Abortion and Consent of the Father

[nclib]

Option 3 for me.

[danwxman]

Yes, if she is married to him.

[12th Doctor]

Yes, if she is married to him.

[Nym90]

I would say generally no, though there is one case in which I think I would make an exception. If the father is willing to sign a document in which he would adopt the baby fully as his own, absolving the mother of all parental responsibilities whatsoever, then I would support requiring the woman to have the baby. She would have no financial or otherwise parental responsibility after the birth; as long as the father is willing to fully take care of the child, I do feel that he should have the right to have it. The mother, however, should not be forced into any financial responsibility if she wishes to have an abortion. However, it should have to be the father's responsibility to initiate any such action. The mother should not be required to have to find the father or get his consent specifically.

[nclib]

I would say generally no, though there is one case in which I think I would make an exception. If the father is willing to sign a document in which he would adopt the baby fully as his own, absolving the mother of all parental responsibilities whatsoever, then I would support requiring the woman to have the baby. She would have no financial or otherwise parental responsibility after the birth; as long as the father is willing to fully take care of the child, I do feel that he should have the right to have it. The mother, however, should not be forced into any financial responsibility if she wishes to have an abortion. However, it should have to be the father's responsibility to initiate any such action. The mother should not be required to have to find the father or get his consent specifically.

Interesting scenario, but even then I would support a woman's right to bodily autonomy.

[WMS]

I would say generally no, though there is one case in which I think I would make an exception. If the father is willing to sign a document in which he would adopt the baby fully as his own, absolving the mother of all parental responsibilities whatsoever, then I would support requiring the woman to have the baby. She would have no financial or otherwise parental responsibility after the birth; as long as the father is willing to fully take care of the child, I do feel that he should have the right to have it. The mother, however, should not be forced into any financial responsibility if she wishes to have an abortion. However, it should have to be the father's responsibility to initiate any such action. The mother should not be required to have to find the father or get his consent specifically.

Interesting scenario, but even then I would support a woman's right to bodily autonomy.

I view it differently. If I got a woman pregnant, I would most definitely want her to have my child. I would take care of it afterwards if that is what she wished, but I would be heavily involved in my child's life in any event - it is MY child, after all, and I DO have responsibility for it. I find the idea that a child of mine could be killed by the mother without even involving me to be absolutely horrific. The degree of contempt in which you hold the father's rights I find to be...disturbing.

Now if the father shows no interest in his kid (which is a *legitimate* cause for contempt), that may be different, and I'm not sure how I would feel in that case.

[??????????]

Option 2. If the woman can force a man to pay for a child for 18 years. He should have a say on whether the child will be born or not.

[Nym90]

I would say generally no, though there is one case in which I think I would make an exception. If the father is willing to sign a document in which he would adopt the baby fully as his own, absolving the mother of all parental responsibilities whatsoever, then I would support requiring the woman to have the baby. She would have no financial or otherwise parental responsibility after the birth; as long as the father is willing to fully take care of the child, I do feel that he should have the right to have it. The mother, however, should not be forced into any financial responsibility if she wishes to have an abortion. However, it should have to be the father's responsibility to initiate any such action. The mother should not be required to have to find the father or get his consent specifically.

Interesting scenario, but even then I would support a woman's right to bodily autonomy.

I view it differently. If I got a woman pregnant, I would most definitely want her to have my child. I would take care of it afterwards if that is what she wished, but I would be heavily involved in my child's life in any event - it is MY child, after all, and I DO have responsibility for it. I find the idea that a child of mine could be killed by the mother without even involving me to be absolutely horrific. The degree of contempt in which you hold the father's rights I find to be...disturbing.

Now if the father shows no interest in his kid (which is a *legitimate* cause for contempt), that may be different, and I'm not sure how I would feel in that case.

That's pretty much how I feel, too. I would absolutely be a father to any child that I had myself. The "sperm donor" (I can't bring myself to call him the father...biology doesn't make a father, being a parent does) for my fiancee's now 4 year old son, who I intend to adopt upon our marriage, insisted that he be aborted, and when my fiancee refused, he walked out on her, never to be seen again. He refused to even put his name on the birth certificate. I just can't believe how someone can do something like that. Bottom line is that anyone who would impregnate a woman and then walk away without at least paying child support is a worthless piece of human garbage (apologies to BRTD for borrowing his phrase...)

So even though I am pro-choice, I would support the father being allowed to stop the abortion as long as he is willing to take FULL responsibillity for all expenses and child rearing. I wouldn't force a woman to have a child against her will and then also provide for it after birth, but if the father is willing to adopt it fully, she should be required to have it, because the father does have some rights. I think that's reasonable.

[Wakie]

Option 2. If the woman can force a man to pay for a child for 18 years. He should have a say on whether the child will be born or not.

Unless she somehow raped him didn't he have a say as to whether or not they were going to have sex (and therefore whether or not he wanted to risk having a child)?

Someone has to pay for this child and IMHO it should be the shared responsibility of both parents.

[John Dibble]

If they are married. At the very least, he should be informed.

[opebo]

She should do as she likes, without the consent of anyone, and it should be up to her whether she wants to inform anyone.

[Peter]

A law requiring paternal consent for an abortion is problematic at best; Sitting here I can think of the following circumstances that are perfectly feasible:

1. The father could be dead.
2. The father could be unknown or indeterminable (this applies for those women who engage in one night stands and/or are promiscuous)
3. The father could be uncontactable or unfindable.
4. There could be medical circumstances that simply will not admit delay.
5. The child could be a product of rape.
6. The father could be a minor (we get into all sorts of questions of "is he capable of making the decision?")
7. The father could be mentally retarded.

Ultimately such a law would require a means of determining definitively the paternity of a child prior to birth - I'm not aware of this being possible presently. Even then it can get complicated.

I answered no.

[Nym90]

Option 2. If the woman can force a man to pay for a child for 18 years. He should have a say on whether the child will be born or not.

Unless she somehow raped him didn't he have a say as to whether or not they were going to have sex (and therefore whether or not he wanted to risk having a child)?

Someone has to pay for this child and IMHO it should be the shared responsibility of both parents.

I forgot to add that. If the woman was raped, the father has no say, even if he is willing to adopt the child as his own. That would be an exception to my position as stated above.

[Julien]

Yes, if she is married to him.

[A18]

Option 2. If the woman can force a man to pay for a child for 18 years. He should have a say on whether the child will be born or not.

Unless she somehow raped him didn't he have a say as to whether or not they were going to have sex (and therefore whether or not he wanted to risk having a child)?

Someone has to pay for this child and IMHO it should be the shared responsibility of both parents.

Unless she was raped, SHE had that exact same choice, and she's the one who got pregnant.

They should get rid of the child support laws.

[Redefeatbush04]

Option 2. If the woman can force a man to pay for a child for 18 years. He should have a say on whether the child will be born or not.

Unless she somehow raped him didn't he have a say as to whether or not they were going to have sex (and therefore whether or not he wanted to risk having a child)?

Someone has to pay for this child and IMHO it should be the shared responsibility of both parents.

Unless she was raped, SHE had that exact same choice, and she's the one who got pregnant.

They should get rid of the child support laws.

Even if she was raped she should still have the baby. If she feels that she cannot raise it, the baby should be adopted. Their are so many people out their who are infertile and unable to reproduce, who instead adopt babies from overseas. Yet their are babies in this country who are slaughtered because their mother doesn't feel like raising them, or claims that she can't. That's ed up. Their is also a growing trend of gay couples who have been in a steady relationship for a long period of time adopting babies. This is probablly not a good thing if the baby they are adopting is from their gender (for obvious reasons), but in general gay adoption is good. The baby will at least have a better life than it would have if it had been aborted. What really bothers me is that people who oppose abortion oppose gay adoption and vice-versa. Why? They go hand in hand. Quite honestly I don't see how you can allow the murder of the infant. I also don't see how you could disallow the murder of the infant, while making it more difficult for it to find a home.

[Wakie]

Option 2. If the woman can force a man to pay for a child for 18 years. He should have a say on whether the child will be born or not.

Unless she somehow raped him didn't he have a say as to whether or not they were going to have sex (and therefore whether or not he wanted to risk having a child)?

Someone has to pay for this child and IMHO it should be the shared responsibility of both parents.

Unless she was raped, SHE had that exact same choice, and she's the one who got pregnant.

They should get rid of the child support laws.

Phillip, any respect I had for you is now gone.  "She's the one who got pregnant"?!?!?  My argument is that BOTH parents should be financially responsible for the child which BOTH parents decided to run the risk of bringing into this world!

Are you a deadbeat dad who doesn't like paying child support?

[A18]

Because I'm sure that was a lot.

You misunderstand me. I'm saying it should be one way or the other, to be logically consistent. Why does she decide whether or not she has the child, when he has to pay for it? If a fetus is not a person, and the guy doesn't want it, then the woman should either accept full legal responsibility for the child or have an abortion. That's the whole point to being pro-choice, isn't it? It's the idea that nothing has really happened yet - a person hasn't been created, so she can still decide whether to have a child or not. She shouldn't be able to force that on the guy.

I, myself, am pro-life, and if abortion were illegal, I would understand the child support laws. But it's not, so the law is inconsistent.

[RBH]

Why is it good that a man should have to approve an abortion and bad if a woman does it without his consent?

You propose a system where the opinion of one person would be able to force another person to take the action that he likes.

You propose it because the system could have the opinion of one person (the father) be overridden by the opinion of another (the Mother).

It's a contradiction. In your quest to balance the scale for the father, you give them more leverage over the woman who is going to carry the child.

If the male rapes the female, commits incest with her or if it's statutory rape, then that male should have no say in what the female does

[A18]

No, I'm saying she would be allowed to get an abortion, but if she didn't and the father didn't want the child, then she shouldn't get child support.

[WMS]

I would just like to say that Nym90 and Redefeatbush04 both made very nice points in this thread. There are moderate options available out there...

[Beet]

No, the whole basis of the right to abortion besides raising children is the right to one's own body. Both bases are valid.

[PBrunsel]

Although I would like to see abortion outlawed, it can not logically be ended all at once.

With that in mind I voted for option #2.

[Smash255]

I don't think any man should either force the woman to have the abortion or force her to have the child.  Bottom line us guys simply can't relate to actually being pregnant and going through with a birth or having an abortion.

No woman should be forced into an abortion because the father wants nothing to do with the kid & won't pay child support, and she shouldn't be forced into having the child because the guy wants her to.  Its not our body.

[A18]

She wouldn't be forced to have to have an abortion. She would have to give up child support.

That's completely fair and consistent.