NationStates Jolt Archive

I was reading the Father's rights thread, and it seems to me that a side issue is the right(or lack therof) of a father to have a say in abortion.

IF a father is advocating the keeping of the child then presumably he is at least INTRESTED in the child.

SO why do they have no rights in this matter?

It does take two to tango and he played a part, so if he wants the consequences of a babie that should be a factor.

opinions?

I was reading the Father's rights thread, and it seems to me that a side issue is the right(or lack therof) of a father to have a say in abortion.

IF a father is advocating the keeping of the child then presumably he is at least INTRESTED in the child.

SO why do they have no rights in this matter?

It does take two to tango and he played a part, so if he wants the consequences of a babie that should be a factor.

opinions?
He may indeed be interested and perhaps should have "rights" in the matter. However, there is no practical way I can think of to insure any "rights" he may have. The woman is the one who must carry and give birth to the child, and practicality dictates that the decision must be hers to make and hers alone. It's another "modern conundrum." :headbang:

Maybe they should have a say if they can prove that they are willing to take responsibility for the child.

However, a major issue with this is that it would be asking women to go through months of pregnancy and the pain of childbirth just to appease the man's wish for a child.

Maybe they should have a say if they can prove that they are willing to take responsibility for the child.

However, a major issue with this is that it would be asking women to go through months of pregnancy and the pain of childbirth just to appease the man's wish for a child.

1. she had SEX, probably unprotected, and now having a child is part of the consequence. (I dont mean to say abortion is wrong, just that it has to be thought out.)

2. Compensation perhaps?

I was reading the Father's rights thread, and it seems to me that a side issue is the right(or lack therof) of a father to have a say in abortion.

IF a father is advocating the keeping of the child then presumably he is at least INTRESTED in the child.

SO why do they have no rights in this matter?

It does take two to tango and he played a part, so if he wants the consequences of a babie that should be a factor.

opinions?
a man can choose whether or not to have an abortion if he even becomes pregnant, but he cannot tell any other person what to do in that situation.

Maybe they should have a say if they can prove that they are willing to take responsibility for the child.

However, a major issue with this is that it would be asking women to go through months of pregnancy and the pain of childbirth just to appease the man's wish for a child.
Exactly.

I was reading the Father's rights thread, and it seems to me that a side issue is the right(or lack therof) of a father to have a say in abortion.

IF a father is advocating the keeping of the child then presumably he is at least INTRESTED in the child.

SO why do they have no rights in this matter?

It does take two to tango and he played a part, so if he wants the consequences of a babie that should be a factor.

opinions?

As a man - I think that, as soon as men can carry a foetus to term, they should have rights to decide what happens to it.

If the girl wants an abortion, and the man wants to keep the baby, they can take it out of her, and put it into him.

Until then.... a woman should get sovereign right to decide what is allowed to happen in her uterus.

1. she had SEX, probably unprotected, and now having a child is part of the consequence. (I dont mean to say abortion is wrong, just that it has to be thought out.)

wrong. she had sex, and thus being pregnant is part of the consequence. having a child does not necessarily follow from becoming pregnant, and does not necessarily need to be part of the consequence of having sex.

if i choose to go skiing and i break my leg, should i be denied the right to have my leg set simply because i choose to go skiing? should somebody else have the right to tell me that my broken leg is the consequence for my choice, and therefore i don't have the right to medical care?

1. she had SEX, probably unprotected, and now having a child is part of the consequence. (I dont mean to say abortion is wrong, just that it has to be thought out.)

2. Compensation perhaps?

1. She did indeed have sex, as did the man. We don't force people to bear the direct consequences of every mistake they make, however.
EDIT: Bottle said it better.


2. Perhaps. However, couldn't this be sorted out privately with our current system? The guy pays the woman, she agrees to have the child and give him custody.

of course a man has an interest in his unborn offspring.

the trouble is that legally there is no way to have him exercise his rights (as in yes or no to abortion) without making HIS rights more important than the rights of the woman carrying the pregnancy.

should HE be able to decide what SHE will do with her body?

if she wants an abortion and he doesnt, if HE gets to decide then he has 100% power and she has 0%

if he has 49% of the decision and she has 51% (because its her body) then the decision is still 100% HERS.

there is just no way for him to have SOME of the decision. it is in the end made by the person who has more than 50% of the decision.

his choice lies in who he has sex with. if the thought of losing a potential child to abortion plagues you, the only power you have is to try to make sure that you never have sex with any woman who would choose abortion.

1. she had SEX, probably unprotected, and now having a child is part of the consequence. (I dont mean to say abortion is wrong, just that it has to be thought out.)

2. Compensation perhaps?

Why are you bringing up the 'she had sex' thing? You think a girl deserves to be punished for 9 months, have her body chemistry screwed up forever, and her physical shape changed... just because she was unlucky enough to grow up somewhere in the South... where they raise girls to be obedient, and don't give them access to sex education or contraception?

Why are you bringing up the 'she had sex' thing? You think a girl deserves to be punished for 9 months, have her body chemistry screwed up forever, and her physical shape changed... just because she was unlucky enough to grow up somewhere in the South... where they raise girls to be obedient, and don't give them access to sex education or contraception?

Im not really comforable with the punished thing...

And in the case of the southern girl, the father wouldnt have a intrest

MY QUESTION IS EXCLUSIVLY ON THE CASE OF THE CARING FATHER

It does take two to tango and he played a part, so if he wants the consequences of a babie that should be a factor.
if he wants to find a way to remove the fetus from the woman's body and incubate it in his own, then all the power to him.

however, he has no say in forcing a woman to be an incubator for his seed which she does not want inside of her.

The man could perhaps persuade the woman to decide either way on the issue, but ultimately the woman has the final say.

I was reading the Father's rights thread, and it seems to me that a side issue is the right(or lack therof) of a father to have a say in abortion.

IF a father is advocating the keeping of the child then presumably he is at least INTRESTED in the child.

SO why do they have no rights in this matter?

It does take two to tango and he played a part, so if he wants the consequences of a babie that should be a factor.

opinions?
Maybe the man can have an ability to decide in this situation, but only with a law that states he must bring up the child 50% of the time. And if he doesn't, it's gorunds for a divorce and, I dunno, he can be sued or something. But not denied access unless he is abusive (mentally or physically). I will stand forever on this point

It is, ultimately, the woman's body, and it's understood that of course the guy should have a say, but only so far. Because otherwise it would be ridiculous; couples would argue it out for months and months, neither being allowed to do anything, and then they'd be arguing so much it would go to court and then by the time THAT was all over the kid would be six and raised by social services.

Guys should just speak their minds, back off, and support the girl's decision.

Im not really comforable with the punished thing...

And in the case of the southern girl, the father wouldnt have a intrest

MY QUESTION IS EXCLUSIVLY ON THE CASE OF THE CARING FATHER

I don't mean to be rude... but I really don't care if you are comfortable with it.

The fact is: by making a woman carry a foetus for nine months - that she doesn't want - you are punishing her.

Your pretty 'comfort' zone has nothing to do with the realities of having something growing inside your flesh.

How about... if I'm not comfortable with you having a cancer removed? Ot a tapeworm?

Im not really comforable with the punished thing...

And in the case of the southern girl, the father wouldnt have a intrest

MY QUESTION IS EXCLUSIVLY ON THE CASE OF THE CARING FATHER

Oh- another thought occured... you say.. in the case of the southern girl, the father wouldn't have any interest.... well, I'm sure that is probably true... but, unfortuantely - he might not want her to abort, on RELIGIOUS grounds.

He might not care, really, either way... but he could stop her having an abortion, because it offends his church.

Depends what you define as a caring father, and how you make the law recognise that.

There is a basic biological difference between men and women here. Women can become pregnant, undergo pregnancy and childbirth. Men cannot. As such, it is proper for there to be a difference in legal power. If a man can force a woman to be pregnant for nine months and give birth, putting her life and health in danger and causing irreversible changes to her body, we have made the statement that it is legally ok for someone to law claim to another's body. This is the very definition of slavery.

There is a basic biological difference between men and women here. Women can become pregnant, undergo pregnancy and childbirth. Men cannot. As such, it is proper for there to be a difference in legal power. If a man can force a woman to be pregnant for nine months and give birth, putting her life and health in danger and causing irreversible changes to her body, we have made the statement that it is legally ok for someone to law claim to another's body. This is the very definition of slavery.
Agreed.

However, a major issue with this is that it would be asking women to go through months of pregnancy and the pain of childbirth just to appease the man's wish for a child.Damn right! Having done it twice, there is no way on this planet that I would go through another pregnancy, birth and child-rearing.

1. she had SEX, probably unprotected, and now having a child is part of the consequence. (I dont mean to say abortion is wrong, just that it has to be thought out.)

2. Compensation perhaps?I agree with 1 (if the sex was indeed unprotected, then there is a higher risk of pregnancy – think FFS, people!) But as for 2? No amount of money is compensation for the stresses of carrying and birthing a baby. Things like her body chemistry being screwed up forever, and her physical shape changed, boobs hanging to her navel once they subside from the hormonal tidal wave, haemorrhoids, incontinence, post natal depression, and the social stigma of “giving her baby away – how unnatural” cannot be compensated, IMO.

2. Perhaps. However, couldn't this be sorted out privately with our current system? The guy pays the woman, she agrees to have the child and give him custody. What happens if one of them changes their mind? Remember baby M? A woman undertook to be a surrogate mother and then decided she wanted to keep the baby. The courts supported her, I think, but what a huge cockup! Pain and misery to spare all around. It would happen in this situation, too. What if said father gets a new girlfriend during the pregnancy and she convinces him that she can give him a baby when they’re ready or that kids are a drag on his career? What happens to the baby (and the mother) then?

Im not really comforable with the punished thing... You’ve never been pregnant, have you? It’s a punishment alright :D

I agree with those who have said that when men can transplant, carry and deliver the baby, then they can have an active part in the decision making process. Until then they can voice an opinion but have no real say. How many men would like it if it were decided that women could compel a man to have a surgical sterilisation because she wants to avoid pregnancy? The screams of outrage would bounce off the sun. “Not the Sacred Sac! It’s mine, not yours! How dare you presume to interfere with it! It’s a men’s issue!”

Denying a woman the right to decide a) whether she will become pregnant, or b) (in case of unplanned pregnancy) – whether she will continue with that pregnancy is to make her into nothing but breeding stock. A broodmare with no say in the functions or determination of her own body.

Why are you bringing up the 'she had sex' thing? You think a girl deserves to be punished for 9 months, have her body chemistry screwed up forever, and her physical shape changed... just because she was unlucky enough to grow up somewhere in the South... where they raise girls to be obedient, and don't give them access to sex education or contraception?


I just love hearing stereotypical descriptions of the South....especially since I've lived in Georgia all of my life. I have been through our public school system, and our sex education is perfectly acceptable. We were NOT taught abstinence-only education, and contraception is not as difficult to obtain as people think. I was most definitely NOT raised to be obedient. As I have stated earlier, I am a strong supporter of women's rights -- including the right to abort.

It should be a mutual agreement between both parties.

I mean, if he insists on her keeping it, he should prove to her why, and then reach a consesus from there...

It should be a mutual agreement between both parties.

I mean, if he insists on her keeping it, he should prove to her why, and then reach a consesus from there...

The one problem with that is men who would drag out the decision until an elective abortion is illegal. I know it sounds awful, but there are men who would do that.

its intresting how all the ladies describe the birthing process as painfull, and then claim they get the right to do whatever they want.

It is not that simple i dont think.

in the larger context, in the situation that I was specificly speaking about, I dont see how a woman can have all the power.

It DOES take two people. and if thats true then both partners should have some sort of say, not the current system of absolute power to the woman.

I just love hearing stereotypical descriptions of the South....especially since I've lived in Georgia all of my life. I have been through our public school system, and our sex education is perfectly acceptable. We were NOT taught abstinence-only education, and contraception is not as difficult to obtain as people think. I was most definitely NOT raised to be obedient. As I have stated earlier, I am a strong supporter of women's rights -- including the right to abort.

Well, I live in Georgia - and let me tell you for absolute certain, that I see that kind of stuff going on every day, all around me.

Maybe you were lucky enough to be born, or raised, in one of the more cosmopolitan Georgian areas... if so, take a trip out to some of rural Georgia... let me suggest North East Georgia.... you'll see that this isn't a matter of stereotypes... it's the REASON girls in the Northern counties are pregnant at 13.

Ok i going to end up sounding old fasioned here but here goes

yes people should think of the consequeces of their actions, this is an undenyable truth of the world, the thing is they dont always. Would you like to be pusnished for 9 months for one night of drunken fun? no. However that said i think people should be more willing to sort things out between themselves about what is going to happen than running straight to a judge and crying for something to be done about it. In the end it is the responsibility of the parents to decide what should be done, not the courts (within reason of course).

And i dont think you can say "they should have used contraception! its their own fault!" People who have abortions dont want the child, often they knew they didnt want a child before the act of sex so it stands to reason that some attempt was made reduce the risk of pregnancy, the chances are they used contraception, but as any dr will tell you no contraceptive is 100% effective so the pregnancy may have occured despite their efforts.

its intresting how all the ladies describe the birthing process as painfull, and then claim they get the right to do whatever they want.

It is not that simple i dont think.

in the larger context, in the situation that I was specificly speaking about, I dont see how a woman can have all the power.

It DOES take two people. and if thats true then both partners should have some sort of say, not the current system of absolute power to the woman.
I tend to agree with you on this, but how is it possible to work this out in practice? The only way I know of is for the two parties involved in the creation of a baby to agree beforehand. This is, given our propensity to impulse and mistakes, at best a forlorn hope. :(

The one problem with that is men who would drag out the decision until an elective abortion is illegal. I know it sounds awful, but there are men who would do that.
That is a very good point. so, I think she should give him a set time limit. Som, he has to give her a damn good reason within that limit before it becomes solely her choice.

its intresting how all the ladies describe the birthing process as painfull, and then claim they get the right to do whatever they want.

It is not that simple i dont think.

in the larger context, in the situation that I was specificly speaking about, I dont see how a woman can have all the power.

It DOES take two people. and if thats true then both partners should have some sort of say, not the current system of absolute power to the woman.

But as Ashmoria said, you really can't have a 50/50 say in the decision making process. If you weight it towards either one, they have 100% say in the decision. It's like only having two voters. If they disagree you can't do much about it.

If the man can convince the woman to have the child (without putting her under duress) then good luck to him.

I just love hearing stereotypical descriptions of the South....especially since I've lived in Georgia all of my life. I have been through our public school system, and our sex education is perfectly acceptable. We were NOT taught abstinence-only education, and contraception is not as difficult to obtain as people think. I was most definitely NOT raised to be obedient. As I have stated earlier, I am a strong supporter of women's rights -- including the right to abort.
You GO, girl! ^5's! :D

Well, I live in Georgia - and let me tell you for absolute certain, that I see that kind of stuff going on every day, all around me.

Maybe you were lucky enough to be born, or raised, in one of the more cosmopolitan Georgian areas... if so, take a trip out to some of rural Georgia... let me suggest North East Georgia.... you'll see that this isn't a matter of stereotypes... it's the REASON girls in the Northern counties are pregnant at 13.

As metropolitan cities such as Atlanta and Augusta grow, those rural counties are slowly being wiped out/ re-educated. It's awful that such things still happen out there, and it's completely unfair to the children growing up out there. It's the adults who need to be smacked upside the head/ re-educated at the moment. I still don't understand girls getting pregnant at 13. Of course, that's probably because I had virtually no interest in sex until I was about 16-17. Statistically, I must be some kind of off-the-wall outlier who screws up the government's numbers.

If a woman ever thinks that a guy who impregnated her would want to keep the baby, she should never tell him shes pregnant unless she wants to keep it too. As far as a woman having control over her uterus, she does have control, but consensual sex is saying, " I will carry your child." But the problem comes in that a man cant prove his fatherhood until the child is born. So for practical reasons abortion should remain the right of the woman alone.

I just love hearing stereotypical descriptions of the South....especially since I've lived in Georgia all of my life. I have been through our public school system, and our sex education is perfectly acceptable. We were NOT taught abstinence-only education, and contraception is not as difficult to obtain as people think. I was most definitely NOT raised to be obedient. As I have stated earlier, I am a strong supporter of women's rights -- including the right to abort.


I totally agree with you. If someone has not grown up in the South, they have no right to stereotype and criticize what they do not know anything about. If they have grown up in the South, they should know that while there may be parts of the South that fit this stereotype, it is by no means the norm.

its intresting how all the ladies describe the birthing process as painfull, and then claim they get the right to do whatever they want.

It is not that simple i dont think.

in the larger context, in the situation that I was specificly speaking about, I dont see how a woman can have all the power.

It DOES take two people. and if thats true then both partners should have some sort of say, not the current system of absolute power to the woman.

No - conception CAN take two people.

Pregnancy takes one... and so does delivery.

When men are actually involved in either one of those... then they should have a voice.

its intresting how all the ladies describe the birthing process as painfull, and then claim they get the right to do whatever they want.

It is not that simple i dont think.

in the larger context, in the situation that I was specificly speaking about, I dont see how a woman can have all the power.

It DOES take two people. and if thats true then both partners should have some sort of say, not the current system of absolute power to the woman.

But how can it be anything but absolute power to one side or the other. If one wants the child and the other doesn't, who gets the say? How can you meet halfway on an issue like this?

I totally agree with you. If someone has not grown up in the South, they have no right to stereotype and criticize what they do not know anything about. If they have grown up in the South, they should know that while there may be parts of the South that fit this stereotype, it is by no means the norm.

The person Angry Fruit Salad was responding to also grew up in Georgia, a rural part of it, and said Angry Fruit Salad must have grown up in a cosmopolitan area. AFS agreed.

But how can it be anything but absolute power to one side or the other. If one wants the child and the other doesn't, who gets the say? How can you meet halfway on an issue like this?
You can't.

Why not ask the child after he or she is born?

The person Angry Fruit Salad was responding to also grew up in Georgia, a rural part of it, and said Angry Fruit Salad must have grown up in a cosmopolitan area. AFS agreed.
Yes, and I also hope that somebody smacks some sense into those making important decisions about education in those rural areas. One generation should not have to suffer because the one before it was anal-retentive and sexually repressed.

Why not ask the child after he or she is born?

That's the event we're trying to avoid. Your question is not one of the points we are adressing. Why doesn't nature ask the "children" it aborts after they are born?

There's no compromise on this issue. The woman chooses either to abort, or not to abort. If the woman decides to abort, the man cannot override that decision; it's final.

in the larger context, in the situation that I was specificly speaking about, I dont see how a woman can have all the power.But if you take any of the decision making power away from the woman, it all goes to the man. It is an either/or decision and in this circumstance someone is going to be disappointed/hurt/angry/furious/whatever.

Here's a point - would you argue this in reverse? If the woman wanted the child desperately but the man was horrified by the idea of having one, thinking it would ruin his life for whatever reason, would you support the right of the father to force the mother to abort?


EDIT TO SAY: but consensual sex is saying, " I will carry your child." Two words - Bull. Shit.

There's no compromise on this issue. The woman chooses either to abort, or not to abort. If the woman decides to abort, the man cannot override that decision; it's final.

Yes. It is final because it lies within her body, and she is acting as a host for it until it develops enough to survive outside of her body. If she does not want that burden upon her, then she can abort. If she chooses not to abort, then she lives with that burden, as well as the risks that come with it.

Abortion should be illegal.

If a woman ever thinks that a guy who impregnated her would want to keep the baby, she should never tell him shes pregnant unless she wants to keep it too.

so you are saying that it is more virtuous to lie and have an abortion than to be truthful and have an abortion? or are you saying that a woman should have to lie and sneak around to exercise the rights guaranteed to all persons?


As far as a woman having control over her uterus, she does have control, but consensual sex is saying, " I will carry your child."

lol, not a chance. that's like saying that if you choose to go skiing you consent to falling and breaking your leg, and thus if you fall and break your leg you don't have the right to get it set or tended by a doctor. consenting to have sex with somebody is not in any way the same as consenting to have a child, and anybody who thinks it is has no business have sex at all.


But the problem comes in that a man cant prove his fatherhood until the child is born. So for practical reasons abortion should remain the right of the woman alone.
whether or not the male can prove paternity has nothing to do with it. he never has any right of claim to the female body, nor does any fetus, so her freedoms are secure regardless.

As metropolitan cities such as Atlanta and Augusta grow, those rural counties are slowly being wiped out/ re-educated. It's awful that such things still happen out there, and it's completely unfair to the children growing up out there. It's the adults who need to be smacked upside the head/ re-educated at the moment. I still don't understand girls getting pregnant at 13. Of course, that's probably because I had virtually no interest in sex until I was about 16-17. Statistically, I must be some kind of off-the-wall outlier who screws up the government's numbers.

Oh, I'm sure you are right... well, I hope you are... that the barbaric parts of the South are slowly being wiped out... but, unfortunately - these fundamentalist strongholds DO still exist, and they seem to exert disproportionate amounts of power.

As a man - I think that, as soon as men can carry a foetus to term, they should have rights to decide what happens to it.

If the girl wants an abortion, and the man wants to keep the baby, they can take it out of her, and put it into him.

Not as far fetched as it sounds. Babies can, and have, lived by attaching themselves to the liver instead of the uterus. It's extremly rare to happen naturally by accident, but it would probably not be that difficult to research a means by which to do a "fetus transplant" and attach the umbilicle cord to the mans liver and give him some hormones to keep him going.

Yes , true. But I think it all comes down to the issue of who is the one that carries the child, it goes without saying that it's the woman and for some reason that is the final factor.
The baby devolps in the woman but starts in the man. What person has the more say? Today the woman but as time goes on and women get more rights and the sam pay, wich is good, and the woman works more out of the house the man will have more rights on this issue, if not then that is clearly not equality.
If women want more equality men should too.

Oh, I'm sure you are right... well, I hope you are... that the barbaric parts of the South are slowly being wiped out... but, unfortunately - these fundamentalist strongholds DO still exist, and they seem to exert disproportionate amounts of power.

Well, thank goodness that they do. They're America's heartland and its moral center. If they did not wield power disproportionate to their numbers the country would fall into a cesspit of peace, tolerance, education, compassion and liberalism. Such inherently anti-christian values would ruin us all. We'd be speaking French in the streets. If you think that this is paranoia just ask yourself, who is more likely to know some French in this country, a good Christian redneck from Arkansas, or some big city liberal college gay? :D

I don't mean to be rude... but I really don't care if you are comfortable with it.

The fact is: by making a woman carry a foetus for nine months - that she doesn't want - you are punishing her.

Your pretty 'comfort' zone has nothing to do with the realities of having something growing inside your flesh.

How about... if I'm not comfortable with you having a cancer removed? Ot a tapeworm?

I'm all up for letting her abort after a couple of heated arguments. Then sending her address to all the pro-life campaigners in the USA, (to send hatemail). Oh yeah and don't forget to accuse her, (preferably publicly - either/or really), of aborting your child. I'd like to see some kind of television show for this kind of thing: it would be ideal. NAME AND SHAME: YOU KILLED MY CHILD!

Even if you don't believe it. Just for a laugh. :cool:

if i choose to go skiing and i break my leg, should i be denied the right to have my leg set simply because i choose to go skiing? should somebody else have the right to tell me that my broken leg is the consequence for my choice, and therefore i don't have the right to medical care?

If you can't pay for it yes. I would like to see the day that welfare people are forced to have abortions, because they are lazy indigents.

More on topic, men should have a veto right over pregnancy. If a woman gets pregnant and the man does not wish to support the child, the the woman should have to have an abortion.

It is unfair to expect a man to contribute to the upkeep of a child that he does not want.

MY QUESTION IS EXCLUSIVLY ON THE CASE OF THE CARING FATHER

I understand what you mean, and I feel bad for the father in this situation, but why is it always the girl's falt? Someone said something about her having sex without protection, so she has to pay for it. Well, what if it was the guy who didn't have protection? Or what if he was wearing a condum and it was a faulty? Obviously she didn't want to get pregnant in cases like that.

I know many people have said this, and I have to agree with them. Even if the father is a caring person who wants her child, it's not his place to make the decision, even if it does take two to tango. It's her body. She's the one who has to go through the pain of birth. It's her decision.

Curtis. Well played.

If you can't pay for it yes. I would like to see the day that welfare people are forced to have abortions, because they are lazy indigents.

we aren't talking about whether or not taxpayers should foot the bill, only about whether women should be allowed to have them. i would say that if the procedure is necessary to save the woman's life then it should be covered just like all other emergency procedures, but if it is elective then it should not be covered.


More on topic, men should have a veto right over pregnancy. If a woman gets pregnant and the man does not wish to support the child, the the woman should have to have an abortion.

why should he have any say over her choice of medical care? there is no legal precident for giving one human power over another adult human in that way, so why should pregnancy be the single exception? how do you justify taking rights away from pregnant women, rights that are guaranteed to all human persons under modern law?

i believe all persons should have equal rights under the law, and that is currently the case with abortion in the US...men have exactly the same rights regarding abortion that women have, since they may choose whether they wish to abort any pregnancy they experience themselves. no woman has the right to order another woman to abort, nor does any woman have the right to order a man to abort, each individual only has juristiction over their own body. i don't see any reason why men should be given special rights that are not granted to women.

It is unfair to expect a man to contribute to the upkeep of a child that he does not want.
quite right; i don't believe it should be legal to force ANY person to care for a child if they voiced their wish to void parental rights BEFORE the child was born. any male that wishes to do that should be permitted to do so. however, only if the right to abortion is 100% secured, at all times and for all reasons.

we aren't talking about whether or not taxpayers should foot the bill, only about whether women should be allowed to have them. i would say that if the procedure is necessary to save the woman's life then it should be covered just like all other emergency procedures, but if it is elective then it should not be covered.

If you can't pay for medical care you shouldn't get it. It's time to start cleaning the gene-pool.


why should he have any say over her choice of medical care? there is no legal precident for giving one human power over another adult human in that way, so why should pregnancy be the single exception? how do you justify taking rights away from pregnant women, rights that are guaranteed to all human persons under modern law?

There is plenty of precedent for that. Living wills for one. Also court orders can be issued at any time. At any rate, under the same modern law, a father *has* to provide child support for any children that a genetically related to him, and if he refuses he can be jailed. It is entirely unreasonable to expect a man to spen the next eighteen years handing over 10% of his income to some harlot that was too stupid to/lied about taking oral contraceptives. That's why men should have a veto over any pregnancy. If they don't want the child, vacuum it out. It's really the only fair way.


quite right; i don't believe it should be legal to force ANY person to care for a child if they voiced their wish to void parental rights BEFORE the child was born. any male that wishes to do that should be permitted to do so. however, only if the right to abortion is 100% secured, at all times and for all reasons.

Also, I probably would take the children away from unmarried mothers, or at any rate ones that weren't in a stable relationship or seemed unable to provide a proper home for the kids. There are entirely too many morons in this great nation as is, and I don't want to encourage the problem by rainsing more in substandard enviroments.

But I see we actually agree about a lot of stuff Bottle.

I think we should sterlize more people too.

It is very simple.

I am sure that all of us can agree that in a "good relationship," partners should discuss such issues, and the father should probably hold some influence in helping his partner to decide about what to do with her pregnancy. We may even imagine a father suggesting that if the mother will bear the child -- with full support during her pregnancy -- he is willing to sign papers granting him full custody, essentially "adopting" his own child out of its mothers care.

But there are two reasons that we cannot define a father's "right" to "have a say" in terminating a pregnancy:

(1) The "obvious" argument that, no matter what, it is the woman's body that bears the child, and it is her right to make decisions about her own body. To say that the father has "rights" over a woman's body is perverse.

(2) A father's right to "have a say" presumes the father's "right" to know about the pregnancy in the first place. If a father has this right, then that means that women who hide a pregnancy from an abusive partner, their own abusing incestuous father, a one-night stand, or even a rapist have denied him his "right.". Now, you may respond that men in these positions "forfeit" their right... but if the language of rights means anything, it means that a right is presumed until revoked by due process.

That would mean that in order to defend "men's rights," women who want an abortion would either have to prove that they have informed the father -- what, would he sign off on it? -- or they would have to "appeal" the system to deny this "right" to the father. This would naturally require an investigation... and that would require talking to the father!! After all, you can hardly have "due process" through a secret investigation of which the person under investigation knows nothing. But the whole point of the appeal was that we thought we should protect women from men who have "forfeit" their "right" to know about the pregnancy!! This just leads us to an absurd "system."

No, even if men "deserve" a "right" to know, or even a right to have a say in a sexual partner's pregnancy -- and I think that is a difficult case to argue -- there is simply no way to enforce that right that does not horribly disenfranchize women of their basic rights.

The best we men can do is to love our partners and offer them the respect and devotion they deserve. If we behave as if we can handle their ultimate decisions about their bodies with respect, then they will be willing to include us in their deliberations. If we try to lord over them with so-called "rights," we only threaten to make things worse.

If you can't pay for medical care you shouldn't get it. It's time to start cleaning the gene-pool.

i suppose i should clarify; i think you should be able to get the procedure, but should have to work to pay back the cost. i don't believe we should simply let people die because they can't pay on the spot, but i do think it is fair to ask them to pay what they owe as soon as possible.


There is plenty of precedent for that. Living wills for one. Also court orders can be issued at any time.

living wills exist at the direction of the individual, and only give the powers that individual wishes, and only in circumstances when they are unable to direct their own affairs. not even remotely the same situation. court orders cannot be issued to prevent a consenting adult from receiving medical care simply because a family member disagrees with their choice of treatment, so it is also not even remotely the same thing.

[QUOTE=Gen Curtis E LeMay]
At any rate, under the same modern law, a father *has* to provide child support for any children that a genetically related to him, and if he refuses he can be jailed. It is entirely unreasonable to expect a man to spen the next eighteen years handing over 10% of his income to some harlot that was too stupid to/lied about taking oral contraceptives. That's why men should have a veto over any pregnancy. If they don't want the child, vacuum it out. It's really the only fair way.

i agree that men should not be expected to care for or support children they said they didn't want while the kid was in utero. however, no male (or female) has the right to decide about another person's abortion, EVER. they can void parental rights if they want, but they cannot simply take over another person's body.


Also, I probably would take the children away from unmarried mothers, or at any rate ones that weren't in a stable relationship or seemed unable to provide a proper home for the kids. There are entirely too many morons in this great nation as is, and I don't want to encourage the problem by rainsing more in substandard enviroments.

unmarried mothers represent a significant percentage of parents in America. what are you going to do with all the children you take away? and why should marriage be the criterion? are you suggesting there aren't any morons who have gotten married? are you really so naive that you think marriage is what makes a propper home for children?


But I see we actually agree about a lot of stuff Bottle.

i dunno, i think we disagree on a lot of important points. like personal freedom and responsibility, for one...i think everybody should have both, you seem to think no women should have either.


I think we should sterlize more people too.
now THAT we agree on.

wrong. she had sex, and thus being pregnant is part of the consequence. having a child does not necessarily follow from becoming pregnant, and does not necessarily need to be part of the consequence of having sex.
It should that is the fault of our society, everyone is looking for the easy way out from the consequences of their actions.

if i choose to go skiing and i break my leg, should i be denied the right to have my leg set simply because i choose to go skiing? should somebody else have the right to tell me that my broken leg is the consequence for my choice, and therefore i don't have the right to medical care?

Your leg deals with you again the consequences of choosing to have it fix benifits you, and you alone anothers life is not directly affected by your actions. Abortion affects the mother, the father and the baby. Abortion is not a healthy alternative to pregancy, it harms the mother physically. Sorry off topic. You have sex and get pregnant deal with it. It was your fault. Your choices have consequences good and bad, break your leg deal with cast and crutches.

i suppose i should clarify; i think you should be able to get the procedure, but should have to work to pay back the cost. i don't believe we should simply let people die because they can't pay on the spot, but i do think it is fair to ask them to pay what they owe as soon as possible.

What hope is there of them *ever* paying it back though. If they are indigent when they injure themselves, they are likely to stay so. Better just to be on the safe side and deny them care.

i agree that men should not be expected to care for or support children they said they didn't want while the kid was in utero. however, no male (or female) has the right to decide about another person's abortion, EVER. they can void parental rights if they want, but they cannot simply take over another person's body.

What do you mean void parental rights? As in not pay I presume. Well that is one option, and I suppose it is okay in circumstances where the mother on her own is able to financially support the child. Otherwise what is the option other than abortion? (More welfare? I think not). So even if we go along with your idea of voiding parental rights, there will still be circumstances where such voiding leads to abortion. I say be fair, and only allow pregnancies where both parents wnat the child (and are able to provide for it) to be carried to term.

unmarried mothers represent a significant percentage of parents in America. what are you going to do with all the children you take away? and why should marriage be the criterion? are you suggesting there aren't any morons who have gotten married? are you really so naive that you think marriage is what makes a propper home for children?

Are you saying that women who have unplanned pregnancies are not morons. Birth control is remarkably effective you know. Frankly these chicks who get pregnant "unexpectedly" *are* morons.

BTW, where married couples are indigent I also think the pregnancy should be aborted too.

i dunno, i think we disagree on a lot of important points. like personal freedom and responsibility, for one...i think everybody should have both, you seem to think no women should have either.

I also agree that freedom and responsibility are important too. I just think that where people aren't responsible, they should loose their freedom to fould up the next generation. We really aren't that far apart on this issue, the difference is one of emphasis.

now THAT we agree on.

Yay sterlizations!

The right to have an abortion is derived from a person's right to choose what happens to their own body. A woman's body is not the property of the father of a fetus she might be carrying, so he does not have any legal say in whether or not she has an abortion.
This is not about the fetus itself, which I suppose can be regarded as the joint property of its two parents, but about a woman's choice regarding her body, which is 100% hers.

I was reading the Father's rights thread, and it seems to me that a side issue is the right(or lack therof) of a father to have a say in abortion.

IF a father is advocating the keeping of the child then presumably he is at least INTRESTED in the child.

SO why do they have no rights in this matter?

It does take two to tango and he played a part, so if he wants the consequences of a babie that should be a factor.

opinions?That doesn't make the least bit of sense. Look, guys, it's all fine and well with me if you outlaw abortion altogether as long as you have legitimate reasons (as in reasons other than ignorant superstition), but please don't do stupid things like this. The whole justification behind abortion being legal is that the woman should have the right to decide whether or not she bears a child. There's nothing more complicated about it than that. Some people just don't like the idea of women becoming nothing more than mindless receptacles for developing fetuses at the magical "moment of conception," possibly jeapordizing her entire career.

The pro-lifers luuuv insisting that the father should have a say in the issue, but they rarely take into account how badly the whole thing can backfire. If a woman gets pregnant, she can sue the father for child support if they aren't married! Shouldn't the father have the right to protect his interests and call for an abortion? There's much more practical justification to that than vice versa, but the pro-lifers will never admit it because it doesn't serve their agenda.

The only story I've heard of a doctor being taken into custody for performing an abortion was a case in which a man suddenly left his wife, who already had two kids she'd barely afford to feed without the second income, while she was in the final stages of pregnancy at which it was illegal to abort in that state except in medical emergencies. The more vindictive pro-lifers were sadistically dancing in the streets over it, but if I'd been on the jury, I'd have voted for a verdict of nullification, considering the circumstances.

I'm kind of tired of the culture of sadism and pseudo-morality prominent in the Religious Right. The moral hypocrisy and absence of compassion in that sanctimonious bunch is tiresome and particularly obvious in those who vote to ban abortion on the same ticket that they vote against giving special aid to single mothers. The Religious Right isn't going to earn any sympathy from me until they become the Religious Left, and let's face it, nothing is more alien to Christianity (or Islam, for that matter) than heartfelt compassion. They're conditioned against any moral reasoning that isn't linked to direct personal gain. You can't even get them to understand a concept as simple as categorical imperatives.

If you can't pay for medical care you shouldn't get it. It's time to start cleaning the gene-pool.You’re right – out you get. :D
It is entirely unreasonable to expect a man to spen the next eighteen years handing over 10% of his income to some harlot that was too stupid to/lied about taking oral contraceptives. That's why men should have a veto over any pregnancy. Never heard of condoms? They protect you from HIV, syphilis, gonnhorrea, chlamydia, herpes, a whole bunch of other STIs AND pregnancy! Contraception is the responsibility of everyone who doesn’t want a pregnancy. Also, I probably would take the children away from unmarried mothers, or at any rate ones that weren't in a stable relationship or seemed unable to provide a proper home for the kids. And put them where, exactly? Last I heard, the US had an awful lot of kids in orphanages and the like. The situation is so bad that some places are having “come and try” days, where they have a sort of open house and try to get people to come in to “try out” the kids in the hope they’ll take a liking to one and adopt her/him.
If a woman gets pregnant and the man does not wish to support the child, the the woman should have to have an abortion.

It is unfair to expect a man to contribute to the upkeep of a child that he does not want. And you think, given that you say it is unfair to expect a man to contribute money, that it is perfectly OK to force a woman to gestate and deliver, then probably care for said child? Whoosh! :headbang:

I was reading the Father's rights thread, and it seems to me that a side issue is the right(or lack therof) of a father to have a say in abortion.

IF a father is advocating the keeping of the child then presumably he is at least INTRESTED in the child.

SO why do they have no rights in this matter?

It does take two to tango and he played a part, so if he wants the consequences of a babie that should be a factor.

opinions?

Because he doesn't have to carry around a baby for 9 months.
That's why he has no rights.
Silly chauvinists.

Well, thank goodness that they do. They're America's heartland and its moral center. If they did not wield power disproportionate to their numbers the country would fall into a cesspit of peace, tolerance, education, compassion and liberalism. Such inherently anti-christian values would ruin us all. We'd be speaking French in the streets. If you think that this is paranoia just ask yourself, who is more likely to know some French in this country, a good Christian redneck from Arkansas, or some big city liberal college gay? :D

I salute you, I like the way you think. :)

The baby devolps in the woman but starts in the man.
it starts in the woman just as much as much as in the man. actually more since the woman also contributes mitochondrial dna and cytoplasm.

Today the woman but as time goes on and women get more rights and the sam pay, wich is good, and the woman works more out of the house the man will have more rights on this issue, if not then that is clearly not equality.
If women want more equality men should too.
it's not his body, it's not his choice.

Are you saying that women who have unplanned pregnancies are not morons. Birth control is remarkably effective you know. Frankly these chicks who get pregnant "unexpectedly" *are* morons.


One assumes you are not a 'chick' then... and thus, ahs never had to face the prospect of an unwanted pregnancy due to rape, peer-group pressure, coercion, etc.

You conveniently ignore issues like pressure that makes females acquiesce to male attentions, or areas where it is deliberately difficult to obtain proper sex-education or contraception.

Well, whatever helps you sleep at night.

One assumes you are not a 'chick' then... and thus, ahs never had to face the prospect of an unwanted pregnancy due to rape, peer-group pressure, coercion, etc.

You conveniently ignore issues like pressure that makes females acquiesce to male attentions, or areas where it is deliberately difficult to obtain proper sex-education or contraception.

Well, whatever helps you sleep at night.

Any woman that get's pregnant because of "peer" pressure is clearly mentally defective. Take the goddamn pill. Jeez, that's why men invented it.

Last I looked contraception was available everywhere in the US.

What's wrong with you people anyway. Do you, or do you not, think abortion is a good idea?

Any woman that get's pregnant because of "peer" pressure is clearly mentally defective. Take the goddamn pill. Jeez, that's why men invented it.

Last I looked contraception was available everywhere in the US.

What's wrong with you people anyway. Do you, or do you not, think abortion is a good idea?

You're sick, you know that?

Medicine is a woman's choice as well. You can't shove something down her throat that can cause all sorts of cancer, heart problems and strokes. Not only that, but sex isn't always planned out. This isn't a matter of intelligence. It's just a matter of timing. Sometimes, things just happen. And you want to blame the woman for this? What if she wasn't planning to have sex for a long time, and thus, was not on the pill at all?

Why doesn't the guy just wear some fucking rubber?

Any woman that get's pregnant because of "peer" pressure is clearly mentally defective. Take the goddamn pill. Jeez, that's why men invented it.

Last I looked contraception was available everywhere in the US.

What's wrong with you people anyway. Do you, or do you not, think abortion is a good idea?

Have you been 'everywhere' in the US? Because, unless you have travelled all 50 states, from the muddiest backwaters to the biggest metopolis, your ability to say "Last I looked contraception was available everywhere in the US" is weak, at best - and carries no value.

You ignore the fact that a man should wear a condom... which I think is a curious omission... especially since the condom helps protect against disease as well as unwanted pregnancy. What is the agenda you are furthering here?

Why are you so desperate for 'pregnancy' to be the woman's fault?

It is unlikely that a girl gets pregnant from peer-pressure alone, one assumes there MUST be some acto of coitus involved also... and THAT is the part that may occur due to pressure. People have done far more ridiculous things because they were 'pressured'.

My point is - none of this has anything to do with the original question.

Men should have no say over a woman aborting... because it is not HIS body, it is hers. If 'he' can manage to carry the child... he should feel free to make the decision. If he can't, like it or not, he should have no say.

Have you been 'everywhere' in the US? Because, unless you have travelled all 50 states, from the muddiest backwaters to the biggest metopolis, your ability to say "Last I looked contraception was available everywhere in the US" is weak, at best - and carries no value.

You ignore the fact that a man should wear a condom... which I think is a curious omission... especially since the condom helps protect against disease as well as unwanted pregnancy. What is the agenda you are furthering here?

Why are you so desperate for 'pregnancy' to be the woman's fault?

It is unlikely that a girl gets pregnant from peer-pressure alone, one assumes there MUST be some acto of coitus involved also... and THAT is the part that may occur due to pressure. People have done far more ridiculous things because they were 'pressured'.

My point is - none of this has anything to do with the original question.

Men should have no say over a woman aborting... because it is not HIS body, it is hers. If 'he' can manage to carry the child... he should feel free to make the decision. If he can't, like it or not, he should have no say.

Thank you.
All this crap about "it takes two to tango" and yet no one ever mentions condoms, that a lot of guys don't want to wear since it takes away some stimulation.

If there's anything that's stupid, it's that.

Have you been 'everywhere' in the US? Because, unless you have travelled all 50 states, from the muddiest backwaters to the biggest metopolis, your ability to say "Last I looked contraception was available everywhere in the US" is weak, at best - and carries no value.

You ignore the fact that a man should wear a condom... which I think is a curious omission... especially since the condom helps protect against disease as well as unwanted pregnancy. What is the agenda you are furthering here?

Why are you so desperate for 'pregnancy' to be the woman's fault?

It is unlikely that a girl gets pregnant from peer-pressure alone, one assumes there MUST be some acto of coitus involved also... and THAT is the part that may occur due to pressure. People have done far more ridiculous things because they were 'pressured'.

My point is - none of this has anything to do with the original question.

Men should have no say over a woman aborting... because it is not HIS body, it is hers. If 'he' can manage to carry the child... he should feel free to make the decision. If he can't, like it or not, he should have no say.

I have been to all 50 States.

At any rate, oral contraceptives are far and away the most effective method. they are also the easiest to use.

Typically however, when someone actually suggests that women should start taking responsibility for their own actions (that is they should ensure that the are using birth control regardless of what their partner is or is not doing), you start to bitch and suggest that I am being unfair.

And I stand by what I said. If a woman wants to get an abortion that is fine, but she should not be able to carry a pregnancy to term when the father does not want the child either.

Either parent should be able to have the pregnancy terminated. It's the only fair way.

Thank you.
All this crap about "it takes two to tango" and yet no one ever mentions condoms, that a lot of guys don't want to wear since it takes away some stimulation.

If there's anything that's stupid, it's that.

So woman are equal to and just as responsible as men etc. Until of course they actually have to take responsibilty for something, then it is the mans fault, because "he didn't wear a condom."

This abnegation of responsibilty is exactly why women shouldn't have the vote.

I'm a little frightened by the chauvinist ranting that's appeared in this thread...

So woman are equal to and just as responsible as men etc. Until of course they actually have to take responsibilty for something, then it is the mans fault, because "he didn't wear a condom."

This abnegation of responsibilty is exactly why women shouldn't have the vote.
Hmm?
You're putting words into her mouth.
She never said it was only the guy's fault, nothing of the sort.

I have been to all 50 States.

At any rate, oral contraceptives are far and away the most effective method. they are also the easiest to use.

Typically however, when someone actually suggests that women should start taking responsibility for their own actions (that is they should ensure that the are using birth control regardless of what their partner is or is not doing), you start to bitch and suggest that I am being unfair.

And I stand by what I said. If a woman wants to get an abortion that is fine, but she should not be able to carry a pregnancy to term when the father does not want the child either.

Either parent should be able to have the pregnancy terminated. It's the only fair way.

First of all, unless you're female, you don't know how "easy" they are. THEY have side affects. CONDOMS do not, except a few rare allergic reactions, usually to the latex, in which case, there are alternatives.

Secondly, you do not know all the laws of all 50 states. Otherwise you would know the laws of how minors get access to that kind of stuff.

Thirdly, you're still forgetting male responsibility. You think men should have a say, yet you fail to acknowledge that contraception is not the sole responsibility of the female.

In conclusion, you're an arrogant, chauvinistic bastard. But if you think otherwise, next time you and a girl are about to get it on, why don't you tell her your views on this and see if she still wants to sleep with you.

I'm a little frightened by the chauvinist ranting that's appeared in this thread...
Only a little?

Only a little?
I suppose I should elaborate: I'm scared to death that someone could actually hold such demented/biggoted/chauvinist ideals and still sleep at night. How do they do it?!

At any rate, oral contraceptives are far and away the most effective method. they are also the easiest to use.
as someone who is both on the pill and has rolled condoms on... condoms are easier and cheaper.

as for effectiveness, the pill is not effective if a woman is on antibiotics and takes them within 2 hours of taking the pill, it is not effective likewise with antihistimines, antacids et c. and the pill does not work on 1% of women, regardless of whether they use it properly.

not to mention the possible side effects of the hormones, such as an increased risk in breast cancer, blood clots, heart attack, stroke, mood swings, nausea (i know people who can't take the pill as they throw it up all the time)

furthermore, to compound your ignorance, oral contraceptives are not covered by many health insurance plans (yet viagra is, funny that) and can be quite expensive without insurance ($40 a pack) whereas condoms tend be at most $1 each. not only that, but the birth control pill is not the most effective method of contraceptive, depo prova for instance is much more effective, however it tends to stop menstration, which has been linked to osteperosis later in life.

however, you are throwing a spazz because it is easier and has no adverse health effects for men to put a piece of laytex on their cocks when they fuck.

I suppose I should elaborate: I'm scared to death that someone could actually hold such demented/biggoted/chauvinist ideals and still sleep at night. How do they do it?!
I would usually tell you that it's a bad idea to say things like that about people if you don't want to get deleted, but in this case, he does fit the definition of "bigot" and "chauvinist". So I won't.

I would usually tell you that it's a bad idea to say things like that about people if you don't want to get deleted, but in this case, he does fit the definition of "bigot" and "chauvinist". So I won't.
Technically I wasn't referring to anybody in particular, and besides, I've got the dictionary on my side.

chauvinist - n 1: a person with a prejudiced belief in the superiority of his or her own kind.
[/flaming]

Technically I wasn't referring to anybody in particular, and besides, I've got the dictionary on my side.

chauvinist - n 1: a person with a prejudiced belief in the superiority of his or her own kind.
[/flaming]
Ja.
That's why I said he fits the definitions pretty well.

EDIT:
Ooh, tricky, you're right! You never mentioned a name!

I am against abortion based on moral, but not religeous grounds. You have no right to end the life of another person against their will, weather you're the mother, father, or goddamn gaurdian angel. The woman's body is not the only concern. The child has as much right to live as any indevitual (Indevidual= A human organism that is identifiable as seperate from any other human organism). If it is illeagle to abandon a baby in a dumpster after haveing given birth because you don't want it to ruin your plans for the future, then it should be illeagle to kill it while still in the womb. There is virtualy no difference. In the end, though, that is off-topic.

Men should have the right to halt an abortion of their child. If a woman can force a man to support a child he doesn't want, then why shouldnt he be able to support a child the mother doesn't want. Unless you want to allow a father to decide to abort a child in order to avoid paying child support, you must alow a father to veto the murd... abortion... of his child. Otherwise, you are forceing a man to have responsibilites for something he has no rights or control over.

I am against abortion based on moral, but not religeous grounds. You have no right to end the life of another person against their will, weather you're the mother, father, or goddamn gaurdian angel.
The thing is, up til a point, it's just a mass of dividing cells with no form. Is it still a person then?

Are you against the morning-after pill?

Men should have the right to halt an abortion of their child. If a woman can force a man to support a child he doesn't want, then why shouldnt he be able to support a child the mother doesn't want. Unless you want to allow a father to decide to abort a child in order to avoid paying child support, you must alow a father to veto the murd... abortion... of his child. Otherwise, you are forceing a man to have responsibilites for something he has no rights or control over.

Again, because it was a choice on both parts. However, if the woman decides to have the baby that the father HELPED make, he should have a financial and MORAL responsibility toward the child. That doesn't negate the choice of the woman as to whether or not to have the child.

No human being has the right to tell another human being what to do with their own body. But if you cause something, you should be ready to PAY the consequences, whether you're male or female. A man needs to go into a sexual relationship understanding the risks, understanding that the woman may terminate the pregnancy or carry the child to term. A man needs to be prepared for either decision. He has no voice in the matter. It is not his body.

I have been to all 50 States.

At any rate, oral contraceptives are far and away the most effective method. they are also the easiest to use.

Typically however, when someone actually suggests that women should start taking responsibility for their own actions (that is they should ensure that the are using birth control regardless of what their partner is or is not doing), you start to bitch and suggest that I am being unfair.

And I stand by what I said. If a woman wants to get an abortion that is fine, but she should not be able to carry a pregnancy to term when the father does not want the child either.

Either parent should be able to have the pregnancy terminated. It's the only fair way.

Actually - the oral contraceptive is pretty far from the easiest to use, which I'm sure you know really... since you are playing the part of the informed person...

Obviously, the implant is far easier to use, since it requires absolutely no conscious effort on either part, after the initial implant... but it does sometimes have side-effects, and it isn't much fun to 'take'.

But - aside for the implant.. condoms are pretty much as easy as it's going to get... since you apply it directly to the 'offending article' just before you use it. You can't 'forget to take' a condom... you can't 'miss one'. You look down, and if you're wearing it, you're good. If you're not.... well.

And, I've had enough of all that crap about it reducing sensitivity. Would you rather have slightly-reduced-sensitivity-sex... or no-sex-at-all? Those should be the choices.

What you are failing to notice is that most women ARE taking responsibility for their own actions... they have to - they are the ones left with a gestating foetus if it all 'goes wrong'... unfortunately, the fundamentalist fascism seems intent on robbing females of even the rights they need to BE responsible.

Secondly - I live in rural Georgia - and I could take you to meet people tomorrow, that were never educated about sex at school... that were raised to believe that a woman HAD to do as she was told by a man... that couldn't get birth control. How is THAT girl going to 'take responsibility' for her actions?

You are fostering the same christian fundamentalist, hail-to-the-erection neanderthal approaches that forced the unfortunate females of western society to endure three millenia of institutionalised rape and subjugation.

You hate women so much? Leave them alone. There are still monasteries... you could take an oath of celibacy, and be shot of the whole problem.

Gen Curtis LeMay- It's time to start cleaning the gene-pool.
There are entirely too many morons in this great nation as is, and I don't want to encourage the problem by rainsing more in substandard enviroments.


I agree. I think we should start with you. MY BODY, MY CHOICE!

Gen Curtis LeMay- It's time to start cleaning the gene-pool.
There are entirely too many morons in this great nation as is, and I don't want to encourage the problem by rainsing more in substandard enviroments.


I agree. I think we should start with you. MY BODY, MY CHOICE!

I don't think that Curtis will be replying to you.

I am against abortion based on moral, but not religeous grounds. You have no right to end the life of another person against their will, weather you're the mother, father, or goddamn gaurdian angel. The woman's body is not the only concern. The child has as much right to live as any indevitual (Indevidual= A human organism that is identifiable as seperate from any other human organism). If it is illeagle to abandon a baby in a dumpster after haveing given birth because you don't want it to ruin your plans for the future, then it should be illeagle to kill it while still in the womb. There is virtualy no difference. In the end, though, that is off-topic.

Men should have the right to halt an abortion of their child. If a woman can force a man to support a child he doesn't want, then why shouldnt he be able to support a child the mother doesn't want. Unless you want to allow a father to decide to abort a child in order to avoid paying child support, you must alow a father to veto the murd... abortion... of his child. Otherwise, you are forceing a man to have responsibilites for something he has no rights or control over.

Off-topic... so why bring it up?

Human excrement has the same genetic material in it as a foetus... so, we should be forced to contain our excrement for 3/4 year periods?

Merely having human DNA doesn't make something human... cancers, for example - but how many people insist on the nurture of cancers to term?

Just because you don't like abortion, doesn't give you the right to impress that prejudice on others.... I personally, think you are erroneous... a foetus isn't a human life until well into the 20th week - and even then, it only qualifies as viable... I still wouldn't REALLY call it living.

Regarding male rights vis-a-vis abortion - why don't you try to find a parallel where the same degree of control is given to the OTHER side?

I salute you, I like the way you think. :)
Damn straight.

Why doesn't the guy just wear some fucking rubber?
And why don't both parties keep their respective parts in their pants until they are married? That would solve this and a whole hell of a lot of other problems.

wrong. she had sex, and thus being pregnant is part of the consequence. having a child does not necessarily follow from becoming pregnant, and does not necessarily need to be part of the consequence of having sex.

if i choose to go skiing and i break my leg, should i be denied the right to have my leg set simply because i choose to go skiing? should somebody else have the right to tell me that my broken leg is the consequence for my choice, and therefore i don't have the right to medical care?

No. But you can't compare the two.

You breaking your leg has no direct affect on another person.

The abortion has a direct affect on the mother, the father, AND the unborn child.

All this talk about it's a woman's body and a woman's right to choose just drive me crazy.

Woman's body? Half of that fetus is part of the man's body. Why can't he have a say in what happens?

What if the couple were planning on having a child? What if the father was looking forward? And then the mother pulls out at the end? She gets all the say. This is not fair.

Of course I'm against abortion in the first place but I absolutely despise how a woman has all the power when it comes to the child.

Half of that fetus is part of the man's body.

No. Half of the base material is created in an explosive mess from the man's body.

Nothing like the same thing, I'm afraid.

As long as it is in my body, I consider it part of my body. Still my body, my choice.

And why don't both parties keep their respective parts in their pants until they are married? That would solve this and a whole hell of a lot of other problems.
Some people can do that. Some, like myself, probably could, but aren't willing.
I like the penis. And the law protects me, as it should continue to do so.

Some people can do that. Some, like myself, probably could, but aren't willing.
I like the penis.

Then you had damn well learn to take some responsibility for your (mis)actions!

And the law protects me, as it should continue to do so.
Sadly, it does. It should be protecting the child, which cannot protect his/herself.

Then you had damn well learn to take some responsibility for your (mis)actions!

Sadly, it does. It should be protecting the child, which cannot protect his/herself.

That's your opinion. Follow the God I'm assuming you worship and let Him judge me.

To me, getting an abortion is taking responsibility over my own life. But you know, whatever. The point of this thread was whether or not the man has any rights. And getting back on topic: NO.

I am against abortion based on moral, but not religeous grounds. You have no right to end the life of another person against their will, weather you're the mother, father, or goddamn gaurdian angel. The woman's body is not the only concern. The child has as much right to live as any indevitual (Indevidual= A human organism that is identifiable as seperate from any other human organism). If it is illeagle to abandon a baby in a dumpster after haveing given birth because you don't want it to ruin your plans for the future, then it should be illeagle to kill it while still in the womb. There is virtualy no difference. In the end, though, that is off-topic.Oh, good. Another pro-lifer who attempts to make an iota of sense. I see your reasoning here, honestly, but the abortion issue really is very much a moral conflict, a conundrum of the worst sort. Whether you are pro-life, pro-choice, or neutral depends largely upon what you value more. I think that it's a clear conflict between the right to liberty and the right to life. Which do you think is more important? I won't answer that because it's an unfair question. To say that one is more important is to say that the other is less important. I can't see it as anything other than a painful conundrum, and I don't think that there's a single decent person who doesn't feel at all conflicted over it.

Men should have the right to halt an abortion of their child. If a woman can force a man to support a child he doesn't want, then why shouldnt he be able to support a child the mother doesn't want. Unless you want to allow a father to decide to abort a child in order to avoid paying child support, you must alow a father to veto the murd... abortion... of his child. Otherwise, you are forceing a man to have responsibilites for something he has no rights or control over.This kind of defeats the purpose of women having the right to abort in the first place. The whole principle on which it is based is that the woman and only the woman has the right to decide one way or the other whether or not she has a child. It isn't really important whether or not you agree with this principle. What you're suggesting just doesn't make sense. Besides, the pro-choicer could turn this around on you and say that, by the same token, the man should have the right to order a mother-to-be to abort.

Perhaps it would be more logical to take away the woman's ability to sue for child support when there is nothing keeping her from aborting other than her moral hang-ups or ignorant superstitions. Some would argue that this would be unfair to women who are pro-lifers, but, even so, whether or not you are pro-life is ultimately a choice, no humor intended.

I can see the sense in that, but I don't believe most people will go for it.

Then you had damn well learn to take some responsibility for your (mis)actions!

Sadly, it does. It should be protecting the child, which cannot protect his/herself.

There is no child.

Unless you consider an egg to be a chicken, or an acorn to be an oak.

All there is is the POTENTIAL for a child... and that potential is wrapped up inside the potentials and choices of a female human.

Thus, the human wins over the rolling-dice. As it should be.

its intresting how all the ladies describe the birthing process as painfull, and then claim they get the right to do whatever they want.

It is not that simple i dont think.

in the larger context, in the situation that I was specificly speaking about, I dont see how a woman can have all the power.

It DOES take two people. and if thats true then both partners should have some sort of say, not the current system of absolute power to the woman.

It takes two to cause a pregnancy. However, only one has to deal with the actual pregnancy. As such, the final decision must always lie with the one actually going through it.

OMG! I just realized that every fawking seed of wheat and every animal and every thing has a right to life! We must stop this horrid practice of eating. You pro-lifers, you go first.

I know this is Trolling.
But seriously, until Father's can support the baby, its the mother's choice. Its her body.

It takes virtually no effort on the part of the male to create a child, whereas it takes lots from the Mother. Thus the ideal female will manage to make the male work to support her, whereas the male's ideal is to travel and procreate as much as possible

The words of OSC. I will find the real quote later

As metropolitan cities such as Atlanta and Augusta grow, those rural counties are slowly being wiped out/ re-educated. It's awful that such things still happen out there, and it's completely unfair to the children growing up out there. It's the adults who need to be smacked upside the head/ re-educated at the moment. I still don't understand girls getting pregnant at 13. Of course, that's probably because I had virtually no interest in sex until I was about 16-17. Statistically, I must be some kind of off-the-wall outlier who screws up the government's numbers.

Well, many of the young pregnant girls who come into Floyd County Hospital (Northwest GA, but they get the majority of the cases from the North - especially up in the mountains), are carrying the children of their father/uncle/etc. So that's how 13-year olds get pregnant around there.

Yes , true. But I think it all comes down to the issue of who is the one that carries the child, it goes without saying that it's the woman and for some reason that is the final factor.
The baby devolps in the woman but starts in the man. What person has the more say? Today the woman but as time goes on and women get more rights and the sam pay, wich is good, and the woman works more out of the house the man will have more rights on this issue, if not then that is clearly not equality.
If women want more equality men should too.

Please explain how having the rights to force another person to use their body for anything means "equality." The only way we could give a man the right to force a woman to continue pregnancy and call that equality is if we gave the woman the right to enslave a man for 9 months.

If you can't pay for it yes. I would like to see the day that welfare people are forced to have abortions, because they are lazy indigents.

More on topic, men should have a veto right over pregnancy. If a woman gets pregnant and the man does not wish to support the child, the the woman should have to have an abortion.

It is unfair to expect a man to contribute to the upkeep of a child that he does not want.

This is absolutely idiotic. A man should have access to a *paper* abortion, in which he gives up all rights/responsibilities concerning the future child. However, allowing a man to force an abortion is no different than allowing him to force a pregnancy, or force plastic surgery, or force any medical procedure upon her.

quite right; i don't believe it should be legal to force ANY person to care for a child if they voiced their wish to void parental rights BEFORE the child was born. any male that wishes to do that should be permitted to do so. however, only if the right to abortion is 100% secured, at all times and for all reasons.

You and I disagree on the extent of time that the right to an abortion should last. However, I agree wholeheartedly that a man should have a way to terminate parental rights. In my case, I would say that he should have the same amount of time that the woman has (generally up until the end of the 1st trimester) or up to three months after she informs him (whichever is later, obviously).

I'm a little frightened by the chauvinist ranting that's appeared in this thread...

Well, that's all the good General does.

Well, that's all the good General does.
He will not be continuing it though.

I am against abortion based on moral, but not religeous grounds. You have no right to end the life of another person against their will, weather you're the mother, father, or goddamn gaurdian angel. The woman's body is not the only concern. The child has as much right to live as any indevitual (Indevidual= A human organism that is identifiable as seperate from any other human organism). If it is illeagle to abandon a baby in a dumpster after haveing given birth because you don't want it to ruin your plans for the future, then it should be illeagle to kill it while still in the womb. There is virtualy no difference. In the end, though, that is off-topic.

Finally, someone provides a definition when they use a word. Of course, your definition of individual does not apply to the embryos aborted in about 90% of abortions, so I guess you don't mind those.

Men should have the right to halt an abortion of their child. If a woman can force a man to support a child he doesn't want, then why shouldnt he be able to support a child the mother doesn't want.

I love this kind of logic. "Since we have one kind of injustice, we should allow this other kind of injustice." Why the hell shouldn't we just get rid of the first injustice (ie. allowing a woman to force a man to support a child he doesn't want)?

Unless you want to allow a father to decide to abort a child in order to avoid paying child support, you must alow a father to veto the murd... abortion... of his child. Otherwise, you are forceing a man to have responsibilites for something he has no rights or control over.

This is silly as well. Let me make this perfectly clear. NO HUMAN BEING HAS THE RIGHT TO FORCE A MEDICAL DECISION UPON ANY OTHER HUMAN BEING. PERIOD. As such, there is no problem of equality in not allowing a man to force a pregnancy upon a woman. However, a man should also have access to a "paper abortion" in which he gives up all parental rights and responsibilities.

Again, because it was a choice on both parts. However, if the woman decides to have the baby that the father HELPED make, he should have a financial and MORAL responsibility toward the child. That doesn't negate the choice of the woman as to whether or not to have the child.


If you say this, you have to believe that a woman automatically consents to pregnancy when she has sex and thus should not have an abortion. Anything else is inconsistent.

If we are going to allow a woman to have absolute power over whether or not to continue a pregnancy (which we really must, as it is her body that is involved), then we must allow the man involved a way to give up the future child as well.

You breaking your leg has no direct affect on another person.

Under any kind of non-emotive definition, neither does elective abortion, which only has an effect on something which might eventually become another person.

The abortion has a direct affect on the mother, the father, AND the unborn child.

An abortion does not have a direct effect on anyone but the woman having it.

Woman's body? Half of that fetus is part of the man's body. Why can't he have a say in what happens?

He is not the one who has to put his life in danger, go through irreversible changes to his body and psyche, etc. There is a basic biological difference here and, as such, there will be differences in authority and responsibility. As soon as a man can get pregnant, he can decide what to do with *his* pregnancy.

Also, slavery is outlawed in this country. As such, we cannot give anyone rights over another human being's body.

What if the couple were planning on having a child? What if the father was looking forward? And then the mother pulls out at the end? She gets all the say. This is not fair.

It is her body. It would be much less fair to allow the father to enslave her for nine months.

Of course I'm against abortion in the first place but I absolutely despise how a woman has all the power when it comes to the child.

(a) Unless you use a different defintion of child than every rational human being, there is no child involved.

(b) The woman has all the power because she is the one who has to undergo either a pregnancy or an abortion. If a woman had the chance of having chemo or forgoing treatment, would you give the choice to a man? If a woman had the choice of penicillin or sulfa drugs, would you give the choice to a man?

Under any kind of non-emotive definition, neither does elective abortion, which only has an effect on something which might eventually become another person.



An abortion does not have a direct effect on anyone but the woman having it.



He is not the one who has to put his life in danger, go through irreversible changes to his body and psyche, etc. There is a basic biological difference here and, as such, there will be differences in authority and responsibility. As soon as a man can get pregnant, he can decide what to do with *his* pregnancy.

Also, slavery is outlawed in this country. As such, we cannot give anyone rights over another human being's body.



It is her body. It would be much less fair to allow the father to enslave her for nine months.



(a) Unless you use a different defintion of child than every rational human being, there is no child involved.

(b) The woman has all the power because she is the one who has to undergo either a pregnancy or an abortion. If a woman had the chance of having chemo or forgoing treatment, would you give the choice to a man? If a woman had the choice of penicillin or sulfa drugs, would you give the choice to a man?


The chemo and the drugs have nothing to do with bringing another life into the world. The pregancy does.

I beg to differ on your "direct effect" statement. It has affect on the father and the child. Maybe you don't see the fetus as one, but I do. Just because you don't see it that way does in no way make my argument invalid.

The father is affected because that would be his child. It is a part of him. The child is affected because it determines whether they see the light of day.

I love how you had to add the "rational human being" part as if you see me as irrational. But that's alright. Because in my eyes you're the one that's irrational.

Well, many of the young pregnant girls who come into Floyd County Hospital (Northwest GA, but they get the majority of the cases from the North - especially up in the mountains), are carrying the children of their father/uncle/etc. So that's how 13-year olds get pregnant around there.


Thanks for clearing that up. I tend to forget about the incest thing since I live in Augusta (rather large city known mostly for golf) and the closest thing to incest we see around here is someone accidentally dating their second or third step-cousin or something.

The chemo and the drugs have nothing to do with bringing another life into the world. The pregancy does.

They could. What if the mother turns down chemo because it might make her infertile?

Of course, that is beside the point anyways. The point was that no one ever has the right to force medical decisions upon another adult human being.

I beg to differ on your "direct effect" statement. It has affect on the father and the child.

The father is not touched during an abortion, thus it has no direct affect on him. Pretty clear there.

Maybe you don't see the fetus as one, but I do. Just because you don't see it that way does in no way make my argument invalid.

Actually, it does. The only reason to define an embryo (which is what is usually aborted) as a child is either irrational emotive speech or religious reasons. Personally, I believe that the unborn are human due to religious reasons. However, my religion is my own, and I do not purport to force it upon others. And, from a biological standpoint, there is no reason whatsoever to define an embryo as a "child." Also, by any dictionary definition, an embryo is not a child - thus demonstrating that the majority of people do not use such terms to describe it.

I love how you had to add the "rational human being" part as if you see me as irrational. But that's alright. Because in my eyes you're the one that's irrational.

Rational vs. irrational is not an opinion matter. You either have a reason beyond "I just think so because I want to," or you don't. You have demonstrated no such reason.