No, mother's choice only.
Yes, a father has rights too.
abortion should be illegal.
I can't imagine how he could have the power to force her to gestate a fetus against her will, but not also have the power to force her to terminate a pregnancy against her will.
Either women have sovereignty over their bodies, or they do not.
She by definition also has the power to affect the man's life for the rest of his life. I totally agree "female bodily soveriegnty" (until 24 weeks gestation) but that doesn't mean you can impose the consequences on the other person.
In my view, if a mother is going to have sex but knows beforehand that she cannot now rely on the govt to enforce a father (after birth) to pay for a child he has given up parental and financial responsibility for then she may equally think twice about unprotected sex.
I'd go further with this and make sure that if the father decides to go ahead and play a role - that the mother has absolutely no backing from any court to prevent his access / contact / visitation - whatever it's called in your country/
Daddy, if you didn't take the time to get to know this person, then you FAIL to have a say in an abortion matter.
D0GBREATH, DOES THIS INAUGURAL GOWN MAKE MY ASS LOOK BIG?The jokes write themselves!
I think a father should be able to put in a formal request for an abortion. If the mother declines, the father should not be expected to pay child support or have any parental rights.
If the mother has a serious health disorder or condition which will serious alter, imped or possibly threaten her life and chance of having future children then, no, I don't feel a judge should be able to order her to carry the child. Now, in all due honestly, these types of situations are far less common than abortions for convenience or as a result of poor BC planning.
If the mother just wants to abort because of *no* particular reason (thus, an abortion for convenience) - and the father is willing to take care of the child without the mother being involved at all - then he shuold have that right to intervene.
However - if someone's willing to abort due to convenience then how can anyone ensure the actual proper nutrition, growth and development of the child? Sure if the mother doesn't *want* the child and isn't willing to *carry* the child then the child is in danger. . .how far is a father willing to go to continually intervene?
If she aborts anyway - is the father due some type of compensation for emotional trauma?
If some type of agreement between teh two is struck to agree to carry/birth the child - and then teh father will solely adopt the child . . . and the mother doesn't properly care for herself during pregnancy and that results in harm to the child (say, she drinks - and the child suffers from fetal alcohol syndrome) - does the father have a case for neglect and abuse on behalf of the child, is he then able to sue for support of some type from her?
A screaming comes across the sky.
It has happened before, but there is nothing to compare it to now.Pynchon - Gravity's Rainbow
No, the father does not have a right to stop an abortion. The father, however, can express his wishes, and then it's up to the pregnant woman to decide what she wants to do. I hope we never get to a point where a man has a legal right as to what a woman can do to her own body when it comes to pregnancy.
This is not to say that I don't feel for the man who wants the baby badly and the woman says, "Sorry, I don't want it."
Its one of the most unfair situatiosn within our society, and its one of the reasons that frankly you will not get me crying many tears over the plight and unfair treatment of women, but ultimately its a situation where there's a bad answer and a worse answer. In this case, the woman having sole sovereignty over the child's life based on it residing within her body is the bad answer, but the father being ble to have an equal call is worse, in regards to rights and the ramifications it has.
As we are continually told during abortion debates, its not "just" the womans fault that they chose to have unprotected sex. That is correct. Its both's fault, so to say "too bad, the guy should've wore the condom" is as bull**** as saying "well the girl should've just not had sex". Its a horrible and sad thing in our society that we have such situations where a child is concieved, has a parent that is happy and willing to raise it and love it, and it is aborted because the other doesn't want it. This both applies when a father wants it but the mother terminates, or if the situation was reversed either legally or illegally (through threats, intimidation, or force). However, the stakes of allowing another control over another persons body is equally disturbing.
Ultimately, and I know this is going to sound crazy, my hope would be that a reliably safe way of either allowing for a surrogate mother, a artificial surrogate, or even a method in which men could carry a child could be developed. If it could be done with relatively minor risk (IE no more risk then say a C-Section) then I would be in favor of a law stating that if a woman wishes to abort but the father wishes to keep it that a transplanet would be required rather than an abortion, after which the mother would relinquish rights and responsabilities to the child. This to me would be a reasonable balance between "infringing upon the rights of the mother's control on her own body" and the rights of the child whose residing within it. It does not force the mother to carry a child for 9 months, having the multitude of affects that pregnancy brings in addition to the after affects lasting for untold months. At the same time, it does not terminate the child when there is a willing biological parent choosing to take it.
Until such a point though the "bad or worse" decision has to be made, and that decision has to be that it is the womans choice though I would hope any reasonable women WOULD give input to the father.
Now, with this said...
I am in favor to review of paternity law in regards to responsability. If a father is not made known of the child prior to the 6the 3rd trimester then he should not be legally compelled to give financial support, or have a reduction of the amount of financial support he is forced to give. If a father IS notified prior to the 3rd trimester he has the option to relinquish claim to the child within the first 2, thus removing any rights he has towards the child but also any responsability in regards to financial support. He could not relinquish his position after the 3rd trimester, to remove people getting suddednly cold feet. The woman has sovreignty over her own body, she should not have it over the the wallet of the father. The action of conception is a two person act and if women has the ability to wipe her hands clean of the child prior to its birth then the father should have an equal if different ability to do such as well. All the complaints that forcing pregnancy is "punishing the woman" equally applies in regards to forcing financial slavery on the part of the man.
If they are forced to pay and that doesn't change, then new regulation should be put on it requiring the mother to specifically detail where every dollar of child support is spent to justify that it is going to half of the support of the child. If it accounts for more than half of the money used to support the child then the amount the father is forced to pay should be reduced. If its found that the money is being for things other than the child then it should be a violation, with 3 violations leading to a potential reduction of support requiring to be paid and grounds to potentially contest custody.
Last edited by Zyphlin; 07-02-10 at 08:18 AM.
"I am appalled that somebody who is the nominee...would take that kind of position"
"A court took away a presidency"
"...the brother of a man running for president was the governor of the state..."
It's horrifying because Trump is blunt instead of making overt implications.