Should father have any say about abortion?

[GuiltyCrown]

I'm saying no one want's to force a woman to dish out a baby if she doesn't want to. No one is arguing that so now I'm lost at what your message is.




I agree that this is usually only a common situation for "stupid trailer trash", but as a human being it still feels F'ed to see someone get trapped into such a life long commitment. Chances are not only the man, but the kid as well are gonna have a pretty shitty life at this point. I just think that at the end of the day, if both people aren't 100% sure on pumping out a kid, then it shouldn't be brought into existence.

I can only imagine the nightmare of being in that situation.

Also, if a couple isn't 100% sure about having the baby. . .I personally believe that MOST couples would go ahead with the abortion (assuming social restrictions aren't stopping them).
I wouldn't want to see a couple that wasn't sure if they wanted to have a kid, and had it anyways. Both need to be committed to it as lovers, parents, and financially (no hesitation!) >_<

[Deleted]

Then my question is: Should the law change just because people are either ignorant, stupid or just careless?

The only change I'd want to see is regarding child support and being able to opt out of it.

I suppose it shouldn't... I honestly can't think of the magic solution to all of this.
If there never was something such as abortion to begin with these 2 issues wouldn't have been there either or atleast the whole should the dad have a say in it problem.
I wonder if back when abortion wasn't " found out" yet people were a lot more responsible when it came to having sex or discussing whatever neccesary in a relationship.
But not being able to abort would have brought its own problems aswell.

I am however surprised that there isn't anything being done ( as far as my knowledge goes ) about fathers and child support when he doesen't want the child.

[kivipää]

The whole thing is awfully unsymmetrical to begin with, so finding a balance is extremely difficult. As it currently stands, guys got no rights in the matter. But letting the guy have a say in the abortion won't work either since it's a two-player system and you can't just take a majority vote. At an impasse it will invariably be either extreme, one of which we're at currently, and the other one, where guy gets to tell what to do and woman has to obey, isn't one we'd want either.
The middle ground would require court to review the conditions where impgrenation occurred, like faulty contraceptive. Ideally, a guy that was using a rubber that failed would be observed from all semblance of responsibility, while knowingly dipping into somebody without any contraception would obviously make him liable. The middle ground court would have to cinsider on a case-by-case basis. Like if the woman asked for bareback while on the pill because she liked it more and the guy agreed just to please her. Did the pill fail? Did she forget to take it? How often? Did she deliberately not take it? For what reason?
Regardless off their decision, the woman can make the decision of abortion or not herself. All this would absolve the guy of would be the currently mandatory responsibilities like child support. This would be the closest way to bring equality onto something inherently inequal that I can think of.

[LiiLoSNK]

Both need to be committed to it as lovers, parents, and financially (no hesitation!) >_<

I believe in this exactly. No hesitation.

[breadisfunny]

i think the father should have SOME say.

[Vellauno]

No. No. No. No. She wasnt consenting to carrying his parasite. She was consenting to having a sexual encounter with him.

Ah, she was consenting to and acknowledging the possible risk of carrying a 'parasite' that belongs to both parents should something unexpected/unwanted happen. Also, not HIS parasite, THEIR parasite. If it is HIS parasite only and he did not want to get her pregnant, then she stole it from him without his consent and she is threatening to destroy it rather than give it back because of the inconvenience and possible risk it could pose to her over the next 9 months.

I could equally argue using your words

"No. No. No. No. He wasn't consenting to give her his parasite. He was only consenting to having a sexual encounter with her." Don't forget, we are talking about in situation where both parties did not want to have a child but one was created anyways. Both parties knew the risk.

A fetus is not a baby. A fetus BECOMES a baby.

Whether a fetus is considered a baby or not is 100% ethical/subjective. Some people believe it is a baby, some that it is a fetus. Contrary to what you may believe, I am on the fence about that one. None the less, I believe both sides have a right to their opinion and neither are correct or incorrect, simply differing in opinion. Thus, I will defer to you for argument sake and call it a thing, not a living being.

I agree that the body of the mother belongs to the mother; however, the lump of genetic material inside her belongs to both the father AND the mother. Now that it is there, unintentionally by both parties, the parents are forced between two choices, remove it and consequently destroy it or let it grow into a baby. The mother says "If we want to let it grow, we have to leave it on MY property (in my body) for 9 months where I have to take care of it by myself, so even though it is half yours, I get to decide if we destroy it or not". The father refutes "I did not want it on your property (in your body), but since I can't take it off without destroying it for the next 9 months, leave it there until I can come get it". I take the side of the father in this case since both parties knew this might happen and now that it did, the only way to remove it without destroying it is to leave it there for the next 9 months. Despite this, as pure property, I can accept either side of the argument however if not for one problem in this scenario, mother may think it is a 'thing' while father thinks it is a 'person'.

And here is where ultimately, I have to undisputedly side with the father. There is simply no way to prove that a fetus is a living thing or not, it is all opinion at this point (if it was indisputable, there would be no debates about weather abortion is murder or not). As such, to remove the fetus would force the father with a lifetime of psychological trauma due to the accident of himself and his sexual partner being responsible for the murder of their own child. The mother may not see it that way, but choosing between forcing someone to face a life of believing they murdered someone and forcing a mother to go through 9 month of trauma, I will chose the 9 months of trauma simply because it is the lesser of two evils (both options suck though, so don't get in this situation).

[iPluto]

Abortions are womens business. Vasectomies are mens business. The others' opinion is void and yes (for me) it is that black and white.

Also, women are expected to carry 9mths plus look after it after it arrives for prob 2yrs. You'll find that most ladies are doing their men favours by aborting, either they think its unwanted or he can't support the baby etc. You got to understand a womans' career is ruined if she has a baby, there's absolutely no guarantee that she will even be healthy enough to go back to work and who will look after the child when she does. Theres just so many things to consider you can't just take the moral stance anymore.

---------- Post added 2012-12-11 at 08:29 PM ----------

Im seeing a lot of people arguing that men should not be made to pay child support if they don't want the child. You do know what will happen? Men won't care who they pregnate, they will go around giving sperm to anyone who asks; it protects women. And also, women 'forget' pills but men 'forget' to 'withdraw' - im sure there are many cases where this is done deliberately but is hard to proove and most fault women.

[Gernheld]

Ah, she was consenting to and acknowledging the possible risk of carrying a 'parasite' that belongs to both parents should something unexpected/unwanted happen. Also, not HIS parasite, THEIR parasite. If it is HIS parasite only and he did not want to get her pregnant, then she stole it from him without his consent and she is threatening to destroy it rather than give it back because of the inconvenience and possible risk it could pose to her over the next 9 months.

I could equally argue using your words

"No. No. No. No. He wasn't consenting to give her his parasite. He was only consenting to having a sexual encounter with her." Don't forget, we are talking about in situation where both parties did not want to have a child but one was created anyways. Both parties knew the risk.



Whether a fetus is considered a baby or not is 100% ethical/subjective. Some people believe it is a baby, some that it is a fetus. Contrary to what you may believe, I am on the fence about that one. None the less, I believe both sides have a right to their opinion and neither are correct or incorrect, simply differing in opinion. Thus, I will defer to you for argument sake and call it a thing, not a living being.

I agree that the body of the mother belongs to the mother; however, the lump of genetic material inside her belongs to both the father AND the mother. Now that it is there, unintentionally by both parties, the parents are forced between two choices, remove it and consequently destroy it or let it grow into a baby. The mother says "If we want to let it grow, we have to leave it on MY property (in my body) for 9 months where I have to take care of it by myself, so even though it is half yours, I get to decide if we destroy it or not". The father refutes "I did not want it on your property (in your body), but since I can't take it off without destroying it for the next 9 months, leave it there until I can come get it". I take the side of the father in this case since both parties knew this might happen and now that it did, the only way to remove it without destroying it is to leave it there for the next 9 months. Despite this, as pure property, I can accept either side of the argument however if not for one problem in this scenario, mother may think it is a 'thing' while father thinks it is a 'person'.

And here is where ultimately, I have to undisputedly side with the father. There is simply no way to prove that a fetus is a living thing or not, it is all opinion at this point (if it was indisputable, there would be no debates about weather abortion is murder or not). As such, to remove the fetus would force the father with a lifetime of psychological trauma due to the accident of himself and his sexual partner being responsible for the murder of their own child. The mother may not see it that way, but choosing between forcing someone to face a life of believing they murdered someone and forcing a mother to go through 9 month of trauma, I will chose the 9 months of trauma simply because it is the lesser of two evils (both options suck though, so don't get in this situation).

If you would get incapacitated, unable to hear, unable to see, unable to acknowledge what is happening around you, paralyzed, unable to sustain yourself, unable to even actually live.

Would you call that a life? If yes, would you want to forced live like that if you had the option of dying to end it? If no, why do you see a fetus as a living being?

[Dezerte]

This topic is still going on eh? And still I see people advocating for taking away the rights of women. It's almost like debating whether women should be able to vote, and I thought we were past that.

[Elim Garak]

Im seeing a lot of people arguing that men should not be made to pay child support if they don't want the child. You do know what will happen? Men won't care who they pregnate, they will go around giving sperm to anyone who asks; it protects women. And also, women 'forget' pills but men 'forget' to 'withdraw' - im sure there are many cases where this is done deliberately but is hard to proove and most fault women.

Yeah, yeah. Men are raping demons-insemenators. Women are defenseless angels in distress.

[iPluto]

Yeah, yeah. Men are raping demons-insemenators. Women are defenseless angels in distress.

I didn't say that nor was it implied in my post - chill out.

[Elim Garak]

I didn't say that nor was it implied in my post - chill out.

Yes you did. In other words, but still. Women would need protection from irresponsible male impregnators (deliberate). The only thing that keeps males from impregnating every woman on this planet - is child support payments - it protects women. Women do not use pregnancy to leech male's money, women do not force males to "stay inside till the end" to get pregnant to leech male's money or enslave said male. Women forget to use protection and allow male to go inside unprotected, but at the same time - they do not want any kids. Women are so dumb - they need special protection.

[Vellauno]

This topic is still going on eh? And still I see people advocating for taking away the rights of women. It's almost like debating whether women should be able to vote, and I thought we were past that.

A male/female couple own a dog purchased with both their money after being a couple for a year. The man leaves for military duty overseas for 2 years and because of prolonged separation, they break up. The women argues that because the dog is on her property and the man cannot come back for it for 9 month, she has the right to put it down (despite the dog being both their property and responsibility). We then have a discussion about if the man has a say in if it gets put down or not. SEXIST! Allowing the man any input in the matter is clearly against the woman's rights! By allowing the man to have any say in the matter, you are automatically taking away all the rights of the woman!

See how silly that sounds. That is what you sound like to me. I am not saying you are right or wrong, just that you obviously have a difference of opinion than me that sounds silly to me. That does not make me sexist or you incorrect. Some people will agree with you, others with me, and still others will disagree with both of us. Such is the life of a discussion.

On the other hand, perhaps you did not direct that quote at me since I do NOT think the choice should belong to the father IF he does not want to take responsibility for the baby after it is born. IF he does want to take full responsibility for it though while the mother wants nothing to do with it (abort), then the father should have a say AND get child support from the mother who looses all custody rights after the child is born. The fetus does not belong to JUST DAD. The fetus does not belong to JUST MOM. It belongs to BOTH of them. It is BOTH their fault that it exists and both their responsibility as such. If the mother thinks it is unfair that she does not get to pick the incubator (and yes, it is unfair, but some things in life just are), she can take it up with god, nature, or whatever force she blames for making females the only viable incubators for babies.

[iPluto]

Yes you did. In other words, but still. Women would need protection from irresponsible male impregnators (deliberate). The only thing that keeps males from impregnating every woman on this planet - is child support payments - it protects women. Women do not use pregnancy to leech male's money, women do not force males to "stay inside till the end" to get pregnant to leech male's money or enslave said male. Women forget to use protection and allow male to go inside unprotected, but at the same time - they do not want any kids. Women are so dumb - they need special protection.

Um, what? You are saying that women deliberately get pregnant and then you say they don't want children and that's why they get an abortion?

Yes, i said that men should be more responsible but i never said anything about rape like you accused me of. If women get pregnant they are repercussions (finanially and physically), and for men also (financially). All i was trying to point out was that there can't be no downside to getting women pregnant for men. Besides even though men are often paying child support, its not always the case cause sometimes women have to.

You should really wear a condom or withdraw and if you can't do either then don't have sex because women can't be trusted, especially since the pill isn't 100% safe. Honestly, in this stone age you'd think men would be the frigid ones since atleast women have the option of an abortion. Lol.

[Dezerte]

A male/female couple own a dog purchased with both their money after being a couple for a year. The man leaves for military duty overseas for 2 years and because of prolonged separation, they break up. The women argues that because the dog is on her property and the man cannot come back for it for 9 month, she has the right to put it down (despite the dog being both their property and responsibility). We then have a discussion about if the man has a say in if it gets put down or not. SEXIST! Allowing the man any input in the matter is clearly against the woman's rights! By allowing the man to have any say in the matter, you are automatically taking away all the rights of the woman!

See how silly that sounds. That is what you sound like to me. I am not saying you are right or wrong, just that you obviously have a difference of opinion than me that sounds silly to me. That does not make me sexist or you incorrect. Some people will agree with you, others with me, and still others will disagree with both of us. Such is the life of a discussion.

On the other hand, perhaps you did not direct that quote at me since I do NOT think the choice should belong to the father IF he does not want to take responsibility for the baby after it is born. IF he does want to take full responsibility for it though while the mother wants nothing to do with it (abort), then the father should have a say AND get child support from the mother who looses all custody rights after the child is born. The fetus does not belong to JUST DAD. The fetus does not belong to JUST MOM. It belongs to BOTH of them. It is BOTH their fault that it exists and both their responsibility as such. If the mother thinks it is unfair that she does not get to pick the incubator (and yes, it is unfair, but some things in life just are), she can take it up with god, nature, or whatever force she blames for making females the only viable incubators for babies.

Your analogy is poor.

The miliary man does not force the woman to do anything with her body.

My response was not directed at any particular person, just to those who think women shouldn't be able to decide what to do with their own bodies.

[Deleted]

... she can take it up with god, nature, or whatever force she blames for making females the only viable incubators for babies.

You realize how that sounds, right? If females are simply viable baby incubators, then I suppose the right answer is crystal clear.

To me, if a woman does not want to have a baby, or it's physically unsafe to, she cannot be -forced- to. Having a baby isn't a simple matter and is incredibly taxing on the mother's body and entire life.

I think if parents want to be parents, they should know that going in. Otherwise, there is no agreement and no guarantees.

[Vellauno]

Yes you did. In other words, but still. Women would need protection from irresponsible male impregnators (deliberate). The only thing that keeps males from impregnating every woman on this planet - is child support payments - it protects women. Women do not use pregnancy to leech male's money, women do not force males to "stay inside till the end" to get pregnant to leech male's money or enslave said male. Women forget to use protection and allow male to go inside unprotected, but at the same time - they do not want any kids. Women are so dumb - they need special protection.

I have no desire to have sex with any woman other than my wife. A couple of women in my past were extremely insulted by the fact that I did not want to have sex with them without a committed relationship and anyone who tries to get me to cheat on my wife will be met with anger and disrespect from me (and the issue has come up), so I beg to differ here as this seems to be an incorrect overgeneralize of men.

Also, it is just as much the responsibility of the woman to require protection as the man. If a man refuses protection, the woman should say no to sex. As a man, I say no to sex before marriage (and even during marriage if I don't want to have a child) if the girl I am with does not want me to use protection (I am responsible and do not want to have to deal with the consequences). If one person says no to sex (such as because the partner refuses to use protection) and the other proceeds anyways, that is rape and it is illegal. If a man and a women get 'caught in the moment' and don't use protection, they are both screw-ups. It was both their fault if the woman gets pregnant and they BOTH have to take responsibility. If the man leaves the country and is never found again so he does not have to pay child support, he is breaking the law and should go to jail with a back-payment of all child support plus interest if he is ever found. The reverse is also true (and happened to my friend). If the mother has the baby, leaves it with dad, then disappears; if the mother is ever caught she should lose all custody of the child, go to prison and be forced to pay all child support.

This idea that babies are the fault of only the men are pure garbage. The idea that babies are purely the fault of women is also absurd. Consensual sex means consensual screw ups and responsibility if a baby is made. If you put your dick into a woman without protection, you are an idiot. If you willingly spread your legs for someone without protection, you are an idiot. If an accident occurs (broken condom, forgot birth control for a few days), too bad for both of you. You should have been more careful and weighed the risks before screwing around. Pay the price, both of you!

---------- Post added 2012-12-11 at 09:12 PM ----------

You realize how that sounds, right? If females are simply viable baby incubators, then I suppose the right answer is crystal clear.

To me, if a woman does not want to have a baby, or it's physically unsafe to, she cannot be -forced- to. Having a baby isn't a simple matter and is incredibly taxing on the mother's body and entire life.

I think if parents want to be parents, they should know that going in. Otherwise, there is no agreement and no guarantees.

Women are not SIMPLY baby incubators, they simply the ONLY baby incubators (in other words, nature made it so that fathers can not chose to become the incubators). This is a choice neither men nor women will ever get to make (barring crazy science). It is the choice of nature/god/whatever you believe in.

or it's physically unsafe to, she cannot be -forced- to

This is a circumstance where I think the father gets no say at all. So I agree here.

Having a baby isn't a simple matter and is incredibly taxing on the mother's body and entire life.

Correct, so better not CHOSE to put yourself at risk of getting in this situation since while the body is yours, the fetus belongs to both of you.

[Elim Garak]

Um, what?

Well, this time I'll try using your own words.

You do know what will happen? Men won't care who they [im]pregnate, they will go around giving sperm[impregnating] to anyone who asks[every woman who will lay down with them]; it[child support payments] protects[like they need protection] women. And also, women 'forget' pills [dumb blondes no doubt] but men 'forget' to 'withdraw'[no condom? woman's fault or maybe intent?] - im sure there are many cases where this[men impregnate women] is done deliberately but is hard to proove and most[men] fault [defenseless]women.

[The One Percent]

It isn't that expensive to get 10 "batches" of your sperm saved in a bank. Then you can sterilize yourself and know that a female will only get pregnant if you choose her to mother your children. It's a lot cheaper to pay for the doctors than to pay for a kid that you didn't even want (and at worse might not even be yours).

[iPluto]

Well, this time I'll try using your own words.

You do know what will happen? Men won't care who they [im]pregnate, they will go around giving sperm[impregnating] to anyone who asks[every woman who will lay down with them]; it[child support payments] protects[like they need protection] women. And also, women 'forget' pills [dumb blondes no doubt] but men 'forget' to 'withdraw'[no condom? woman's fault or maybe intent?] - im sure there are many cases where this[men impregnate women] is done deliberately but is hard to proove and most[men] fault [defenseless]women.

Dude, i know this is a forum but you might want to learn to sentence.

Where did i say that men forgetting to withdraw is women's fault? 'withdrawing' implies that men know that their women is unprotected...

It's obvious, you are a woman hater and maybe for a reason or trolling but I've already stated my opinions on both sides so im not going to waste your/my time.