Should a man have a say in whether or not his unborn baby is aborted?

[Jennifer]

Should a man have a say in whether or not his unborn baby is aborted?

[01503]

No, it's not his body. I think the woman should talk to the man about it beforehand, since what she is doing affects him, but ultimately it is her decision.

[Jennifer]

I figured that would be the response (and I also agree). How would you reconcile this normally. That while it does suck for the man the womans rights supersede, and also perhaps the man should have picked a better partner?

[01503]

How would you reconcile this normally? That while it does suck for the man the womans rights supersede, and also perhaps the man should have picked a better partner?

Well, if the man did not wish to have a kid, he should have used birth control, or ensured that the woman was using birth control. If she was "one of those" who wanted to get pregnant and was tricking him into it (who admittedly are few and far between, but for the purpose of the hypothetical...) then that is partially his fault--his misjudged her character. Either way, his actions had consequences that he must pay. If he wanted to be very certain, he would have talked to her about abortion beforehand, and whether or not she would get one if she became pregnant.

Edited December 2, 2009 by NickS

[Geoff]

Well, if the man did not wish to have a kid, he should have used birth control, or ensured that the woman was using birth control. If she was "one of those" who wanted to get pregnant and was tricking him into it (who admittedly are few and far between, but for the purpose of the hypothetical...) then that is partially his fault--his misjudged her character. Either way, his actions had consequences that he must pay. If he wanted to be very certain, he would have talked to her about abortion beforehand, and whether or not she would get one if she became pregnant.

So, the chick can always get out of her mistake because she can always have an abortion, but the guy must be forced by law to pay for the mistake if the women goes through with it? We'll since the embryo has no rights. I will just slip something into her drink to kill my sperm cell. Do I not have a right to the sperm cell? I just happened to misplace it inside her vagina. It was never my intention to get her pregnant. It would be like if I let my dog off his leash and he ran into my neighbors yard and they kept him, but still made me buy dog food.

Edited December 2, 2009 by Geoff

[themadkat]

So, the chick can always get out of her mistake because she can always have an abortion, but the guy must be forced by law to pay for the mistake if the women goes through with it? We'll since the embryo has no rights. I will just slip something into her drink to kill my sperm cell. Do I not have a right to the sperm cell? I just happened to misplace it inside her vagina. It was never my intention to get her pregnant. It would be like if I let me dog off his leash and he ran into my neighbors yard and they kept him, but still made me buy dog food.

The flip side of a woman's unequivocal right to an abortion is a man's unequivocal right not to be forced into parenthood. Child support laws are immoral, basically, unless there is some kind of prior contractual agreement between the parties (read marriage).

[01503]

So, the chick can always get out of her mistake because she can always have an abortion, but the guy must be forced by law to pay for the mistake if the women goes through with it? We'll since the embryo has no rights. I will just slip something into her drink to kill my sperm cell. Do I not have a right to the sperm cell? I just happened to misplace it inside her vagina. It was never my intention to get her pregnant. It would be like if I let my dog off his leash and he ran into my neighbors yard and they kept him, but still made me buy dog food.

I never meant to imply that a man must be forced into paying child support. I apologize if I made that unclear.

[Drew1776]

I agree with themadcat. Clearly a woman's body is her own and a man should have no right to force her into having an abortion (or not having an abortion). The problem arises when a woman doesn't want an abortion so the father is forced to pay for 18 years! I would advocate a contract be drawn up prior to birth where the man clearly acknowledges that he wants and will financially support the baby or not (pehaps support is the default and rejection requeires a legal document by the father). That way the woman has a legal document outlining the man's intentions so if he says, "I'm not paying" then she knows that if she has the baby she will be solely responsible.

Of course there would have to be very clear laws regarding such a contract addressing such questions as:

When is the latest a man has to acknowledge or reject a child in utero? (early abortions are cheaper and less risky)

What if he isn't informed on the mothers pregnancy till after that date?

What if she didn't know she was pregnant? etc...

In principle I think such a system would work and is the most legitimate. While two people may choose to engage in behavior that may produce a child, it is the mother who makes the decision whether to have the child or not. Therefore responsibility falls to her and should not be not split evenly between the two people who conceived the child. Only the mother can choose to "release" a baby, with a whole set of financial needs into the world.

[Hotu Matua]

Laws that enforce fatherhood are immoral, but if the country also prohitibs abortion, (meaning, if we have then two immoral laws combined) then the woman would have no legal or even practical means to stop the pregnancy, and hence responsibility of financial support of the resulting child should be shared between the mother and the father.

[Zip]

Laws that enforce fatherhood are immoral, but if the country also prohitibs abortion, (meaning, if we have then two immoral laws combined) then the woman would have no legal or even practical means to stop the pregnancy, and hence responsibility of financial support of the resulting child should be shared between the mother and the father.

No, the mother and father could refuse to raise the baby and force the state to raise it in an orphanage, they wanted it after all.

[freestyle]

Should a man have a say in whether or not his unborn baby is aborted?

Yes. Of course he should have a say. He just does not have the final say.

[Jake_Ellison]

Laws that enforce fatherhood are immoral, but if the country also prohitibs abortion, (meaning, if we have then two immoral laws combined) then the woman would have no legal or even practical means to stop the pregnancy, and hence responsibility of financial support of the resulting child should be shared between the mother and the father.

Actually, in that case responsibility for the child should belong strictly with the entity initiating force against the mother (the slave master, if we were to exaggerate slightly): the government. Both the mother and the father would be absolved of any legal obligation to raise the child they did not choose to bring into the world.

But, if they were aware of the fact that they would not be able to abort the pregnancy, ans still had un-safe sex, then their choice would still be an immoral one, one can't evade the fact that they still had a decision to make, and were aware of its consequences, just because of the anti abortion laws.

Edited December 2, 2009 by Jake_Ellison

[DavidOdden]

Yes, he should say. The woman bearing the fetus may integrate that fact into her system of values to determine whether to continue being pregnant or not. If the two disagree, then that sucks mildly, but the focus should then be on why they cannot agree. Why can't he accept the fact that she wants to scrape the parasite; why doesn't she want to keep this personal monument of their love? Does his urge to avoid paternity indicate that he actually doesn't care about the woman and is hoping to drop off the key next week? Is this a subtle form of entrapment that she's engaged in to keep him stuck in a doomed relationship?

Anyhow, there's no issue of "rights" here, other than the fact that the woman has the right to do what she chooses with her body.

[Hotu Matua]

No, the mother and father could refuse to raise the baby and force the state to raise it in an orphanage, they wanted it after all.

Force the state?

Would that mean force the rest of us to raise the child, via taxation?

I guess you were thinking in orphanages sustained by charity, am I right?

[Zip]

Force the state?

Would that mean force the rest of us to raise the child, via taxation?

I guess you were thinking in orphanages sustained by charity, am I right?

No not explicitly. If I were forced to have a child I did not want I would give it to an orphanage, state run or otherwise. After all I am already paying for countless other bastards whether I want to or not and I am not going to be given a tax credit if I take the kid to a charitable organization. The immorality you are getting at is on the part of the state, not on mine for making them live up to their evil intent.

I guess I could preface all this with the statement that I would in all likelihood not stay in such a state long enough for a foetus to come to term (assuming the choice to leave was available to me)

[Limelight]

Yes a man should have a say, but only to a certain extent, since it is the woman's body. However, I personally had a disaster of an experience where I unintentionally impregnated my ex-girlfriend and she withheld the information from me until a week later, as she was advised to completely keep it from me by a team of mental health "professionals" and some guy that was attempting to steal her away from me and chose for her to have an abortion.

The day she eventually told me, I fully supported her decision even though I was given no say in the matter. However the following day I learned she had had a small affair with this other man which raised the possibility that the fetus may not have been mine. She said it wasn't possible as they never had intercourse, however the man admitted there was a possibility to me, but wouldn't take any ownership as I was technically her "boyfriend".

I was still emotionally supportive to this woman and agreed to cover 65% of the procedure (which she still to this day has not paid her part), seeing as she would have to endure the physical and emotional turmoil, and I didn't want people's tax dollars paying for something so controversial and in such moral opposition.

Needless to say, not only do I feel I was given a bad wrap, but I, as a man, in a situation such as this had been denied certain imperative rights to which any father should receive, as the information was kept from me, I was excluded from the decision making process, and I was expected to pay for a procedure that may or may not have been my responsibility due to lies and noncooperation and to which I have mixed feelings over, ethically speaking.

[BRG253]

In a legal context, the woman should have full autonomy. If she loves and respects the father, she ought to value his wishes, but she is solely empowered to make the decision.

[Robert J. Kolker]

Should a man have a say in whether or not his unborn baby is aborted?

Consider whose life is at hazard. Childbirth is potentially fatal to the mother. Since early term abortion is less risky to the woman than going to term, she has the say on how much risk she will assume. Papa has no standing in this matter.

Bob Kolker

[blackdiamond]

No not explicitly. If I were forced to have a child I did not want I would give it to an orphanage, state run or otherwise. After all I am already paying for countless other bastards whether I want to or not ...

Actually, a psychologically normal person would find it extremely hard - almost impossible - to give up their own baby for adoption or (worse) to an orphanage. This is what makes the anti-abortion laws all the more evil.

[ZSorenson]

1) A man has no right to say a thing about whether a baby is to be aborted. Pregnancy decisions belong to the woman, as her body is exclusively hers. If the man has a problem with this, whatever rights he had were dependent on his choice of partner. He had the right to choose a partner, and faces the consequences of a bad choice that affect his self-esteem.

2) Decisions about birth control/childbirth really should occur before the sex act. Spontaneous sex is about as rational as spontaneous theft of a Big Mac, or spontaneous wacking on the head of an obnoxious stranger. Though it sounds traditional (ie irrational), my personal conclusion is that sex really in fact is 'the act of procreation'. Though romantic love and its implied sharing of values between two people does not necessitate procreation, rational procreation does necessitate rational romantic love. There is an obvious connection between the two values (romance and procreation). It is not confusing why natural selection and objective reality have caused the two to be physcially correlated. Thus, if romantic love is brought to the point of sex, it also nears the point of procreation (again, not necessarily, but probably), so to engage in rational sex is to at least acknowledge the issue of procreation (ie, we will or we will not). In other words, choices about birth control. This is why abortion can often be considered a moral failure, because sometimes it is response to less than rational sex. So, the question of legality aside, morally, ought a man to have a say (ie, would a rational woman have any moral obligation to acknowledge the potential father's desires)? My point is that the rational time to have a say is beforehand. If he says, yes, a baby please, and the woman doesn't - that's maybe rape. If he says yes, and so does she, but then she changes her mind - she's legally entitled to do so, even morally if her reason is good enough, but morally she must acknowledge the man's desires in her hierarchy of values because she had promised him something leading into extreme intimacy. If he says no, she yes - well he's obviously not rational if he continues on expecting to get his way in the end. If it's no, no, well, his no was his last word in the matter - he assumed the risk.

3) Marriage implies supporting the child (as per joint financial arrangement). Otherwise, a father should only pay for the child if he makes an agreement to - and whoever is paying should properly affect custody. Ironically, the state might as well force fathers to pay if it decides that children 'must' be cared for. After all, when it's a public orphanage we're all paying for it. If the state has such a moral mandate, it might as well impose it on the father, might as well give him no say in whether the baby is aborted or adopted. As draconian as it is: he did choose to have sex, so if moral mandates are being thrown around, what the heck? But of course, such 'moral' mandates are profoundly immoral.

Apologies for being a little personal, but I'm in a situation with a potential child that was not mutually rationally agreed upon by both parties, where other very good families have explicitly offered to take the child and the mother has refused. Naturally, I will have to pay.

[DavidOdden]

1) A man has no right to say a thing about whether a baby is to be aborted.

Do you believe you have a right to say this, and if so where does that right come from?

[freestyle]

1) A man has no right to say a thing about whether a baby is to be aborted.

At what point did man lose his right to even say something?

He simply is not the final authority in the matter. What action (or denial of action) that is to take place inside the woman's body is, finally, her ultimate responsibility.

I would think that the rest of your response (specifically about morality) actually would lead you to agree and probably re-word that initial statement. Nevertheless, I would argue that the involved individuals have both the right and obligation to rationally discuss their wishes for the future when being confronted with a surprise pregnancy they mutually are responsible for creating. As you mentioned, this type of planning should happen before hand, but we know that things don't always happen as they should.

This is a controversial subject because it places an extraordinary moral decision onto a woman. She is the singular host of a developing human embryo and potential person. A rights respecting society necessarily has to acknowledge that hers is the final say.

[Beckarr]

"I agree with themadcat. Clearly a woman's body is her own and a man should have no right to force her into having an abortion (or not having an abortion). The problem arises when a woman doesn't want an abortion so the father is forced to pay for 18 years! I would advocate a contract be drawn up prior to birth where the man clearly acknowledges that he wants and will financially support the baby or not (pehaps support is the default and rejection requeires a legal document by the father). That way the woman has a legal document outlining the man's intentions so if he says, "I'm not paying" then she knows that if she has the baby she will be solely responsible." end quotation.

If the woman wants to keep the child, but the father does not, then the woman can give the child her last name and give the father no claims to the child, and thus no financial responsibility. The man does not have to pay for the child if he is willing to rescind all claims to his offspring.

A man has the right to an opinion on the birth of his unborn child, but perhaps we should think about it in the reverse, what if the man wants the child (perhaps for religious reasons) but the woman does not want to have it? The man is agreeing to pay child support, but the woman does not want to carry the baby to term or have the responsibility of the child. Ideally, it would be be a mutual agreement, but if not, then I believe that the decision should rest with the woman because of the fact that in our society women are held more responsible for their children than men, i.e. single mothers are the poorest people in our society.

In the case of incarcerated persons, when a male prisoner has a child on the outside, the vast majority of cases the child is with its mother, but when it is a mother whose child is on the outside, it is more often with its grandparents or other extended family members than its father. So the woman, who is most often left with the child in the event of a separation, should decide whether or not she wants to make a commitment to an unborn child.

[Black Wolf]

No, a man should not have a say.

And a man should also not have to pay for the baby if the woman decides to keep it, but the man doesn't.

[DavidOdden]

No, a man should not have a say.

What do you mean by "a say"?