Abortion | Father's Rights

[Alceste]

Ok, we have only been looking at one of a father’s potential rights and even I will concede the point that our government and legal system would only screw up any attempt to create laws concerning when a woman can and can’t have an abortion. But what about other rights.

If a woman has the final decision on the pregnancy does the father at least have the right to know? Should he be informed and at least have the opportunity to offer to take the child after birth? One of the reasons I think this topic is so important is that currently, the father doesn’t even have the opportunity to make his case. If the woman maintained the final decision would you support a law the required notification of the father and a period of time for him to state his case?

This does create a privacy issue. If a woman is sleeping with multiple men and doesn’t want them to know you have a problem. Which right would trump, right to privacy or right to know?

Oh dear, here we go again with the law issue, just when I thought it was well and truly dead.

Let's start here, would you agree that ethics and law, while they are related concepts, are not interchangeable concepts?

If so, would you also agree that while ethics or morals might vary from one person to another, the state should only intervene (by creating a law) in cases where nearly everybody would agree, regardless of their personal ethical perspective?

What I am against is coercion, not ethics. Especially coercion by the state. I agree with you that informing the father is the "right" thing to do, ethically, but I also recognize that there are many situations where a woman might reasonably disagree. For example, if she wanted nothing to do with the father, or if the father was abusive, or if she were so preoccupied with her own emotional chaos that the father's emotions didn't even enter her thoughts. (Or perhaps, if your hopes are ever realized, she is afraid he would file an injunction against her termination of the unwanted pregnancy). Because of this, I would never advocate that the state should take any interest at all in her personal ethics regarding her reproductive rights, as long as she is not committing some ethical violation on which we all agree, like burglary or murder. It's a personal matter between her and (if she chooses to involve him) the father of her child. Nothing whatever to do with the state, or the law.

Personal responsibility for your ethics is the price of freedom. We don't ask to state to intervene and persecute people whose personal ethics we disagree with in a liberal democracy (ideally), because that gives the state the power and the right to intervene and persecute us whenever somebody else disagrees.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

Ok, if there is a problem with informing the father, then why sleep with him? If the concern is over abuse, why is she sleeping with him? If there are legitamate reasons for not informing the father, why sleep with him?

All the examples are of poor helpless women and mean heartless men. What about when the example is reversed? Surely you don't believe the woman is always innocent and the man is always guilty? Why does it boil down to all men having to pay for the crimes of a few? Why are all women automatically assumed to be weak victims who are in danger of being abused by heartless, cruel, evil monsters that for some reason they were more than happy to sleep with?

So what I'm hearing here is that while men deserve some sympathy, and yes, they should be considered in the decisions and in a perfect world they will be. But, they have absolutely no rights what so ever, none. And they have no recourse, none. They are completely helpless and there is nothing they can do about it at all. Women are always right, have no obligation to accept responsiblity for their actions and can do what ever they want, period.

Does that about sum it up?

 

[KnowledgeSeeker]

If a woman decides to keep her baby against the man's wishes is she not basically holding him financially hostage?

 

[McBell]

If a woman decides to keep her baby against the man's wishes is she not basically holding him financially hostage?

That depends upon several factors.
Most states will go after the father if the mother is receiving public assistance.
So in this case, I would have to answer, yes.

However, seems to me that if the male does not want a child, he should spring for a condom.

 

[Storm]

Ok, if there is a problem with informing the father, then why sleep with him? If the concern is over abuse, why is she sleeping with him? If there are legitamate reasons for not informing the father, why sleep with him?

All the examples are of poor helpless women and mean heartless men. What about when the example is reversed? Surely you don't believe the woman is always innocent and the man is always guilty? Why does it boil down to all men having to pay for the crimes of a few? Why are all women automatically assumed to be weak victims who are in danger of being abused by heartless, cruel, evil monsters that for some reason they were more than happy to sleep with?

So what I'm hearing here is that while men deserve some sympathy, and yes, they should be considered in the decisions and in a perfect world they will be. But, they have absolutely no rights what so ever, none. And they have no recourse, none. They are completely helpless and there is nothing they can do about it at all. Women are always right, have no obligation to accept responsiblity for their actions and can do what ever they want, period.

Does that about sum it up?

No, and I think you know it.

 

[McBell]

So what I'm hearing here is that while men deserve some sympathy, and yes, they should be considered in the decisions and in a perfect world they will be. But, they have absolutely no rights what so ever, none. And they have no recourse, none. They are completely helpless and there is nothing they can do about it at all. Women are always right, have no obligation to accept responsiblity for their actions and can do what ever they want, period.

Does that about sum it up?

And what rights would you grant the men that would not infringe upon the rights of the woman?

It is her body.
Any 'rights' a man would be given in this particular situation would violate her rights concerning her body.
That is the bottom line.

 

[Alceste]

Ok, if there is a problem with informing the father, then why sleep with him? If the concern is over abuse, why is she sleeping with him? If there are legitamate reasons for not informing the father, why sleep with him?

Because he's sexy? Think of all the different reasons a man might want to sleep with a woman. They pretty much all apply to women as well.

Wanting to sleep with a guy doesn't have much to do with whether or not I think he's husband or father material. I'm not encumbered by that particular type of sexual repression. Not any more, although was a real pain for me and is for most young women. We are told that if we want sex for its own sake, rather than as a means to a life-long relationship, there's something morally wrong with us (and we'll be the first to die in a Hollywood horror or action movie). It makes sex very confusing until we're about 30 and we suddenly wake up and realize sex is fun and relationships are not all they're cracked up to be.

All the examples are of poor helpless women and mean heartless men. What about when the example is reversed? Surely you don't believe the woman is always innocent and the man is always guilty? Why does it boil down to all men having to pay for the crimes of a few? Why are all women automatically assumed to be weak victims who are in danger of being abused by heartless, cruel, evil monsters that for some reason they were more than happy to sleep with?

Please quote all my examples of heartless men and innocent women so I can have some idea what you're talking about.

So what I'm hearing here is that while men deserve some sympathy, and yes, they should be considered in the decisions and in a perfect world they will be. But, they have absolutely no rights what so ever, none. And they have no recourse, none. They are completely helpless and there is nothing they can do about it at all. Women are always right, have no obligation to accept responsiblity for their actions and can do what ever they want, period.

Does that about sum it up?

No. As I've said many times, they have recourse to communicating their feelings, which in many cases will make a big difference - both to the health of the relationship and a woman's decision whether or not to start a family with them.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

And what rights would you grant the men that would not infringe upon the rights of the woman?

It is her body.
Any 'rights' a man would be given in this particular situation would violate her rights concerning her body.
That is the bottom line.

How does notification infringe on the rights of the woman?

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

No, and I think you know it.

Sorry, I don't know it. As far as I can tell, everyone is saying that the man has no rights at all and the woman holds total power. If I have that wrong feel free to point out where.

 

[Storm]

Sorry, I don't know it. As far as I can tell, everyone is saying that the man has no rights at all and the woman holds total power. If I have that wrong feel free to point out where.

Now that does sum it up. Your previous post, however, was a gross mischaracterization.

 

[DallasApple]

As far as I can tell, everyone is saying that the man has no rights at all and the woman holds total power.

Yes she does..same as the man..they both have total power over their own bodies.As it should be.Are you suggesting a womans power over her own body should be suspended during pregnancy and that power given to the man ?

Love

Dallas

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

Because he's sexy? Think of all the different reasons a man might want to sleep with a woman. They pretty much all apply to women as well.

Wanting to sleep with a guy doesn't have much to do with whether or not I think he's husband or father material. I'm not encumbered by that particular type of sexual repression.

I see. I've noticed that a lot of comments have been, "The man can choose to wear a condom." Where is the womans responsiblity to prevent pregancy? Why is it only the mans fault? It sounds as though you think women and do what they wish and only the man should be responsible for his actions.

Please quote all my examples of heartless men and innocent women so I can have some idea what you're talking about.

The post was not directed at you alone. Some of the reasons against notification were fear of abuse by the man.

No. As I've said many times, they have recourse to communicating their feelings, which in many cases will make a big difference - both to the health of the relationship and a woman's decision whether or not to start a family with them.

And how will they know they need to communicate their feelings about fatherhood without knowing the woman is pregnant. So if the day after the abortion he just happens to tell her about his wish to have kids and willingness to raise them all by himself she just says, "Oh, to bad you didn't tell me that yesterday"?

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

Yes she does..same as the man..they both have total power over their own bodies.As it should be.Are you suggesting a womans power over her own body should be suspended during pregnancy and that power given to the man ?

Love

Dallas

We've gotten past that and are now discussing notification. If the decision remains with the woman, do you think the father has the right to know about the pregnancy or if the woman can get an abortion in secret.

 

[Storm]

I see. I've noticed that a lot of comments have been, "The man can choose to wear a condom." Where is the womans responsiblity to prevent pregancy? Why is it only the mans fault? It sounds as though you think women and do what they wish and only the man should be responsible for his actions.

No, preventing unwanted pregnancy is the responsibility of both parties.

The post was not directed at you alone. Some of the reasons against notification were fear of abuse by the man.

And none of them portrayed that as typical, only pointed out that such cases merit consideration.

 

[DallasApple]

It sounds as though you think women and do what they wish and only the man should be responsible for his actions.

How is a woman not responsible for her actions if she is the one who ends up pregnant facing the choice of having a baby or havign an abortion...?

Love

Dallas

 

[DallasApple]

We've gotten past that and are now discussing notification. If the decision remains with the woman, do you think the father has the right to know about the pregnancy or if the woman can get an abortion in secret.

I would think the decent thing to do would be to inform the father.But informing him doesnt change the fact she has the right to choose what to do about it.IOW lets just say he has the 'right" to be informed.She still does not need his "consent' to have an abortion.

Most women if they are in a relationship will want the fathers input.In fact how he feels about it will be a huge consideration on what to do.And not just how he "feels" about it..as Alceste has mentioned does he have the ability..the character ..or even the maturity to help her raise a child is considered by the woman.The woman has to consider many things.

Love

Dallas

 

[The Voice of Reason]

If a woman decides to keep her baby against the man's wishes is she not basically holding him financially hostage?

If the man was forced to have sex with the woman against his will, then yes - you have a point.

On the other hand, if he was a willing participant in the sexual encounter, then he knew the potential outcome of his actions.

As a male, I have to ask - how often have you heard of a man being forced to have sex against his will?

 

[DallasApple]

If the man was forced to have sex with the woman against his will, then yes - you have a point.

On the other hand, if he was a willing participant in the sexual encounter, then he knew the potential outcome of his actions.

As a male, I have to ask - how often have you heard of a man being forced to have sex against his will?

And not only that..the woman isnt holding him financially hostage.His child is.Child support is to support your child.Not the mother of your child.As well as she is also finacially responsible.Your kidding yourself..if you think what a man is ordered to pay in child support is the full amount of what it takes to rear a child.

Before my husband and I got "back together" as teenagers..We had a paternity suit against him regarding the baby I had at 14 by him.It took two years(due to them using delaying and stalling tactics)..at which point is was determined he was the father..and was ordered to pay...(drum roll......) a whopping $100 a month.

After that my son and I were set for life..I quit working..bought a luxury condo..traveled in limosuines..spent my days traveling and buying expensive cars and clothes..sent my son to expensive private schools..While his father lived a life of poverty and destitution and financial slavery by me.He has been a hostage ever since.

Love

Dallas

 

[Inky]

Sorry, I don't know it. As far as I can tell, everyone is saying that the man has no rights at all and the woman holds total power. If I have that wrong feel free to point out where.

The woman has total power because the embryo is a part of her. It's perfectly right and fitting that people should have total power over their own body parts, no matter what emotional stake someone else has in them. Like I said, in some situation where men are bearing embryos, they should have utter and complete control over what happens to them, too.

Basically, when the woman makes the decisions, she and the man and everyone else involved are maintaining sovereignty over their own bodies. When the man starts to make decisions, suddenly he has sovereignty over his own body and partial sovereignty over someone else's. That's the problem.

I honestly still find the idea that a person would have a right involving an embryo they're not carrying a little baffling. Emotional attachment, sure, but we don't base rights on emotional attachment, or shouldn't, anyway.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

...the woman isnt holding him financially hostage.His child is.

Technically speaking, it is the state that is holding the father financially responsible. Doppleganger could confirm (or refute) this, but I believe that an adult cannot legally waive the rights of a minor.

That is, however, not the point that Knowledge Seeker was making. He was saying that, by choosing to carry the pregnancy to term, rather than aborting the fetus, is tantamount to dictating the obligations of the man.

Which is why I pointed out that the man actually made the choice at the time of conception - not the woman, the fetus, or the state.