Abortion debate

[HAL 9000 96]

Its not about power of one over the other. Its about the rights of both are parents. The father is either thrusted into or removed from fatherhood..with no decision in the matter.

Yes, I am aware that the woman is the gestator. And the woman and the fetus are interlinked. But the fetus IS a life unto itself and relies upon the mother(parents) to make decisions for it. But even though the father does not physically nurture the fetus, he IS a part of that gestation.

Seems the father is being forgotten about in all this. And i think that is ashame....as men are suppose to "be a man" and do his part AFTER the birth of the child. Seems he would have rights BEFORE the birth of the child too.

But maybe I am thinking bigger than the surface issue.

Oh Lord.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Its not about power of one over the other. Its about the rights of both are parents. The father is either thrusted into or removed from fatherhood..with no decision in the matter.

Yes, I am aware that the woman is the gestator. And the woman and the fetus are interlinked. But the fetus IS a life unto itself and relies upon the mother(parents) to make decisions for it. But even though the father does not physically nurture the fetus, he IS a part of that gestation.

Seems the father is being forgotten about in all this. And i think that is ashame....as men are suppose to "be a man" and do his part AFTER the birth of the child. Seems he would have rights BEFORE the birth of the child too.

But maybe I am thinking bigger than the surface issue.

But it isn't exactly practical, is it...

How the hell would something like that be enshrined into law?

[Boorai 0]

The father isn't forgotten; it's just that the alternative is him being able to have a say in whether someone gets an abortion. I mean, think it through. If you give him the same rights over the fetus, and they disagree, then what? She wants to keep the baby, he wants to abort. (Because this is almost always about child support.) Does he take her to court to get an order for her to terminate the pregnancy?

I see where you're coming from, but there's no way to give the guy rights as a father before it's born while respecting the woman's right over her own body. And once the kid is born, both parents are in the same position: they either have to care for the child, provide for its care, or terminate their parental rights.

I'd rather rework how child support is handled or make it easier to adopt than make it so someone else has theoretical rights over his wife or girlfriend's body.

Thank you...it s about time someone used a logical argument. i know its a a situation without a definet answer. But in most arguments the father is completely forgotten about. Its a decision that a couple should agree on, but does not always do so. Its a shame because there are MANY good men who would make wonderful fathers.

Your point on child support is a very good one, indeed. Always alternatives to abortion.....easier adoptions et al...would be another solution.

Interesting though, how the backlash AGAINST the father is so strong....whenever I bring up this point.

Its not about power of one over the other. Its about the rights of both are parents. The father is either thrusted into or removed from fatherhood..with no decision in the matter.

Yes, I am aware that the woman is the gestator. And the woman and the fetus are interlinked. But the fetus IS a life unto itself and relies upon the mother(parents) to make decisions for it. But even though the father does not physically nurture the fetus, he IS a part of that gestation.

Seems the father is being forgotten about in all this. And i think that is ashame....as men are suppose to "be a man" and do his part AFTER the birth of the child. Seems he would have rights BEFORE the birth of the child too.

But maybe I am thinking bigger than the surface issue.

But it isn't exactly practical, is it...

How the hell would something like that be enshrined into law?

ITS A MORAL ISSUE, NOT A LEGAL ISSUE!!!! Has always been and wil always be. just think about it for a bit.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The father isn't forgotten; it's just that the alternative is him being able to have a say in whether someone gets an abortion. I mean, think it through. If you give him the same rights over the fetus, and they disagree, then what? She wants to keep the baby, he wants to abort. (Because this is almost always about child support.) Does he take her to court to get an order for her to terminate the pregnancy?

I see where you're coming from, but there's no way to give the guy rights as a father before it's born while respecting the woman's right over her own body. And once the kid is born, both parents are in the same position: they either have to care for the child, provide for its care, or terminate their parental rights.

I'd rather rework how child support is handled or make it easier to adopt than make it so someone else has theoretical rights over his wife or girlfriend's body.

Thank you...it s about time someone used a logical argument. i know its a a situation without a definet answer. But in most arguments the father is completely forgotten about. Its a decision that a couple should agree on, but does not always do so. Its a shame because there are MANY good men who would make wonderful fathers.

Your point on child support is a very good one, indeed. Always alternatives to abortion.....easier adoptions et al...would be another solution.

Interesting though, how the backlash AGAINST the father is so strong....whenever I bring up this point.

It isn't. Pointing out the obvious impracticalities of trying to enshrine father's rights prior to birth, hardly amounts to a "backlash".

[HAL 9000 96]

Its not about power of one over the other. Its about the rights of both are parents. The father is either thrusted into or removed from fatherhood..with no decision in the matter.

Yes, I am aware that the woman is the gestator. And the woman and the fetus are interlinked. But the fetus IS a life unto itself and relies upon the mother(parents) to make decisions for it. But even though the father does not physically nurture the fetus, he IS a part of that gestation.

Seems the father is being forgotten about in all this. And i think that is ashame....as men are suppose to "be a man" and do his part AFTER the birth of the child. Seems he would have rights BEFORE the birth of the child too.

But maybe I am thinking bigger than the surface issue.

But it isn't exactly practical, is it...

How the hell would something like that be enshrined into law?

I've seen some pretty weird laws written into the books... but I am still trying to grasp how a the contributor of sperm has equal deciding logic in whether a pregnant woman gets to decide to continue or not a pregnancy.

Usually these decisions in a matrimony are discussed anyway... but still... it really is bizarre how some would continue living in an epoch where a woman can't decide something that is uniquely within her body.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The father isn't forgotten; it's just that the alternative is him being able to have a say in whether someone gets an abortion. I mean, think it through. If you give him the same rights over the fetus, and they disagree, then what? She wants to keep the baby, he wants to abort. (Because this is almost always about child support.) Does he take her to court to get an order for her to terminate the pregnancy?

I see where you're coming from, but there's no way to give the guy rights as a father before it's born while respecting the woman's right over her own body. And once the kid is born, both parents are in the same position: they either have to care for the child, provide for its care, or terminate their parental rights.

I'd rather rework how child support is handled or make it easier to adopt than make it so someone else has theoretical rights over his wife or girlfriend's body.

Thank you...it s about time someone used a logical argument. i know its a a situation without a definet answer. But in most arguments the father is completely forgotten about. Its a decision that a couple should agree on, but does not always do so. Its a shame because there are MANY good men who would make wonderful fathers.

Your point on child support is a very good one, indeed. Always alternatives to abortion.....easier adoptions et al...would be another solution.

Interesting though, how the backlash AGAINST the father is so strong....whenever I bring up this point.

Its not about power of one over the other. Its about the rights of both are parents. The father is either thrusted into or removed from fatherhood..with no decision in the matter.

Yes, I am aware that the woman is the gestator. And the woman and the fetus are interlinked. But the fetus IS a life unto itself and relies upon the mother(parents) to make decisions for it. But even though the father does not physically nurture the fetus, he IS a part of that gestation.

Seems the father is being forgotten about in all this. And i think that is ashame....as men are suppose to "be a man" and do his part AFTER the birth of the child. Seems he would have rights BEFORE the birth of the child too.

But maybe I am thinking bigger than the surface issue.

But it isn't exactly practical, is it...

How the hell would something like that be enshrined into law?

ITS A MORAL ISSUE, NOT A LEGAL ISSUE!!!! Has always been and wil always be. just think about it for a bit.

Says you.

[HAL 9000 96]

It IS amoral to impose one's will upon others.

[Caladan 19]

If it's a moral issue, it's not going to lead to fewer abortions to have guys able to make women have abortions.

[HAL 9000 96]

If it's a moral issue, it's not going to lead to fewer abortions to have guys able to make women have abortions.

Also an interesting post. Given how some of us males are about fatherhood... I'd predict LESS births from allowing guys such a bias over a woman's pregnancy.

And I'm pretty ticked that I have to wait until my PhD is done because we are both willing and ecstatic about starting a family.

[Caladan 19]

Haha, us too, except I'm the one getting the PhD.

[HAL 9000 96]

Haha, us too, except I'm the one getting the PhD.

So not fair.

[keltic 1]

Its not about power of one over the other. Its about the rights of both are parents. The father is either thrusted into or removed from fatherhood..with no decision in the matter.

The sperm donor makes his decision when he decides to "thrust".

[DeadPoolX 9]

Its not about power of one over the other. Its about the rights of both are parents. The father is either thrusted into or removed from fatherhood..with no decision in the matter.

The sperm donor makes his decision when he decides to "thrust".

That's not a good reason. The woman was -- unless raped -- an equal partner in the decision to have sex.

I'm not a religious person, so my views have nothing to do with God or anything else. However, I can see Boorai's point in that the father has no rights at all.

While the father may not have any right over the woman's body, he should have a decision after the birth. Why should the man get forced into the position of fatherhood or pay child support? That doesn't make sense.

What's being said here is if a couple decides to have sex, then the ultimate decision is up to the potential mother and the potential father has no say at all -- even when both partners willingly had sex together. If she chooses to keep the kid, then the man is forced into one of two positions (active father or child support) without any say once again.

In effect, this suggests that the man forced the woman to have sex and should therefore be punished. This says he should bear the responsibility of both partner's actions and pay for a child he did not want. If both partners willingly have sex with each other, then logically the decision should rest on both of their shoulders.

If she decides to terminate the pregnancy, then any parental or financial obligations no longer apply. If the man wanted to keep the child himself, then I could see him paying for the woman's hospital bills and anything else up until the point of pregnancy. However, if she keeps it (and it's out of the father's hands), his parental and financial obligations should no longer apply (unless he's willing to be the kid's father).

[Boorai 0]

Th ank you DPX for seeing my point.

My only point was that the father has zero rights and is forced into the decision of the mother(when both made the decision to have unprotected sex). This is bases upon a consentual decision to have intercourse. Yes, it is a woman's body..but the life that she carries is not her's; its the child's life. Thus it is the responsibility of both parents to collaborate and advocate for the best interest of the child. And I only mentions a potential(though, I am sure, VERY rare) scenario whereas the mother wants to abort yet the father would want the child born. Along with comes all the agruments that have been previously mentioned.

Peace, Love, and Soul to everyone

[HAL 9000 96]

Its not about power of one over the other. Its about the rights of both are parents. The father is either thrusted into or removed from fatherhood..with no decision in the matter.

The sperm donor makes his decision when he decides to "thrust".

That's not a good reason. The woman was -- unless raped -- an equal partner in the decision to have sex.

I'm not a religious person, so my views have nothing to do with God or anything else. However, I can see Boorai's point in that the father has no rights at all.

While the father may not have any right over the woman's body, he should have a decision after the birth. Why should the man get forced into the position of fatherhood or pay child support? That doesn't make sense.

What's being said here is if a couple decides to have sex, then the ultimate decision is up to the potential mother and the potential father has no say at all -- even when both partners willingly had sex together. If she chooses to keep the kid, then the man is forced into one of two positions (active father or child support) without any say once again.

In effect, this suggests that the man forced the woman to have sex and should therefore be punished. This says he should bear the responsibility of both partner's actions and pay for a child he did not want. If both partners willingly have sex with each other, then logically the decision should rest on both of their shoulders.

If she decides to terminate the pregnancy, then any parental or financial obligations no longer apply. If the man wanted to keep the child himself, then I could see him paying for the woman's hospital bills and anything else up until the point of pregnancy. However, if she keeps it (and it's out of the father's hands), his parental and financial obligations should no longer apply (unless he's willing to be the kid's father).

Its just an exercise in equal logic here, DPX.

Since males can't biologically carry a pregnancy to term, then the matter of fairness or rights is irrelevant. Once males can carry a baby to term, like I joked before- then we can talk about equality in choosing an abortion if one of the two parties wants one and the other doesn't. Since there isn't parity in the situation, then its absurd to flow otherwise since the imposition becomes feelings over biology.