty situation, but, as I said, it's an inherently inequal situation. Even the idea of a man's legal abortion that's been floating around is so open to abuse by men simply because they can't get pregnant and "aborting" for them doesn't carry any of the risks (emotional or physical) for women and only the benefits.

[Laize]

It's garnished directly for 18 years or indirectly for their whole life, as well as for THEIR kids, for a good deal of single mothers through taxes.

A parent can't raise a kid on their own. So either more food stamps, more grants, more whatever they can get to help from the government, or the guy steps up and helps his kid out. It's a shitty situation, but, as I said, it's an inherently inequal situation. Even the idea of a man's legal abortion that's been floating around is so open to abuse by men simply because they can't get pregnant and "aborting" for them doesn't carry any of the risks (emotional or physical) for women and only the benefits.

You're still missing the goddamn point.

The man never wanted the kid. She had it contrary to his feelings on the matter. It was entirely her decision that she's forcing him to pay for. that is, in no way, ethical.

[Vanyali]

You're still missing the goddamn point.

The man never wanted the kid. She had it contrary to his feelings on the matter. It was entirely her decision that she's forcing him to pay for. that is, in no way, ethical.

No, I get the point.

It's just that it's not that simple. Yes, HIS wishes weren't taken into account. But if she gets an abortion, then HER wishes/ feelings aren't taken into account. If she doesn't have him pay any child support he's STILL technically paying child support through taxes and welfare programs, but it's a lot less direct and leads to a much shittier situation for the kid. I know, you don't care about the kid's well being because it "shouldn't" have been born, but it's not so simple as shouldn't have been when you're talking about extremely heavy decisions like abortion. She could also give it up for adoption, I suppose, but that tends to be hard for most women. Not that it doesn't happen, of course.