If a woman wants an abortion should the father have a right to keep the child?
In the U.S. a woman has a right to an abortion. As far as I know, if she has the child and files a paternity suit, the father has to pay support for the child, whether he wanted it or not. Other than by adoption, a man can't have HIS OWN child without a woman bearing that child. A woman can't have HER OWN child without a man. Outside of some guy duping some woman into sex, both parties know the possible outcome. Since a man can't get his own child any other way, shouldn't he have a right to HIS child? He certainly has to pay for it if he doesn't want it and the woman does. Yeah, yeah, I can hear the "it's the woman's body..she has to bear the child" etc. stuff, but she knew what she was getting into when she had the sex.
For those of you who took the time to consider the man's point of view I thank you, regardless
of your vote.
For those of you who decided to make personal attacks because I dared to ask the question, you know what you can do--also re-read the civility pledge you made when you joined the site.
For all of you, please remember freedom of speech. Without it and your precious law that says you have a right to abortion, you wouldn't have it. Try and let everyone have an opinion, but at a minimum let them asks questions whether you like them or not. Thanks for confirming my opinion of humanity
3
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
43 comments (26 - 43)
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.A man doesn't have the right to demand a woman remain pregnant.
A man should not have to support a child resulting from a pregnancy he would have chosen to abort given the choice. She chose to have a child = her responsibility.
PhoebeCat
Level 7
May 20, 2018
5
I agree, if a woman has the right to abortion if she does not want to financially, emotionally and otherwise be a parent, a man should have the same option of opting out of parenthood. I know a lot of women that are raising kids by themselves. The biological father doesn't pay child support or see the child. Men should have the right to release themselves from all parental responsibility by giving up their parental rights .
The hate you are receiving has a lot more to do with the attitude you wrote your post. You could have written your question in a more neutral and diplomatic manner instead of antigonizing the group you knew would read it (I.e. liberal left leaning women). You're reaping what you sowed.
To answer as neutral as possible: Hypothetically, if a couple has sex, their intent is usually not to procreate but to indulge in the intimate moment and love. Individuals that are not thinking of procreating during sex use protection. If the condom breaks and the women gets pregnant then the pregnancy is not welcomed (no contract) so the women has dominion on the decision. I would add that even if the child was originally welcomed and something happens between the couple or the woman, she has dominion over the outcome of the pregnancy. Any attempt for the man to obtain the child is coercion.
Free speech also means the right to answer with the same lack of civility of the question.
Lukian
Level 8
May 21, 2018
1
Thanks for the lecture. I missed the fine print that says I have to ask your opinion before I post something. I happen to think that it takes intelligence and reason to determine that religion/god is bullshit. I therefore assumed that my audience would be that intelligent, reasonable crowd that might consider both sides of the abortion issue. There is NO "tone" to my post/poll. It merely poses a question. Apparently some women believe that only they get to decide what lives and what dies. I found it interesting that none of them answered my question about who does the kid belong to once it's born, if they and they alone get to decide to have it or not. Whether you or they like it or not, the father is a a "co-owner" for lack of a better term--not just if the kid is born. What if the scenario is this: A loving couple who always planned on having 4 kids--while the wife is pregnant with the 4th she decides, "enough of this, I'm not doing it" and decides to abort the 4th kid? Poor father? Fuck him? He's just some schmo I had sex with, it's my body? See the scenario doesn't change that it took two to create the embryo and potential kid. Regardless of the scenario or the answer, to make any question, post or poll here personal is uncalled for and any question that can piss someone off puts the blame on the person getting pissed off in what is supposed to be an open forum for people to have a dialogue with others about any and all subjects. Can you imagine if I posed the question "Should men get vasectomies to prevent childbirth?" Are you pissed by that question? No one can tell me what to do with my body? Can you hear the same women say, "yeah , dammit, hysterectomies are a whole lot worse that a vasectomy, fuck him!" You think you're allowed to attack me personally for asking the question? Because I should know that men might read it? If the answer is yes, as I suspect it is, then apparently some people who I thought were intelligent and reasonable, looking at subjects from all sides, are only that way if they like the subject matter. As I said, they know what they can do.
@lerlo why did you add this sly remarks in your post if not to antagonize: Without it and your precious law that says you have a right to abortion, you wouldn't have it.
For those of you who decided to make personal attacks because I dared to ask the question (to point out a few).
You see that is one problem. You knew you would get some push back and you were already on the offensive (and defensive).
Where in your question do you mention this: I found it interesting that none of them answered my question about who does the kid belong to once it's born?. To answer that point, if the child is the 4th born of the same couple, the precedent is established who the parents are. If the couple can't resolve their issue then yes there is the court system to decide.
I answered you and conveyed to you my opinion with civility, honesty and without malice. Judging from your reply, I wonder who is pissed and angry.
that was easy to vote on but I feel a little uneasy at the plight of the male. let's hope nobody lets the male know there is / was a problem !!!
markdevenish
Level 7
May 20, 2018
4
The father should have the right to keep the aborted fetus, and to raise it as his child if he can animate it. Maybe he can give the fetus CPR until something happens, then he can stick iv's in it if he can find veins, and pump it full of nutrition, and he can keep it warm so it doesn't freeze.
On second thought, he can't be the mother, so let him dr
ronodokk
Level 5
May 20, 2018
4
Even when pregnancy is specifically not wanted, most methods of contraception (except, of course, celibacy) fail some percentage of the time -- either because of errors of usage, failure of the method, or other circumstances (for example, some antibiotics can cause oral contraception to fail). If a pregnancy does occur, at present there is no alternative method to getting the child into the world for the father to keep than a potentially life-threatening approximately 40 weeks of carrying what will eventually become a child. During that time a lot can happen to the woman and to the child. So it's not simply a matter of handing over the baby and allowing the father to raise it.
I suppose if the couple (with an attorney, I would hope) can calculate whatever wear and tear occurs to her body, plus all medical expenses required for a healthy pregnancy and baby, plus all the other expenses (clothes, etc.). Then (theoretically) if the father compensates the mother for all the expenses, it might approach parity. However, I'm not sure there's any way to deal with the almost inevitable feelings of connection that the mother develops during the pregnancy.
Even though in theory a mother can choose to keep a child and to require the father to pay child support until the child is 18 years old, that's not necessarily always the outcome. My pregnancy occurred in the context of a fairly casual fling. I had been told I could not conceive so it was a shock to us both -- a pleasant one for me and an unpleasant one for him. Since I was delighted to have the baby, I offered to keep him out of it entirely if he wished. He did, so he did not appear on the birth certificate and never had any contact with her until she decided to contact him ater she was 21. I never took a cent and never spoke to him again after he made his choice.
ladyprof70
Level 7
May 20, 2018
4
My mom is fond of telling how some family friends had 3 children. Each child defeated some form of birth control the parents were using!
Celibacy has a pretty high failure rate, in actual fact. Not many folks actually stick to it.
How about both of them get sterilized and if one or both want a child then adopt one.
MacTavish
Level 7
May 20, 2018
3
Which would be reasonable if women under 35 without children weren't actively prevented from recieving this surgery except in case of emergency. I've lost count of the times I've heard " I wanted my tubed tied but the doctor refused to perform the surgery because I might change my mind" from childfree women.
@Blindbird That is really strange considering the "It's her body" argument and if she is older than 18 and considered an adult. I would think a woman would have no problem getting this procedure done after a specified waiting period to give her time to think about it. Is this type of misogyny prevalent in the medical community (as it is elsewhere but I don't want to guess)?
Can a doc refuse to do the operation barring any physical complications if it is within his scope?
This just proves you can learn something new everyday. I have never thought about medical services being refused to women, I'm sorry ladies. I'm still kinda new to the leftish side of things, but I'm learning.
@MacTavish the women arent makimg these decisions doctors are. Are you suggesting we attempt surgery on ourselves? Its not strange, it's infuriating.
@Blindbird No, no, no. I didn't think docs in this day and age would refuse the surgery on any grounds other than health reasons. That's why I thought it strange.
I was alluding to the modern era where (legally) a woman has control of her body and the decisions she makes concerning it. I never meant to degrade women and will never consciously do so, I may be misinterpreted (that will be my fault for not explaining things well enough) but will never blatantly do that.
I apologize to you and anyone else I may have offended, I am sorry.
@MacTavish but they do. That is what I just said. Google it for yourself and you will find hundreds of women telling their stories about that happening. Another lovely instance of men disbelieving women about things they know nothing about because, since men never experience it, it doesn't happen right? Sexist much?
@Blindbird
- It wouldn't have mattered who posted that I would have replied the same.
2.You implied that I didn't believe it because you are a woman, I never said nor implied that. - You have put words in my mouth I never said.
- I thought it strange the docs are able to get away with it. I never said nor implied you were lying.
- Just another case of reading into it what you want.
- If "Another lovely instance of men disbelieving women..." isn't a sexist statement then what is.
- I even apologized for any offense but apparently that doesn't mean much to you.
Last entry on this thread, I am not explaining further, I don't have too.
@MacTavish doesnt mean much. You are correct. I sincerely doubt you wouldbhave replied the same had I been a man.
Na man. This is a bad road to go down.
BrightTyger979
Level 6
May 20, 2018
2
Last I checked questions were still ok in the universe 
@lerlo I never said questions weren't ok. I just think your reasoning is seriously flawed here. " She knew what she was getting into when she had the sex", like are you serious here? Also I don't think you grasp what freedom of speech means. Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences. Freedom of speech means that the government isn't going to lock you up for your opinions. It's not carte blanche to say whatever you want, free from criticism. Also is fine to have an opinion and ask questions, but your OP is about the most condescending thing I've read on here in a minute.
Don't worry people, soon we will have artificial wombs. Men and women can have babies whether or not they want /get sex. How soon? Probably not soon enough!
Spongebob
Level 7
May 20, 2018
2
hope it takes many many decades
@Faithless1 I don't know! Currently, artificial wombs are intended to help babies born prematurely. U of Philadelphia researchers showed lamb grown in an artificial womb starting from a few weeks old foetus.
In similar ground breaking research, male mouse stem cells have been differentiated into female gammets (eggs). So, in the future, same-sex couples could be true biological parents of their own child. All these developments, if they do happen, are going to drastically change the way gender and parenthood is perceived. Currently, we have, at least in some parts of the world, legal equality for parents of all compositions and soon it might be a biological reality.
Seems I am the Advocatus Diaboli this time. I am Pro- Choice (Of course!) But I voted "yes". If that man (1) is the father; (2) if conception was the result of a loving act; (3) if he is willing and capable of taking care of the child (in all aspects) as long as he/she lives; (4) if he is willing to accept sole custody and parental rights; and (5) if he is a normal, decent, mentally stable adult... yes, I do think his opinion/decision should be taken into account.
P.S.: I do know all the counter-arguments. And I can see their validity. So, no need to repeat them here.
COGITOERGOSUM
Level 6
May 20, 2018
2
When you say taken into account do you mean taken into consideration? By whom? The pregnant female? The courts? Just curious on your train of thought there...
Yes, "taken into consideration". Both: Woman and the courts.
I know it is HER body, and, as a lawyer myself I would defend her decision to have an abortion. But the man is the father, and it is not possible to justify ignoring HIS rights.
@COGITOERGOSUM You're assuming he has rights to the woman's body, but he doesn't. That's her uterus, and if she doesn't want overnight guests, she's within her rights to evict. His rights don't begin until she gives birth. At that point, he can assert his rights and take on the consequent responsibility.
Your words: "His rights don't begin until she gives birth." My questions: Why? Who said so? Is that a "truth", a dogma, a prejudice? Can you enumerate 2 or 3 logical reasons to defend that thesis? @GinaMaria
@COGITOERGOSUM because the pregnancy, its risks and repercussions are entirely the womans until the fetus becomes viable and is born. You don't have a right to any womans body. No fetus has a right to any womans body. Full stop.
@COGITOERGOSUM, @Blindbird answered your question with regard to rights. While the fetus inhabits a woman's body, she has full right of bodily autonomy. You can't even force a person to give blood in order to save the life of another person, or their organs after death, so ordering a woman to donate her uterus, however temporary, suggests women have fewer rights than corpses (or even chickens, in the state of California.)
@GinaMaria She didn't. I asked for "logical reasons". She gave me none. But there were worse replies. At least, hers (and yours) are coherent.
It is one thing to be right (A person can be right by mere chance!), and another thing to be able to present logical arguments to defend our thesis. Verbigratia: I agree with your statement ("a woman has full right of bodily autonomy" ), and yet, your argument is a logical Fallacy (non sequitur), because your conclusion, though correct, does not follows from your premises.
I will qualify this by saying that if a woman wants an abortion, it should be her decision only. If the father wants the child to raise AND the woman agrees to that condition AND wants to take to term, then the father has the right to his child. There are ALWAYS extenuating circumstances that arise.
jlynn37
Level 8
May 20, 2018
1
Short answer, it would be wrong to force a medical decision on anyone, there for it's wrong to give the father rights to the mother's womb...
On the other hand pregnancy is not always concentual, and accepting semen does not denote an offer of prolonged relationship of financial support.
The flip side of choice is responsibility.
Your choice, you responsibility
Lifestone
Level 5
Sep 20, 2018
0
Guess you're forgetting the child inside the womb...and the courts guarantee lifetime financial support or at least in theory...
You are wrong in the point that a woman can`t have a child without a man. There are sperm banks and technology is moving toward female-female reproduction. However I will agree that men should be consulted about the decision. The final choice would be the womans of course but there are factors that might affect the womans choice. He may have a terminal disease, it may be hereditary. This would affect child support. He may be the sole heir to a fortune or the last of his tribe. It is unfair that a man has no say but life is not fair.
273kelvin
Level 8
May 22, 2018
0
Sure, but I don't know why someone would want to keep the dead remains of a fetus. It sounds a little deranged.
All jokes aside, abortion is something that is best left to medical staff to decide on, and other qualified parties, however I am sure that most of the time, it is viable on all grounds to abort a fetus, so such an assessment would not create a rights issue.
Additionally, giving birth is a highly taxing and painful process that I absolutely do not blame any woman for wanting to go through, just like I wouldn't hold it against any man for being responsible for providing for a baby, and dealing with the extra work of looking after a woman who is expecting. Yes, it is natural, but this does not preclude its downsides, which are often more than enough.
People from the outside of these issues also have no authority to rule on such an issue, because they do not hold property rights over the parties involved; the parties involved are no one's property, but their own, and that child is their collective production, but of course it follows that a better informed decision is going to be a better decision in all respects.
Often, people are not prepared to raise a child, as well. Raising children is expensive, requires the ability to guide someone through life itself, requires a knowledge of right vs. wrong, and requires qualities of maturity which are exclusive to those of higher intelligence and resources.
Now, let's get into the national politics of the situation as well. Our food supply, amenities, and space struggle to adjust to our growing population, which becomes less intelligent with greater numbers due to such resource limitations. That being said, we should be very keen not to just let people have children as they want, especially in the case of people who would, either out of genetic problems, neglect, or corruption of mind, produce criminals and other highly destructive categories of people. We don't need our country to become a zoo because of strong feelings about reproductive rights, especially when the USA is still not first place in academic and intellectual performance.
Also, this is not something to make political theater over, for those who would lambast me over my position. I implore that people approach this question with maturity, honesty and clear, accurate thinking, rather than normative argumentation with no cognizance.
DZhukovin
Level 7
May 21, 2018
0
Okay
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.