Abortion | Father's Rights

[Buttercup]

All of this is fine but only from the womans point of view. The womans suffering. Does the man not suffer if what he believes to be his child is killed? Is there no trauma there to consider? If the trauma of abortion is so bad then why would giving the child to a father who wants him be wrong?

You still haven't answered the question I posited if it's ethical to force the woman to go through the pain of childbirth?

Doesn't she have the right to decide that point? You've never had a baby...it hurts like hell.

 

[Alceste]

All of this is fine but only from the womans point of view. The womans suffering. Does the man not suffer if what he believes to be his child is killed? Is there no trauma there to consider? If the trauma of abortion is so bad then why would giving the child to a father who wants him be wrong?

Buttercup sums it up. You have a "point of view", and so does she. You have "feelings" and so does she. But only one of you is facing enormous personal sacrifices now (regardless of who ends up raising the born child in the end), permanent disfigurement and extreme physical pain. That's her, not you. Feelings, shmeelings. The first thing that went through my mind when I got pregnant (right after "OMG - I totally don't want to spend my life with this man") was "OMG - there's no way I can push one of THOSE out of one of THESE." If I'd been unlucky enough to have a boyfriend at the time who tried to stop me through the courts, I would have done it anyway - at an anonymous clinic or via a tumble down the stairs, whatever. I'd have taken the prison time, or the fine, or whatever, because I wasn't ready to face the permanent physical trauma of childbirth.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

You still haven't answered the question I posited if it's ethical to force the woman to go through the pain of childbirth?

Doesn't she have the right to decide that point? You've never had a baby...it hurts like hell.

And yet a womans body is designed to do just that. Is it ethical to destroy a fetus that is a child in some peoples eyes? Does fear of physical pain trump psychological trauma? Why?

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

Feelings, shmeelings.

This illustrates my point. You don't care about the man, his feelings, his desires or his rights. You only care about what this will do to you. Someone has to consider what happens to the man and what rights he has in the situation.

 

[Alceste]

This illustrates my point. You don't care about the man, his feelings, his desires or his rights. You only care about what this will do to you. Someone has to consider what happens to the man and what rights he has in the situation.

Who said I don't care about the man's feelings? I believe I only said that since we BOTH have feelings, and only one of us will have to endure actual physical trauma,he should have the decency to admit that my feelings about what happens to my body matter more than his.

 

[Buttercup]

And yet a womans body is designed to do just that. Is it ethical to destroy a fetus that is a child in some peoples eyes? Does fear of physical pain trump psychological trauma? Why?

I don't know...maybe I'm weird but I think it's highly unethical to FORCE someone to undergo physical pain. I find it silly to even discuss that aspect to be quite honest.

 

[Alceste]

And yet a womans body is designed to do just that. Is it ethical to destroy a fetus that is a child in some peoples eyes? Does fear of physical pain trump psychological trauma? Why?

Oh for Pete's sake. And a man's body is "designed" for hunting tigers. If you get the legal right to force me to have children, I want the legal right to force you to hunt tigers with your bare hands. Then it would be "fair".

 

[Inky]

Abortion topics pop up now and again but I don't see any that have focused only on the Father's Rights. So, does the father have any rights when it comes to an unborn child?

To me, abortion rights come from the fact that the embryo is a part of the woman's body (or inside the woman's body, whichever you go by). She doesn't have final say because she's the mother; she has final say because an abortion is a medical procedure done on her body. Deciding whether or not to have a medical procedure is very different from deciding whether someone else should have one.

If in some future situation a man was incubating an embryo, he should have the sole right to choose an abortion, because it's a procedure involving his body and no one else's. Likewise, if a woman is incubating an embryo she's not related to, she should still be the only one who gets to decide whether or not to abort it, even though she's not genetically its parent. For Hypothetical Scenario #3, if it was being grown in a tank or something, either the parents should have equal say in what happens to it or the law should make the decisions, depending.

 

[Buttons*]

Just out of my own curiosity, I would be interested to know whether the responses are coming from men or women. Here's my (female) opinion:

1. Since human sexual reproduction doesn't give us any evidence of actual paternity (unless we invest in DNA testing), it is reasonable that the "father's" rights should be given less consideration than the mother's unless his paternity is certain.

2. The production of new life is not a 50/50 deal. The man makes a contribution that is so insignificant he could potentially father dozens of children without ever knowing about it. So, even if the paternity is certain, it is still reasonable to guarantee the lion's share of parental rights during pregnancy to the woman - at least until science finds some way to allow men to carry and give birth to a child.

3. As long as a fetus is incapable of life outside the womb, I consider it a part of a woman's body - not an individual with the rights and privileges of any born human, one of which is the right to be involved in ugly familial disputes over custody. As the father would essentially have to force the mother to carry an unwanted child to term and give birth to it against her will, and for the majority of this time it will be part of her body, and because giving birth to it causes irreversible changes to her body, her sovereignty over her own body still reasonably trumps the father's desire to have a child - until he can carry it for her.

4. As much as men might complain about child support, it is still almost always the mother who ends up raising the kids. Actually raising kids has a far more significant impact on a person's right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" (as they say) than simply writing a cheque (when you can). So, until society holds men equally accountable for the raising of children, it is reasonable to ensure the decision rests in the hands of the person who will bear the bulk of the responsibility for the child for the rest of its life (I'm not just talking about the first 18 years, here.)

For the above reasons, I think in all cases where the child could not survive outside the woman's body, it should be entirely her decision whether or not to carry it to term. After this point, if the mother's life is not in jeopardy, if the father makes a legally binding agreement to be entirely responsible for the child - both financially and physically - he should have the right to weigh in a legal challenge.

However, legal challenges (which is what I feel the word "rights" invoke) are not the only way for a father to influence a woman's decision whether or not to have an abortion. There's always talking, convincing, bribing, cajoling, coddling, proposing, philosophizing, romanticizing and a whole arsenal of persuasion tactics at a guy's disposal if he's knocked a gal up and she's gotten cold feet. If the gal you've knocked up hasn't asked for / doesn't care about your opinion on the matter, it's just not going to work. Non-consultation indicates that not only does she not want to have a child in general, she doesn't want to have a child with you in particular.

Trey, this is an EXTREMELY good post that you haven't responded to. I reckon you should.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

Trey, this is an EXTREMELY good post that you haven't responded to. I reckon you should.

Why is it an extremely good post? It looks a lot more like male bashing to me.

reasonable that the "father's" rights should be given less consideration
almost always the mother who ends up raising the kids
reasonable to ensure the decision rests in the hands of the person who will bear the bulk of the responsibility for the child for the rest of its life (in context with the above)

These comments are insulting and sexist. I don't care what her experience with men has been, we are not all to be lumped into the category of deadbeat. I'm offended that she would try and make us all appear to be losers.

The only point made was this one.

As long as a fetus is incapable of life outside the womb, I consider it a part of a woman's body - not an individual with the rights and privileges of any born human, one of which is the right to be involved in ugly familial disputes over custody. As the father would essentially have to force the mother to carry an unwanted child to term and give birth to it against her will, and for the majority of this time it will be part of her body, and because giving birth to it causes irreversible changes to her body, her sovereignty over her own body still reasonably trumps the father's desire to have a child - until he can carry it for her.

I guess this means that as a man my cause is hopeless. Because a woman can carry a baby and I can't, I have no rights, my feelings are not as important as a womans, my beliefs are not important at all and if the woman wants to kill my child she can do it with a smile, all so she doesn't have to live through the trauma of stretch marks.

I think it is safe to say that the three of us are never going to agree on this. I respect your opinions even though I disagree with them strongly.

 

[Buttercup]

all so she doesn't have to live through the trauma of stretch marks.

AND the enormous pain of childbirth, don't forget.

I think it is safe to say that the three of us are never going to agree on this. I respect your opinions even though I disagree with them strongly.

I understand your position Trey and as I've stated before, I hate abortion. It's just that in this type of scenario we have to have a bottom line in decision making. It's the woman who houses the unborn fetus in her body. You can't force your desires on someone else's body. In what way is that ethical?

 

[Inky]

Because a woman can carry a baby and I can't, I have no rights, my feelings are not as important as a womans, my beliefs are not important at all and if the woman wants to kill my child she can do it with a smile, all so she doesn't have to live through the trauma of stretch marks.

I understand your feelings on this, but I think you're misrepresenting the point. The woman's right to have an abortion doesn't have anything to do with the embryo "belonging" to her. It's not about ownership at all; no one "owns" an embryo by virtue of its parenthood. It's about whether a person has the right to have a procedure done on their own body, which is what an abortion is. In the case of in vitro surrogate parenthood, a woman should be able to abort another woman's embryo, and the genetic mother shouldn't have a say.

Also, again I want to respect your views, but it doesn't help your case to be sarcastic about the physical ordeal of pregnancy and childbirth. Even a "normal, healthy" pregnancy can result in serious injury and permanent physical disability.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

You can't force your desires on someone else's body. In what way is that ethical?

I agree. But I also think you can't take a mans child away from him in a way that is ethical. I know, some don't believe that a fetus is a child but if the father does, then destroying it is the same trauma as killing a child to him, his child.

 

[Buttercup]

I agree. But I also think you can't take a mans child away from him in a way that is ethical. I know, some don't believe that a fetus is a child but if the father does, then destroying it is the same trauma as killing a child to him, his child.

Do you really want to live in a world where women are forced to give birth to children they don't want? Because, that's what you propose.

You are saying the psychological hurt a man may endure is more important than the pain and possible psychological trauma of the woman who carries the child. You are saying a man's psychological needs are so important they trump the rights a woman has to her own body.

 

[idea]

I've always found it ironic that a boy/man has no choice in the matter. He might want his girlfriend or wife to get an abortion but if she doesn't, he has to pay child support later.

no choice in the matter? How about not sleeping around in the first place?

 

[Inky]

I agree. But I also think you can't take a mans child away from him in a way that is ethical. I know, some don't believe that a fetus is a child but if the father does, then destroying it is the same trauma as killing a child to him, his child.

I don't really understand this...why should a parent's belief that abortion is the same as killing a child result in the law treating it as such? By allowing abortion and outlawing the killing of actual babies, the law is already stating that an embryo and a child are not the same thing. There are plenty of things people can legally do that are emotionally hurtful to others, but that doesn't mean we should outlaw them.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

Ok, a number of us have argued ourselves into a corner and I don't think there is much more for us to say to each other on the points that have already been made. So, lets take the conversation in another direction. Someone mentioned taking the fetus out of the woman. So...

Would artificial wombs solve this problem?
Would the choice still remain with the woman?
Should more funds be used to explore this avenue?

 

[Buttercup]

no choice in the matter? How about not sleeping around in the first place?

I'm saying after the girl gets pregnant. I thought that was clear?

 

[Storm]

Yes but the child is not just hers, she is just the custodian of it for the first 9 months of its existance.

No, she's the incubator. Big difference, and nobody else gets to make the decision.

If the father was willing to accept all responsibility for the child after birth with the woman not having to ever see or do anything for the child again, and if the father pays for everything during the 9 months of pregnancy, should he not have the right to have this child? It is of his flesh and blood too. Does his emotional and spiritual trauma have any consideration? Is it automatically thought that a man will simply shrug his shoulders and go one as if nothing happened after his child has ceased to exist? Is his pain not to be considered at all?

Of course not. It would be horrible for him, and he has my pity. He doesn't have the right to force a woman to bear a child against her will.

 

[idea]

Do you really want to live in a world where women are forced to give birth to children they don't want? Because, that's what you propose.

You are saying the psychological hurt a man may endure is more important than the pain and possible psychological trauma of the woman who carries the child. You are saying a man's psychological needs are so important they trump the rights a woman has to her own body.

It is not just her body anymore. The baby has their own hearbeat, their own DNA, their own bloodtype, etc. etc.

IMO it has nothing to do with the rights of the mother or the father. It has to do with the rights of the child.