CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Should a father have a right to refuse an abortion?
I feel that abortion is wrong. However, even it is allowed, should a person who will have to increase financial burden not have any say in whether it is allowed or not?
Parents are the ones who must decide whether to have a child or not. Without any one of them the birth of the child is impossible. So, i feel, that dad also has a say in such proceedings that affect both of their lives
hi, i was in a similar situation, my girlfriend got pregnant and decided to abort without my say. i was mad at myself cause it seems like i was'nt supportive of her decision. but i wonder to myself what could have happened if we kept the baby. i love her to bits and pieces despite what she did to our unborn child. i was angry and not talking to her but i realised that i might be selfish and besides i love her alot.
I agree, the father should have a say in the abortion. What gives the mother the right to kill the unborn child if the father wants to have a child? A child doesn't mean you have to stay together forever. Why should a man have to suffer the pain of losing his unborn child just because some bitch is worried about her social status?
The creation of a child requires equal participation, and ideally, so would the raising of said child. However, the burden is unequal when it comes to incubating the embryo; the woman does all the work. Therefor, it makes no sense for someone who has no part in the biological process of the pregnancy to try to dictate what happens to it.
I love that. sure there are some birth controls do not work every time, but it is there choice to sleep with a man. Even if one does not want the child there are other options than killing it. Saying that you dont want to put your body through carrying a child then your just being selfish and think twice before you have sex.
it makes no sense for someone who has no part in the biological process of the pregnancy
WHAT?!?!?! A father plays an important part in the biological process of the pregnancy. What are you talking about? You even say so yourself in the first sentence, "The creation of a child requires equal participation." And then you go and contradict yourself?
Incubating the embryo is part of raising the child. The mother would raise it for 9 months and then, afterwords, the father raises the child until age 18 without the mother who doesn't want the baby. The burden is unequal when it comes to raising the baby to adulthood; the man does most the work. The mother's role is done and over with after 9 months.
Now, for your information, it is a lot harder to take care of a child for ANY 9 month period AFTER the child is born than it is to take care of a child while it is "incubating". So , are you telling that you would rather kill the fetus (denying the fetus a chance at life, AND denying the father of his half of the baby) than carry it for 9 months? Is 9 months such a burden to bear for a human life?
The father plays an equal part in insemination. The fertilization of the egg. After that, his job can be done until the child is born. This is the platform of my argument; pregnancy belongs specifically to the mother. It takes place inside her body from beginning to end, uses resources from her, and the process leaves her permanently altered. If she does not want to continue it, it is her choice and only her choice because her body is what is keeping the fetus alive, and nobody can force a person to allow anything to use them as life support.
In a perfect world, couples would have this discussion before sex, and come to an agreement about what to do in the event of a pregnancy. But as it is, that doesn't always happen, and in that unfortunate case, it is not up to the father. I feel for the men who have lost a fetus they were willing to raise into a child; it is a terrible thing to experience, and I wish it was avoidable. But considering the alternative, which removes a woman's right to her own body, I cannot see a better way.
"The burden is unequal when it comes to raising the baby to adulthood; the man does most the work."
Yes. In this situation, it is completely his choice, and no one strong-armed him into it. This is irrelevant because this is not about how hard it is to do what, It is about who is being forced to do what.
And no one strong armed the woman into getting pregnant. What you fail to realize is that there are more than one person involved in a pregnancy and their rights are being trampled on.
I am sure if couples who had birth control failures had been given a choice between their contraceptive working and not working, they would have opted for it to work. However, this is an act of nature, and no one is really given a choice.
I am not sure why you keep offering your own debate as some sort of proof, or source for your argument. There are two people involved in the origin of the pregnancy, but it is only strictly necessary for the woman to be involved in the duration of it. That is a fact.
If a couple is using birth control get pregnant, then they would choose to abort. The specific and very limited case I'm talking about is where the couple are at odds.
I don't know why you keep straying from the subject at hand. Actually that's not true. I mean, if someone gave me absolute power over anything (including life and death), I would never relinquish that power either (regardless of how many people's rights it tramples on) ;)
The situation I presented said nothing about their views differing or aligning, only that they find themselves in a situation of a pregnancy they were trying to prevent.
How about if you had power to make all the decisions over what happens to your own body? You have that now, and I bet you don't want to give that up. Neither do I, can you imagine that?
Really? It depends on your definition of "power over my body." You see, if i get a girl pregnant and I want her to have an abortion and she chooses not to, she can then turn around and force me to use my body in the service of providing for that child in the form of child support. A man is thus enslaved. But I bet you see that as perfectly alright. As long as it's a one way street that favors you, you're Ok with it. Aren't you?
Either a man has the right to request an abortion or he has a right to not pay child support if the request is refused, or he has a right to request that an abortion not be performed and that he will take full responsibility for the child.
The father has got to have at least one of those rights. Otherwise it is discrimination and his civil rights have been violated.
I am no fan of the current child support system, although I think it is a separate issue from a woman's bodily autonomy. It is outdated, easily abused, and yes, it is one of the few areas of life that seems to be stacked unfairly in favor of the woman. So, what is an alternative way to provide for the basic needs of these children when their mother cannot afford to?
Hmmm..., I think I see the problem. This is one of those "the glass is half full / half empty" things.
I mean, I can rephrase your last question as follows:
What do we do with irresponsible people who know they can't afford a child but they risk having sexual intercourse (instead of 69 or something), get pregnant and then want to keep the child?
Agreed. However, her decision to keep this child, will change this man's life whether he wants the child or not. Her decision not to keep the child, can prevent someone who wants to be a good and loving father the chance.
Because I really have nothing more to say on this subject, please refer to my last debate where this side did, in fact, win and where I posted all my thoughts on this subject.
Yes he should if he is going to support that child all the way through. It doesn't seem as though the father has many rights at the present but he should.
I believe a father has the right to refuse an abortion because it is as much his kid as it is hers.....i mean why the fuck not? Just because the woman doesn't want to be fat or some stupid shit like that is no reason why the father should not be thought of in this decision, if you don't think you can support the kid then fine, but at least hear what the father thinks about it also
Assuming abortion is legal at the time, like now, then yes, the father should have a say. It's his baby too. If I got my fictional girlfriend or wife pregnant and she went and got an abortion, I'd be devastated and most likely leave her. She has no right to kill my child because she doesn't want one at that time. The only times I'd tell her to get one is if the pregnancy might kill her or if it was from rape or incest. Even if she had cheated on me, I would urge her to keep it.
Urging her to keep it is fine. Voicing your strong opinions is fine. Saying "this will end our relationship" is fine (arguably it's not real supportive, but it is a legitimate position).
Mandating that a woman's body be subject to the demands of another person against her wishes for nine months, though, is not fine.
If and when the fetus can be successfully and safely transplanted into the father's body to gestate without any serious risks to the mother, then maybe the father should have a determinative say. But until then, the one whose body is at issue makes the call.
All I see is that "the one that makes the call" can do as she pleases (screw around) without any consequences to her actions and all at the expense of the fetus. Hey, it's not the woman's fault. It is everybody else's fault (the father, the fetus, you name it). It is never the woman's fault. She never has any say in the matter when it comes to getting pregnant so she must be protected and allowed to have an abortion. Nice.
We all have to make sacrifices and sometimes we just can't get what we want. If I were a woman and I got pregnant, I think I would take the father's input into consideration. And if he truly wants to have the baby, then I would make the sacrifice to birth it. It's all a matter of owning up to your mistakes and understanding and following through with your consequences.
As a side note, I did not downvote your argument, so I will be upvoting it because you made valid points and it was well written.
Some women reserve the right to sacrifice their fetuses and embryos. Do not they argue both implicitly and explicitly that they (the women) will benefit as a direct consequence of abortion?
I find it hard to believe how many people are so open to double standards and passing blame. The father should bear burden whether he wants the child or not. The mother should just be able to kill the child and have no consequence for her actions. Makes no sense.
The feminism movement caused so much uproar about how women were being mistreated and did not have equal rights. Why ignore it when its happening the other way?
I propose, that if a father wants an abortion and the mother does not, she should have to bear all burden of this child when it comes into the world.
Also, if the opposite happens and as already mentioned, he is willing to bear all financial burden, find someone else to deliver the child, free her of all burden after the child is born that he should have a say.
Yes, a father should be able to say no to an abortion because it isnt just the mother who conceived the child, they both conceived a child together. If they both can decide on having sex without protection, then they both can decide on whether to keep the baby or not.
Has anyone thought of an argument that fundamentally would fit with the pro-choice argument (btw I am pro-life)... even if the fetus is a "thing" and not a "person," it still belongs to both the father and the mother. This thing, then should be one-half the property of the father - it doesn't matter where it is located, does that ever matter with property? If that is the case, what right does the mother have to destroy his property without consent and/or compensation??? This seems to violate the basic property laws of Anglo-Saxon law to me... Furthermore, doesn't the father have a de facto trademark or copyright on his sperm??? It is a unique code, fully owned by him? Our world would certainly mandate his consent should we use his DNA for purposes of cloning, stem cell research, etc. Doesn't he own his genetic code - and isn't, at the point of conception, the embryo composed of half his DNA??? So then, I leave you, my pro-choice colleagues, with an intriguing question - Is it then proper that a joint owner in a partnership (a de facto partnership formed by two consenting adults who know the risks when they have intercourse - heck if you can have an oral contract, why can't sex form a contract of sorts???) single-handedly decides to destroy the whole of said company? In court cases, the murder of a pregnant mother counts as double homicide... This is due to the fact that the mother (obviously) didn't consent to her baby being aborted by these means. Then why shouldn't the father's lack of consent in such a case make a mother's decision to abort comparable to single homicide? In both cases, the end result is the same (disregarding the will of a parent of an embryo, and terminating a pregnancy without consent from a parent...)
firstly, i AM pregnant, and i am going through with a termination. however i came on this site to hopefully get some answers; i am in a very happy stable relationship and all that jazz. however because of complications with my womb, i only have a 15% chance of getting pregnant, that number is only going to decrease as time goes on. and about a month ago i found out i was pregnant. me and my boyfriend are both 19, he obviously does not want a child and has cried and begged with me not to have it even though he knows i may not get another chance. some may say that that is selfish. well it is, but at the same time its selfless, he is thinking about the unborn child, it would not be fair to give birth to a child when one of its parents did not want it. and if having that child would stop you from doing all you wanted to do in life you could end up resenting it. and thats not good for any body.
on the flip side up until 2 weeks ago i didn't think the man should have the right to decide, because the mother is the one with sole responsibility she will be the one carrying it around giving birth breastfeeding and probably looking after the baby in general most of the time. threes nothing wrong with bringing a child up on your own and i feel that if you really really want a child and the father does not you need to evaluate your relationship. is it worth losing someone you love for an EMBRYO?
The father should be allowed to decide if he wants the child. It is not such a terrible thing for the woman to have the baby and either give it to the father or adopt it out. Abortions are selfish and not necessary. They also cause long-term guilt.
Neither should a man be able to force a woman to have an abortion. Either way, it is taking a human life.
The main goal should be focused on prevention. It is the responsibility of both partners, and if they want to take the risk of unprotected sex, they will have to take the responsibility.
The message hasn't sunk in I guess.
If you don't want a baby, don't make one. Even if you "accidentally" get pregnant, adoption is a better choice over killing.
Both parents will obviously (hopefully) be involved in the decision and the upbringing of the child, but when it boils down to it, the woman must bear the physical consequences/risks of bearing a child. And if the father decides to split, the woman is physically tied to her child. Not fair.
Besides, if fathers had the right to refuse abortions, there'd just be women asking friends to push them downstairs or kick them in the stomach or getting dangerous drugs....
I am talking legality. If there was legal terms in which the father could not 'split' as you call it, then why should she be allowed to say no? Secondly, having your embryo removed and placed in a surrogate mother, is no more intrusive than an abortion. Finally, you still have not answered the other scenario. What if he does NOT want the child. Why should she have a way out but doesn't? She should have to waive his legal liability to keep the child he does not want in the case that she is refusing to have an abortion. Its called equal rights. Somewhere along the way, the pendulum turned to far in favor of a woman. Now we are a long ways away from equality.
He can refuse it all he wants, if I dont want a baby, i'm not having a baby. If he wants a baby THAT badly, he can go adopt. But there is no way he is putting my body through 9 months of transformation, then 14 hours of pain, to bring a life into the world.
Then he should also have the absolute right to opt out of parenthood, seeing that it's your body and your child. There is no reason that he suddenly should have responsibility if his views mean nothing.
So men have to just "deal with it" because some twit is worried about her social status? Are you girls worried you won't have time to text your friends while taking care of a child? 9 months is less than 1% of the life span of a healthy woman. Are you saying you can't spare less than 1% of your life to give life?
That is not "The Major Argument for Abortion." Do not assume that it is. Different people will have different most important arguments. My personal most important argument is that there is something living inside of the mother and it should be her choice as to whether or not is allowed to do so.
As soon as you tell me why, if that thing belongs to her, he should suddenly have equal responsibility or any responsibility for that matter. Why should men's reproductive rights still be trampled on. Men should have the right to opt out of parenthood, just like women can.
The father should have nothing to do with the woman's decision of whether or not to have an abortion, just like he should not have the right to force one.
That still does not answer my question. If he does not want the child and she does, why should he have any legal burden when it is born? Why should she have a way out and not him?
Nor should he have any responsibility toward the fetus after birth if he doesn't want it. It's hers, as you aptly pointed out and he should be able to state up front that he wants nothing to do with it.
No! most men today just want to love and leave you. Or if they stay with you cheat on you. They make conscious decisions to do things you disaprove of all day, how about having a woman make the decision in something wrong for once. Besides why didn't you guys talk about what your plans were before the pregnancy?
I think abortion is bad. I really do. But I think it should be up to the mother. After all, she IS the one carrying the baby. The father should not have the right to choose, but he could help the mother decide her choice.
A woman having a baby with a man she should not, of course, has the right to abortion. Such a man may perhaps not cope well with the child and the woman wants it all. And then the woman giving birth also undergo further. Basically everything is done with the woman and the man almost nothing, because if the man would get a child's (which is not) then it should go through because the person who will give birth, the heaviest burden, so the woman should decide.
It's the woman's body, it's the woman's choice. Who is a man to tell her what to do with HER body. Yes, he can give her his opinion but in the end it is her decision.
If I was in this situation, I would definitely take the father's opinion into account, but it would be my body, so ultimately the decision would be mine. If I truly felt abortion was the best option, he could refuse it all he wanted, and it would still happen. It's not an ideal situation, but the termination of a pregnancy usually isn't.
To imagine a woman being denied an abortion just because her boyfriend/husband or whoever wanted to keep the baby strikes me as incredibly disturbing. It is essentially disregarding her wishes in favor of his and forcing her to continue a pregnancy she doesn't want, and that sounds like a nightmare to me.
Right. Because it is so much more preferable to kill a human embryo than to force a woman into a 9 month ordeal she could have prevented if she had just kept her legs closed ;)
Here's what it boils down to. A woman can be promiscuous without any consequences, none, zero, zip, nada. And all at the expense of someone else, the fetus. Nice.
This country is in such a mess because no one wants to take responsibility for their actions. It is always someone else's fault.
So essentially, a baby is well-deserved punishment for a woman daring to have sex? That's lovely.
I would to go into all the consequences 'promiscuous' women face, such as the example of slut-shaming you provided, but that is another argument. But not only promiscuous women get pregnant, surprisingly enough!
By current scientific definition, an embryo is not someone, it is something. Of course it has the potential to be a human being, but it isn't yet, in the same way an acorn is not an oak tree and the eggs in your fridge are not chicken.
Actually, my argument is that if there's an option available to save the fetus, it should be seriously considered. It seems like too many people have their mind set that their first option should be to terminate. I'd rather give life a chance.
Pregnancy is no small matter, and all options should be given serious consideration. The next time you get pregnant, you are well within your rights to give life a chance. There is nothing wrong with believing that is the right thing to do. Problems arise when people cannot accept that others may reach a different decision about abortion, and try to force others to adhere to their beliefs, either through legislature or guilt, shame, and scare tactics.
There is one major problem that you are not taking into consideration. Whenever there are no consequences to your actions, whenever you are not accountable and held responsible, you open the door for abuse. If you tell women that men have a right to claim the baby and that they have to carry the baby to term if the father wants it, you'll start to see a decrease in unwanted pregnancies. And that is a good thing.
There are several major problems that you are not taking into consideration.
Do you think abortion is an easy decision and a pleasant process? It is a very difficult choice for many women and even though it may be the best one, they suffer guilt and grief for years, maybe for the rest of their life. Trust me, lots of them make their own consequences. It can also be physically painful.
Again, do you not see something wrong with inflicting a baby on someone as a punishment for 'screwing around'? A child should never, ever, ever be a 'consequence'. That is spiteful and retributive. Many women get pregnant either through a contraceptive failure, or a lapse in judgment; do either of those really merit lifelong consequences not only for them, but for the child?
If history has shown us anything, it is that removing a woman's bodily autonomy results in more illegal abortions than anything else. Before abortion was legal in the United States, it is estimated back alley abortions were responsible for 5,000 to 10,000 deaths a year. These were not just the promiscuous women you seem to think are the only people who get abortions; they were mothers, wives, daughters and sisters. People who were already human beings, not just fetuses.
Lastly, why does the father's decision trump the mother's? On the other side, if he wants her to get an abortion, should doctors listen to him instead and force one on her? If not, why? Do you not see how this opens up a multitude of sinister opportunities for men to control their wives or girlfriends? When is it ever okay for the government to remove a person's right to decide what goes in or out of their own body, especially based on what someone else wants? The only people this benefits are men who do not respect their wives/girlfriends bodily autonomy.
Let's say you've had your way, and pretend abortion has never been legal. Studies estimate more than one million abortions in 2005, and as many as 50 million since Roe vs. Wade. If every one of these children would have been born, where would they be now? How many would be on welfare? How many would have been dumped into the overcrowded and inefficient foster system? Who takes care of these 'consequences' when the parents simply can't?
I am not advocating that "the baby" be the punishment. I'm advocating that "the delivery" be "the punishment" (as you put it). I see "the delivery" as a chance for a life that most people see as forfeit.
Think about this, ask any teenage girl, "What would you do if you get pregnant?" More often than not, the response will be, "I'll get an abortion." In other words, "an abortion" is the default answer. Other options are not even considered. I don't think abortion should be the default answer. I believe other options should be considered. One way to force the consideration of alternatives is to give fathers a chance to claim the baby (although, if you ask a teenage boy, "What if you get a girl pregnant?" More often than not he'll give you the same default answer, "abort".).
By allowing the father to claim the baby, the fetus is given one more chance at life. With the current system his only chance lies on the mother. With the system being proposed, he has two chances at life, his mother and his father. Two chances for one parent to chose life. If they both chose to abort, his chance at life is forfeit. But you have admit that two chances at life is better than one. Even if the chances of one parent choosing life is small, it is still better than one chance.
Also note that if the father claims the child he has sole responsibility for the child. After delivery, the mother walks away. So your spiteful retribution argument is a moot point.
Also NOTE that I'm not advocating making abortions illegal. So your abortion history is a moot point.
It is not that the father's decision trumps the mother's decision (argh!) It is that the fetus' chance at life trumps which ever parent wants it destroyed. In other words, the only way to get an abortion is if both parents want it destroyed. Only the rejection of both parents can trump a fetus' chance at life. Therefore a man cannot force a woman to get an abortion if she wants the child. So your sinister argument is a moot point.
As I stated before, the goal is to force the consideration of alternate options. Most unwanted pregnancies happen to teenage parents. I would be highly surprised (given the selfish nature of teenagers) that either one of the parents would chose to keep the child. More likely than not, they will both opt for an abortion. So your foster care argument is a moot point.
Think about this, ask any teenage girl, "What would you do if you get pregnant?" More often than not, the response will be, "I'll get an abortion."
A source on this?
"So your spiteful retribution argument is a moot point."
No, it isn't, because you still advocate punishment for a woman having sex.
"So your abortion history is a moot point."
No, it isn't, because if a woman were to be refused an abortion based on the father's decision, plenty of them would still seek illegal abortions elsewhere.
No one has any right to 'claim' something that is inside someone else's body, and dependent upon that other person for survival. And because the fetus is not yet a legally recognized person, but the mother is, when their rights conflict, hers come first. And like Banshee said, when the fetus can be implanted in the father's body, when he can carry it himself, then he has a right to it. Until then, he cannot demand someone else carry a fetus for him against their will.
"Most unwanted pregnancies happen to teenage parents."
Again, a source on this? According to this page on abortionstatistics.com (http://www.abortionfacts.com/Statistics/age.asp ), most abortions occur in the 20-24 age bracket, then the 25-29 age bracket, and only then in the 15-19 age bracket.
People have no right to 'force this consideration' on women who want abortions. They can share information with them, appeal to their logic or emotions, and generally do their best to convince them to keep the baby, yes, but force them? No. If a woman wants an abortion, it should be available to her. Anything else is far more barbaric than the alternative.
if a woman were to be refused an abortion based on the father's decision, plenty of them would still seek illegal abortions elsewhere.
O M G ! ! !
What kind of selfish bitch would seek an illegal abortion to spite the father of her child once he has stated that he'll take full responsibility for the child?
How selfish does one have to be chose to destroy the life of someone who who has a father waiting for him/her to be born with loving arms?
But wait, let me finish your argument for you, a fetus is a parasite. A fetus is not human. How freaking convenient for you to define a fetus that way. Just like it was convenient for Nazis to define Jews as rats. It makes it that much easier to destroy. nice!
They can share information with them, appeal to their logic or emotions, and generally do their best to convince them to keep the baby
I don't want to convince anyone to keep the baby. I want to make sure that a pregnancy goes to term if the father chooses to take FULL RESPONSIBILITY for the baby. Once the bay is born the mother walks away. In other words, in the OFF CHANCE that the father wants the baby, the mother has to endure 9 months. The father has to endure 18 years. 9 months of your life is a small price to pay for the life of a life. If you can't do the time, then get your partner to agree that he will opt for an abortion if you get pregnant and make sure he wears a condom and make sure you get on the pill and take it religiously.
Wait..., what?.... what is that I hear? Getting your partner to agree and committing to birth control is too much to ask? People can't expect women to be responsible before having sex. It's easier to just left any and all responsibility from her shoulders and let her abort if she's screws up (it's not her fault)? Screw the little bastard? Is that your position?
Are you too selfish to even consider any alternative that gives a fetus a slight chance at life? A slight chance because the probability of a man in his 20's who would chose to take full responsibility for a baby is slight. A man in his 20's is either in college or starting his career. How can he take care of a child? More than likely he can't. So giving him the right to opt to keep the child is moot because chances are that he wont take that option. But I'm not interested in that. I'm interested in giving the fetus a fighting chance no matter how slight. it's only fair.
The father has to endure 18 years. 9 months of your life is a small price to pay for the life of a life.
Do you know how many lives you would be able to save if you devoted 9 months of your life to trying to do so? Or even just by devoting 18 years of child support funds to people in need.
Go find someone that is hungry and then feed them. Or find someone sick and get them care.
After you have exhausted all of your resources doing so then you can feel justified in expecting someone else to devote their time and/or money into another live which you have no part in.
"What kind of selfish bitch would seek an illegal abortion to spite the father of her child once he has stated that he'll take full responsibility for the child?"
I don't know, possibly someone who realizes her bodily autonomy is being bulldozed, and that the rights of a non-person have overridden her own? Someone who simply does not want to be pregnant right then and might be absolutely terrified by the thought of being forced through it?
"I beg to differ on the following grounds:"
You can beg to differ all you want and use your own debate as some sort of proof, but the government does not currently recognize a fetus as a person with rights and citizenship.
"I don't want to convince anyone to keep the baby. I want to make sure that a pregnancy goes to term if the father chooses to take FULL RESPONSIBILITY for the baby."
Feel free to carry as many pregnancies to full term as you can handle. Do not assume any degree of control over someone elses' body. It is not up to you (or anyone else) what medical procedures they do or do not undergo, it is not up to you (or anyone else) what they put in their bodies or what they remove, or why they chose to do so.
"Getting your partner to agree and committing to birth control is too much to ask?"
You do realize that not all people who have unwanted pregnancies are having wild, unprotected sex at every corner, right? No method of birth control is 100% safe; not condoms, not vasectomies or hysterectomies, not hormone pills or IUDs. In fact, 57% of women who got abortions reported using a contraceptive at the time.
"Are you too selfish to even consider any alternative that gives a fetus a slight chance at life?"
Personally, this is not where I stand. If I got pregnant, the father was I man I could love and trust, and he was truly willing share the burden of raising a child, I would not get an abortion. But I realize that my choice is not everyone's choice. It is not up to me or anyone but the woman in question to decide when an abortion is okay and when it isn't. Whatever is going on inside a person's body is 100% their prerogative and no part of the decision process belongs to anyone else unless they want it to.
"Carrying a baby to term is NOT a punishment. If it were a punishment, women wouldn't give birth."
Let me finish that sentence for you: "Carrying a baby to term is not a punishment unless you are being made to do it against your will." There you go.
So giving him the right to opt to keep the child is moot...
Did you just say your own position is moot? In any case, no it isn't, because if this resulted in even one woman being forced through childbirth against her will, that would be disgusting.
"Just like it was convenient for Nazis to define Jews as rats. It makes it that much easier to destroy. nice!"
Godwin's law does not make any statement about whether any particular reference or comparison to Adolf Hitler or the Nazis might be appropriate,
In this case I think the comparison to Nazis is appropriate because you have compared a human fetus to a parasite, a non-person that has no rights whatsoever and can thus be disposed off as seen fit by the individual carrying it without having to answer to anyone and without any consequences, culpability, repercussions, accountability, nothing. I mean, it fits to a 'T.' But I'm sure you'll disagree ;)
And you have compared a nonthinking, nonfeeling, nonsentient lump of tissue, in most cases of abortion no bigger than a golf ball, to a completely self-aware human being that suffered persecution, starvation, brutality, and execution.
I added that not because I had any strong feeling on the appropriateness of your reference, I found it irrelevant and didn' give it much thought. More than anything, I thought it was funny to see Godwin's Law in action.
And is that really the only point to which you can offer a rebuttal?
Actually I don't care either because regardless of what I say on CD, it will never have any bearing on legislation. And the same goes for anything you say.
On the other hand, if there was an organized group of people that thought like me and decided to follow the gay community's fight for gay marriage as an example on how to change legislation, then that would really be interesting ;)
But I understand your point. I mean, if anyone gave me absolute power over anything (including life and death), I would never relinquish that power either (regardless of how many people's rights it tramples on) ;)
Actually I don't care either because regardless of what I say on CD, it will never have any bearing on legislation. And the same goes for anything you say.
Since when is CD only for discussions that have bearing on legislative action? To me, that seems like a cop-out because you don't really have any valid rebuttals for lots of these points.
On the other hand, if there was an organized group of people that thought like me and decided to follow the gay community's fight for gay marriage as an example on how to change legislation, then that would really be interesting ;)
Have fun with that. Since Roe vs. Wade, ongoing polls show that America is becoming more and more firmly pro-choice. Many Americans still believe abortion should be limited, but not only is that changing too, most of them are not fanatically eager to force these limitations on women.
But I understand your point. I mean, if anyone gave me absolute power over anything (including life and death), I would never relinquish that power either (regardless of how many people's rights it tramples on) ;)
Is there a point to saying the exact same thing twice in different posts, and not addressing my response to the first time you said it?
You know, that I think about it, since father's rights are being denied and there's no way to get them back in the near future, and since I can only change my behavior, if I weren't in a committed relationship I would change my behavior to giving women facials rather than giving them control over my sperm ;)
Is that supposed to offend me? As long as you're not doing it without your partner's permission, that is a completely reasonable and justified way to ensure you never find yourself in this situation.
You know what I find disgusting? A woman who would willfully deny a father a chance to be with his child by killing it. That is more disgusting than anything you may consider vile.
Thank goodness the US government disagrees with you and places a person's right to their own body at a higher value than the fate of a fetus, which is not a person yet.
Yeah, that can be changed though. People who think like me will just have to follow the example being set by the gay community in their fight to get legislation changed. ;)
Nobody is saying he should cast the deciding vote either. However, by current standards, he has no say whatsoever. I have aske everyone the same question. I will ask one more time. If the father says he does not want the child and she still insists she does, why should he hold financial burden after the child is born. On the flip side, if he wants the child and is willing to hold all burden before and after the child is born, why should she be able to abort? Even if, he agrees to find a surrogate mother.
Morals: principles or habits with respect to right or wrong conduct.
Way back when it was wrong for a woman to have a child out of wedlock, and when it was wrong to kill a fetus, abortion were considered immoral. And so, only immoral women had abortions and only immoral women died due to said abortions (by definition). Thus, abortions were illegal.
Why was it wrong for women to have children out of wedlock? Because the brief pleasure achieved through the sexual act is not worth the problems created by a one parent household.
Why was it wrong to kill a fetus? Because life was held to a higher standard.
Now that it is not wrong for a woman to have a child out of wedlock and abortions are no longer immoral and thus legal, innocent fetuses die.
Why are abortions no longer immoral and legal? Because it was reasoned that we can enjoy the brief pleasure achieved through the sexual act if we allow abortions and force fathers to pay child support on the off chance that the woman does not chose to abort.
But doesn't this shift the woman's half of the responsibility for getting pregnant onto the father's shoulders? Absolutely.
But is killing a fetus worth the brief pleasure achieved through the sexual act? It is if you reason that the fetus is nothing more than a collection of cells that are not alive and claim that the fetus is a parasite.
I don't like to see women die, moral or immoral but if I had a choice as to who should live, I'd pick the innocent fetus. Why? Because a woman can chose when to get pregnant simply by waiting until she's married to a man who wants to start a family with her. Abortions not only allow a woman to enjoy sex before she is married but also to enjoy this sex with a man that doesn't want to start a family with her. The sacrifice for all of this sex is the life of a fetus.
In other words, a fetus has no control over the sex but he is made responsible for the consequence of that sex. If the couple had acted responsibly and waited until they were married and committed to each other, then there would be no need for an abortion, no need to make the fetus responsible for something it has no control over. The couple, however, do have control over the sex and are capable of making a choice to have sex and therefore it is ultimately the couple who should be held accountable and made responsible for the consequences of that sex, namely the fetus.
It is thus wrong for a woman to make a conscious choice to have sex out of wedlock and then, when things go wrong, to deny the father any rights to the baby and (on top of that) to kill the fetus.
If, on the other hand, you make a woman accountable for her role in the pregnancy, you will then see women acting more responsibly.
Dang, i love you joe! your so amazing, i am super glad i am allies with you!
I personally believe that the father should have just as much say in the matter as the mom. It takes two people to make a baby, it should take two to decide on an abortion. I agree that if the father wants to take full responsibility for the baby then it should be perfectly fine, what's the harm in that? Seriously guys, just because the embryo is not "born" yet does not mean that it is not a human being. If you ever see pictures from abortions, you will know what i mean. It is a horrible and very disturbing site.
I do not think either person's decision should trump the others.
For example, if a mother wants to bring that child into the world, even though the father says he is not ready, that is her choice. However, she should not have any legal grounds for child support. If she can just terminate because she doesn't think she is ready, why is it a decision forced upon men?
On the flip side, I have suggested a surrogate mother which the father will hold full financial burden to, no legal liability for the mother after the child is born and the father agree to keep the child. Why should this not be an option? The procedure is no more harmful than an abortion to the mother.
The fathers decision should not trump the mothers. As the mothers should not trump the fathers. If the mother does not want an abortion and the father does, she should have to free him of any responsibility of that child after it is born. He must be willing to do the same in the opposite as well.
I agree, the argument above also implies that it is the fault of the "promiscuous" woman for the pregnancy though the equally "promiscuous" man remains seems to be free from fault or punishment. Even as a man I can say that's simply wrong.
To imagine a woman being denied an abortion just because her boyfriend/husband or whoever wanted to keep the baby strikes me as incredibly disturbing. It is essentially disregarding her wishes in favor of his and forcing her to continue a pregnancy she doesn't want, and that sounds like a nightmare to me.
So let me see if I understand you correctly. If a boyfriend/husband wants full custody of the baby he is "disregarding her wishes in favor of his" and this is "disturbing."
But (and this is a big but so please bear with me), if he wants full custody of the baby and she opts to have an abortion regardless of the FACT that the fetus is half HIS, she is NOT disregarding his wishes in favor of hers and this is NOT disturbing.
And... having an abortion is NOT a nightmare for the father who wants to keep and raise his child but it is a nightmare to carry a child for 9 months.
NOW... I know that she may NOT want the baby but doesn't she have any responsibility for her actions? After all, she did consent to sex. And, before you twist this, a rapist would have no say in the matter.
It sounds to me that what you want is a one way street, specifically the street that benefits only you and no one else (not the father, not the fetus). You want to have the final say in the matter and no one can hold you accountable for your actions.
Agreed. But, he should be able to opt out and have no responsibility to the fetus after birth if he doesn't want it. She has all the authority so he should have no responsibility.
So why should a father who wanted her to have the abortion, have to pay child support? If, on the flip side, he wanted the child and had no say? Its a double standard. Lose lose for the man.
Again, it comes down to someone who is not experiencing a pregnancy trying to dictate how it ends.
In the case of a man paying child support on a child he didn't want, it does put these men in a potentially unfair situation but the other option is to have a lot of babies brought into the world to single mothers who can't fully support them. Not only does the mother suffer, but so does the child, who is no longer a couple of cells, but a fully recognized human being who shares no part of the blame in these cases. It is a matter of choosing the lesser of two evils, and those situations are never perfect for anyone.
I am proposing a situation in which the mother would not need to support them. The father is willing to take all financial burden. Therefore, your argument about single mothers is not relevant.
As far as the lesser of two evils go, you think it is a lesser evil for a mother to terminate her child rather than give it to a capable and willing father, without any future burden?
If she can't afford the baby that's her fault. She could have gotten an abortion or put the baby up for adoption. She can do whatever she wants to avoid being in that situation. If you respect women's reproductive rights you should respect men's too.
Her decision affects him too! If she keeps the child, he must pay child support. If she does not, he loses a chance to be a father! I agree that if she does NOT want the abortion that he should not be able to force her. However, if he says he wants one and she says no, then he should be able to remove all responsibility after the child is born. After all, if she chooses to have the abortion, the result would be the same. Also, if she wants the abortion and he does not, he should have the option of finding a surrogate mother and remove her of all burden.
"If she keeps the child, he must pay child support."-(Yeah,thats what he gets since he dipped his penis into her vagina.)
"If she does not, he loses a chance to be a father!"-(well then he should go have babies with another woman!)
"I agree that if she does NOT want the abortion that he should not be able to force her."-(Hey!We're on the same page now!)
"However, if he says he wants one and she says no, then he should be able to remove all responsibility after the child is born."-("With Sperm,comes Responsibility")
"After all, if she chooses to have the abortion, the result would be the same."-(well her vagina probably wont look the same
but i dont think thats what you mean..)
"Also, if she wants the abortion and he does not, he should have the option of finding a surrogate mother and remove her of all burden".-(Thats a good idea no pun intended,but
then we fall back into our previous issue!The pregnant women
It is my belief that every person's body is their own property, and that each person has the right to do with him or herself whatever he or she desires regardless of the opinions of others. Having a man be able to dictate what a woman does with herself is a violation of her right to self. If men can tell women what to do with their pregnancies, why not tell them more? By that logic a man should be able to dictate whatever a woman does with herself.
Nobody is suggesting a man should dictate what a woman do. Just that he should have some control over a child that he may or may not want. If she does not want the abortion even after he say he does not want the child fine. However, he should have not financial burden. If he says he wants the child and is willing to hold all financial burden even while she is pregnant, why should this not be an option. I take it one step further and say, he will find a surrogate mother and people still object. If a father has equal burden after the child is born, he should have some say.
I think it should be a joint decision as much as possible, but in the end the burden and risk lays with the women and so therefore does the right to make the final decision.
The man has many risks tied to her decision as well. Such as, financial burden should she keep the child. Studies now suggest, a man will go through many of the same mental problems such as remourse and depression should she have the abortion.
And what kind of mental problems would a women have if she was forced into having a child she couldn't afford, she couldn't care for or support?
And what is SO bad about a man paying to help his child? Why is it that instead of a man paying a little extra money to keep HIS child fed, whether he wanted the child or not, he would rather say he doesn't have equal rights because he couldn't force a women to have an abortion?
