Should a Man have an Absolute Right to Choose to Abort His Baby?

year2late said:

She can give up for adoption? If the father is known does he not have to agree to the adoption? I was under the impression there had to be a good faith effort to find the father so he will sign the papers as well. If this was very casual sex or bar pick ups or such, it may not be possible to know

But you make it sound like a woman in each case has the right to give up the baby for adoption without the father's approval. I am not sure this is true. I had a coworker in danger of losing her soon to be born openly adopted baby because the father changed his mind. The father did some soul searching and ended up agreeing to the adoption, but there was a few weeks of tears and agony when it was thought that the adoption was in danger.

But at least in this case, he had to sign the papers to give up parental rights and have the baby to be adopted legally. I am not sure how this relates to laws across the country or if this was a lawyer being over cautious. But my guess is there are laws against adopting the baby without good faith efforts to find the father.

Click to expand...

If the father objects to an adoption, then the child is not put up for adoption

SmokeAndMirrors said:

And how tough is it for her to simply not reveal the father? Not tough at all.

Lots of women hide their pregnancies. The hospital has no recourse if she simply says she doesn't know, whether that's true or not. What are they gonna do about it?

The man can't do anything without the woman allowing him to. Not even as pertains to his own life.

On the other hand, the woman can do virtually anything she wants without his permission or knowledge, including give away the baby and ensuring he will never even see it.

Click to expand...

All a man has to do is look at the pregnant mother, and he will know she is pregnant. It is not something that is easy to hide.

Korimyr the Rat said:

I agree with this...



... but I don't agree with this, because it's not true. When a woman becomes pregnant, she still has options; the man doesn't. And like all inequities of power, this leads to exploitation and abuse.

Click to expand...

Hold it. Are you seriously suggesting that when it comes to sex, men are oppressed more than women?

SmokeAndMirrors said:

First one's right.

Second two are both wrong.

If the mother wants to give the baby away, she doesn't need anyone's approval. All she has to do is not tell who the father is, that way they can't try to get his permission. That simple.

I am fairly sure the woman would not be allowed to relinquish the baby to the father. Now, before you tell me things are therefore "fair," keep in mind that the woman has an extremely easy way to get around that, which I mentioned above.

If she remained a legal parent, yes, but again, see above. It's ridiculously easy for her to avoid that.

What we have right now is a system that practically encourages women to find loopholes.

Click to expand...

SAM...

Given that we have a constitutional system that created a unilateral advantage - which is slanted and unfair.

What possible legal and/or legislated solution do you perceive could be enacted in which none of the parties involved will be injured (injured meaning: will not affect an involved party by forced medical procedures, legal obligations, financial welfare, or quality of life) as the result of an unintended conception?

If you've already posted an answer...do you mind repeating it or pointing me to a link?

Thanks

sangha said:

Because a born baby is a person

Click to expand...

That doesn't answer the question.

sangha said:

And men have that liberty

Click to expand...

No, they do not. They have the option to "keep their legs shut if they don't want a baby", which you would be the first person to accuse me of being misogynist if I applied the same argument to women.

Phys251 said:

Hold it. Are you seriously suggesting that when it comes to sex, men are oppressed more than women?

Click to expand...

No, not in the least. I'm suggesting that when it comes to reproductive rights, men are oppressed. As passionate as I am about casual misogyny and rape culture, their existence does not provide justification for perpetuating a system that exploits and abuses men; sexism is sexism, and it hurts all of us.

Korimyr the Rat said:

No, not in the least. I'm suggesting that when it comes to reproductive rights, men are oppressed. As passionate as I am about casual misogyny and rape culture, their existence does not provide justification for perpetuating a system that exploits and abuses men; sexism is sexism, and it hurts all of us.

Click to expand...

Wow, dude. Can you give us some concrete evidence about how women have systematically oppressed men in all walks of life? And I'm not just talking custody battles. That's a very specific subset of what I'm asking for.

year2late said:

She can give up for adoption? If the father is known does he not have to agree to the adoption? I was under the impression there had to be a good faith effort to find the father so he will sign the papers as well. If this was very casual sex or bar pick ups or such, it may not be possible to know

But you make it sound like a woman in each case has the right to give up the baby for adoption without the father's approval. But my guess is there are laws against adopting the baby without good faith efforts to find the father.

Click to expand...

joko104 said:

Everything is so unfair to us men! :2bigcry:

Click to expand...

sangha said:

All a man has to do is look at the pregnant mother, and he will know she is pregnant. It is not something that is easy to hide.

Click to expand...

The key is "if the father is known;" not by the woman but by the authority she is submitting the child for adoption to. Furthermore, the male can't do anything unless she has told him she is pregnant, so he won't necessarily know that he has a child to assert any rights to.

She may very well know who the father is, but she does not have to admit it. In cases where there is no husband she can simply tell the hospital she does NOT know, sign the paperwork giving up the baby for adoption, and that's all there is to it. She has fully opted out for both her and the male.

Beyond the hospital option there is also the "baby drop off" option in some states where all a woman has to do is drop the baby off at a church, hospital, or fire station and then simply disappear. In either case unless the male knew about the prenancy and actively seeks the child, she's just opted-out for both of them. These are clear pro-life option's for women opposed to abortion but who do not wish to raise a child.

Even if the male knows, it's possible for the woman to simply claim she had a miscarriage. Only a husband might know better since they share the medical bills.

It is also disingenuous to presume every male will KNOW a girl he slept with is pregnant. Why? Some engaged in one-night stands; some in short-term hook-ups; some in moderate-term "relationships;" some in long-term but not live-in relationships; some in long-term relationships in which she "takes a break" and he might not see here for a few months. Hell, there's even the possibility in a marriage where the husband is away like a soldier on overseas duty. In each case the woman is in total control of not only her decision to abort, but also her decision to place the child up for adoption. In each case she can also decide to tell him and he is stuck with the obligations.

Are the members arguing against SAM's position really that myopic; only seeing things one absolute way?? The man MUST know? Really? REALLY?!?!

Women abort without telling men all the time. Many women also simply give the child up for adoption without ever telling the male she gave birth. Thus the woman can uniltarally opt-out of childbirth either via abortion, or simply by not telling the male and then abandoning the child for adoption. However, if she tells him and she states she is keeping it...he's stuck.

That is inequitable, and all your fallacious arguments do not balance the equation. Those arguments do not address the essential question, why does she get to unilaterally decide for both when it comes to keeping a child?

Removable Mind said:

SAM...

Given that we have a constitutional system that created a unilateral advantage - which is slanted and unfair.

What possible legal and/or legislated solution do you perceive could be enacted in which none of the parties involved will be injured (injured meaning: will not affect an involved party by forced medical procedures, legal obligations, financial welfare, or quality of life) as the result of an unintended conception?

If you've already posted an answer...do you mind repeating it or pointing me to a link?

Thanks

Click to expand...

There is no possible system that could do that, with the present limitations of medicine. Our present system presents substantial harm to all parties involved. And likely, any other system would too.

But that ain't the point. You aren't reading.

The point is that people have fundamental rights to their own person. If the possibility of negative outcomes is unavoidable -- and it is -- at least I can say I support the only position that doesn't impose harm in itself by treating one sex or the other as a servant or an idiot, either of which need to be controlled by a denial of rights.

sangha said:

All a man has to do is look at the pregnant mother, and he will know she is pregnant. It is not something that is easy to hide.

Click to expand...

Unless she just stops coming around him. In that case, it's extremely easy to hide, and plenty of women do it.

sangha said:

If the father objects, the court will not allow her to give the kid up for adoption

Click to expand...

Unless she just never tells them who the father is. Plenty of women don't.

Still treating this issue that degrades the role and the significance of the mother and merely makes them tools I see. Is it the yearning for the glorification of Rome and the time when the father was the one decided whether to keep the baby or not (no abortion at the time) the issue here?

Sometimes some threads last so long needlessly that it amazes me. Just wanted to let you all now.

Korimyr the Rat said:

That doesn't answer the question.

Click to expand...

If you don' understand the answer, that doesn't mean it's not an answer

No, they do not. They have the option to "keep their legs shut if they don't want a baby", which you would be the first person to accuse me of being misogynist if I applied the same argument to women.

Click to expand...

Men have several options

Captain Adverse said:

The key is "if the father is known;" not by the woman but by the authority she is submitting the child for adoption to. Furthermore, the male can't do anything unless she has told him she is pregnant, so he won't necessarily know that he has a child to assert any rights to.

She may very well know who the father is, but she does not have to admit it. In cases where there is no husband she can simply tell the hospital she does NOT know, sign the paperwork giving up the baby for adoption, and that's all there is to it. She has fully opted out for both her and the male.

Beyond the hospital option there is also the "baby drop off" option in some states where all a woman has to do is drop the baby off at a church, hospital, or fire station and then simply disappear. In either case unless the male knew about the prenancy and actively seeks the child, she's just opted-out for both of them. These are clear pro-life option's for women opposed to abortion but who do not wish to raise a child.

Even if the male knows, it's possible for the woman to simply claim she had a miscarriage. Only a husband might know better since they share the medical bills.

It is also disingenuous to presume every male will KNOW a girl he slept with is pregnant. Why? Some engaged in one-night stands; some in short-term hook-ups; some in moderate-term "relationships;" some in long-term but not live-in relationships; some in long-term relationships in which she "takes a break" and he might not see here for a few months. Hell, there's even the possibility in a marriage where the husband is away like a soldier on overseas duty. In each case the woman is in total control of not only her decision to abort, but also her decision to place the child up for adoption. In each case she can also decide to tell him and he is stuck with the obligations.

Are the members arguing against SAM's position really that myopic; only seeing things one absolute way?? The man MUST know? Really? REALLY?!?!

Women abort without telling men all the time. Many women also simply give the child up for adoption without ever telling the male she gave birth. Thus the woman can uniltarally opt-out of childbirth either via abortion, or simply by not telling the male and then abandoning the child for adoption. However, if she tells him and she states she is keeping it...he's stuck.

That is inequitable, and all your fallacious arguments do not balance the equation. Those arguments do not address the essential question, why does she get to unilaterally decide for both when it comes to keeping a child?

Click to expand...

IOW, a man screws some girl he barely knows, doesn't make any attempt to see her over the next 270 days, and then when the baby is given up for adoption, his rights are somehow being abused because he doesn't have to pay a dime in support? :screwy

Or if she has the baby, it's unfair because both the mother and the father have to support their child? :lamo

SmokeAndMirrors said:

Unless she just stops coming around him. In that case, it's extremely easy to hide, and plenty of women do it.

Click to expand...

Ahh, I see!

The man is completely powerless to do anything! He can't possibly even see a woman if the woman doesn't want him to see her.

Woman are omnipotent like that :screwy

SmokeAndMirrors said:

Unless she just never tells them who the father is. Plenty of women don't.

Click to expand...

Wrong

The father can tell the court or the hospital that he's the father.

sangha said:

IOW, a man screws some girl he barely knows, doesn't make any attempt to see her over the next 270 days, and then when the baby is given up for adoption, his rights are somehow being abused because he doesn't have to pay a dime in support? :screwy

Or if she has the baby, it's unfair because both the mother and the father have to support their child? :lamo

Click to expand...

Sangha, please stop looking at one "tree" and realize there is a "forest" here.

Yes, it is unfair. Suppose the man WANTED a child but the woman did not? She still gets to abort even if he is aware of the pregnancy, OR she can give the child up for adoption without letting him know she was ever pregnant. That is one side of the coin you keep ignoring! SHE has made the decision NOT to have a child for BOTH of them! Those of us in favor of Pro-Choice don't argue against this because we accept it is her body going through the changes, and we also acknowledge maybe she is not ready for the responsibilities of raising a child.

However, apparently it does not matter if the MAN does not want a child because he is not ready for such responsibility, either financially or personally.

Stop focusing on "child support." That is only one aspect of many concerns arising from having a child which go well beyond mere financial support as everyone should know; they've been expressed many times in this thread. The issue under discussion is CHOICE, of which the man has absolutely NONE!

Captain Adverse said:

Sangha, please stop looking at one "tree" and realize there is a "forest" here.

Yes, it is unfair. Suppose the man WANTED a child but the woman did not?

Click to expand...

Then he should have sex with a woman who wants to have his child

She still gets to abort even if he is aware of the pregnancy, OR she can give the child up for adoption without letting him know she was ever pregnant.

Click to expand...

I have proven this wrong. A father can withold consent for an adoption, and can easily determine if a female is pregnant.

That is one side of the coin you keep ignoring! SHE has made the decision NOT to have a child for BOTH of them! Those of us in favor of Pro-Choice don't argue against this because we accept it is her body going through the changes, and we also acknowledge maybe she is not ready for the responsibilities of raising a child.

However, apparently it does not matter if the MAN does not want a child because he is not ready for such responsibility, either financially or personally.

Stop focusing on "child support." That is only one aspect of many concerns arising from having a child which go well beyond mere financial support as everyone should know; they've been expressed many times in this thread. The issue under discussion is CHOICE, of which the man has absolutely NONE!

Click to expand...

You already agree that the woman has a right to have an abortion. Stop pretending that you object to this.

The issue is whether a man has a right to not support a child of his. He does not. Not legally, and not morally.

And please stop claiming that men have no choices. That is a lie.

sangha said:

I have proven this wrong. A father can withold consent for an adoption, and can easily determine if a female is pregnant.

Click to expand...

NO, you have NOT "proven this wrong." You've merely asserted it is wrong. The fact is that I have listed several regularly occurring situations where the male would NOT know she was pregnant. That you ignore this and continue to assert otherwise is confusing, since it is clear to everyone but you.

sangha said:

You already agree that the woman has a right to have an abortion. Stop pretending that you object to this.

Click to expand...

Where did you get the idea that I "object to this?" Of course I accept it, I merely acknowledge it as one facet of her unilateral power. The obverse power is to unilaterally keep the child and thus trap the male in a lifelong series of obligations.

sangha said:

The issue is whether a man has a right to not support a child of his. He does not. Not legally, and not morally.

Click to expand...

NO, that is the issue as YOU seem to see it. This issue is about inequity and a males lack of CHOICE. That lack of choice compels child support, and all the other baggage that comes with a resented obligation...including the possibilities of an unwanted marriage, child abuse, spousal abuse, divorce, legal battles over support modifications, harassment, emotional conflicts between all parties, etc., etc., etc.

The woman can unilaterally decide not to deal with any of this by either abortion or placing the child up for adoption. Conversely, she can decide to have the child and require the male to "participate" in caring for it. In both instances the man has no choice.

Well if the man has no choice in her opting out, this should be balanced by his right to opt-out too.

sangha said:

And please stop claiming that men have no choices. That is a lie.

Click to expand...

It is NOT a lie, even though you keep making that ridiculous comment "he can abort if he has a child." You really need to drop that line, it's a silly statement and really unworthy of debate.

Prior to conception (which only you and the other "blame game" people argue about) the ONLY choice he has is whether or not to have sex with the woman using a condom. Even there the final decision rests with the woman who controls what happens and can simply refuse sex unless he uses contraception. After conception (which is what everyone but you seems to be talking about), condom or not, she has unilateral power to make the choices for BOTH of them. He has NO CHOICE in that matter.

Captain Adverse said:

NO, you have NOT "proven this wrong." You've merely asserted it is wrong. The fact is that I have listed several regularly occurring situations where the male would NOT know she was pregnant. That you ignore this and continue to assert otherwise is confusing, since it is clear to everyone but you.

Click to expand...

And again, I have demonstrated that

1) it is easy for a man to find out if a female is pregnant

2) If the baby is given up for adoption, the man has no financial obligation to support it

Where did you get the idea that I "object to this?" Of course I accept it, I merely acknowledge it as one facet of her unilateral power. The obverse power is to unilaterally keep the child and thus trap the male in a lifelong series of obligations.

Click to expand...

Unless you believe in immaculate conception, no woman has the unilateral power to trap a male into being a father.

NO, that is the issue as YOU seem to see it.

Click to expand...

It is also the issue as YOU described it in your OP

This issue is about inequity and a males lack of CHOICE.

Click to expand...

1) Men don't lack the ability to choose to have a child.

2) The fact that someone doesn't have the SAME *choices* is of no concern to the law. The law is concerned with people having the same *rights*

That lack of choice compels child support, and all the other baggage that comes with a resented obligation...including the possibilities of an unwanted marriage, child abuse, spousal abuse, divorce, legal battles over support modifications, harassment, emotional conflicts between all parties, etc., etc., etc.

Click to expand...

Men do have choices.

The woman can unilaterally decide not to deal with any of this by either abortion or placing the child up for adoption. Conversely, she can decide to have the child and require the male to "participate" in caring for it. In both instances the man has no choice.

Click to expand...

Nope. Women can't unilaterally decide to put their children up for adoption, and males have the choice to not become a father.

Well if the man has no choice in her opting out, this should be balanced by his right to opt-out too.

Click to expand...

Men have a choice to not become fathers.

It is NOT a lie, even though you keep making that ridiculous comment "he can abort if he has a child." You really need to drop that line, it's a silly statement and really unworthy of debate.

Prior to conception (which only you and the other "blame game" people argue about) the ONLY choice he has is whether or not to have sex with the woman using a condom. Even there the final decision rests with the woman who controls what happens and can simply refuse sex unless he uses contraception. After conception (which is what everyone but you seems to be talking about), condom or not, she has unilateral power to make the choices for BOTH of them. He has NO CHOICE in that matter.

Click to expand...

The fact that you had to qualify your claim (see bolded section) proves that even you know that men have choices. Therefore, you repeated claims that men have no choices is a lie.

What you really mean is that "men do not have the same choices" to which the answer is "So what? It's not the laws job to ensure that everyone gets to have the same choices in life"

Do you really believe the law does or should ensure that everyone gets to make the same choices?

sangha said:

Ahh, I see!

The man is completely powerless to do anything! He can't possibly even see a woman if the woman doesn't want him to see her.

Woman are omnipotent like that :screwy

Click to expand...

sangha said:

Wrong

The father can tell the court or the hospital that he's the father.

Click to expand...

What, you've never stopped seeing someone you slept with?

She's got at least 3 or 4 months to do that before it becomes unavoidable. I've known women who did that. I know one guy who had a woman call him up 4 years later and inform him he had a daughter, and then ask for child support. He had no idea.

For the record, once the paternity test came through, he paid it without fuss, and actually got involved in her life.

He can't tell the court if he doesn't know.

SmokeAndMirrors said:

What, you've never stopped seeing someone you slept with?

Click to expand...

I've never impregnated anyone

It was a choice.

Men have them.

She's got at least 3 or 4 months to do that before it becomes unavoidable. I've known women who did that. I know one guy who had a woman call him up 4 years later and inform him he had a daughter, and then ask for child support. He had no idea.

Click to expand...

To do what? I don't understand

sangha said:

I've never impregnated anyone

It was a choice.

Men have them.

Click to expand...

Not that you know of.

He didn't think he had either.

To do what? I don't understand

Click to expand...

Who hid their pregnancies from men without any trouble.

SmokeAndMirrors said:

Not that you know of.

Click to expand...

No, I am absolutely sure of it.

He didn't think he had either.

Click to expand...

He thought wrong.

Who hid their pregnancies from men without any trouble.

Click to expand...

Yes, a woman can hide a pregnancy for a few months

But not for the entire pregnancy

sangha said:

No, I am absolutely sure of it.

He thought wrong.

Click to expand...

Oh, really?

Did you know a lot of women never tell their partners they aborted?

Yes, a woman can hide a pregnancy for a few months

But not for the entire pregnancy

Click to expand...

Sure she can, if she just stops hanging out with him. Like I said, I've seen women do it.