Fathers and abortion

[RecordProducer]

Blind_Otter and the others had some great points. And, Guest, since you're twisting my words, I'll put it this way:

 

NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT TO FORCE ME TO GO THROUGH PREGNANCY, LABOR, AND MOTHERHOOD!!!! (btw, I already have two wonderful children so don't think that I am simply against kids).

 

I aborted a baby exactly two weeks ago because my husband didn't want it. I didn't want to force HIM into having it and if you browse my threads, you'll see that I stated numerous times that I believe in freedom of choice for both men and women.

 

I can't possibly imagine the situation where I would want to abort the baby and my husband said he wouldn't sign the paper for me. He has all the right to persuade me, threaten me, beg me to have his baby, but not to FORCE me to have it. I would find a way to abort it and he would never ever see me again. I would never live with a man who is so selfish that he puts his desires as imperative.

 

This is not about who takes the responsibility. If I would be forced to have a baby, I certainly would NOT like to leave my baby to the father and disappear. I would love my child just like I love my two sons. So the responsibility is on MY back, too. And maybe I am wrong, but I think I have a right to choose what burden I put on my back.

 

I also believe that fathers should be asked if they want to be fathers at all. But not asked by the law. F the F-ing law! They should be asked before the pregnancy happens and their wish should be respected a sin if they say NO, it should be NO. I wouldn't want to force anyone to be the father of my child. If they say YES then the woman has to say YES, too.

 

What gives YOU the right to decide in my name, but doesn't give ME the right to decide in YOUR name? Right now it's up to the woman because it makes sense biologically.

[Guest]

In my state if the mother is on state aid the state will go after the father to reimburse the cost of the aid.

 

Mine also.

[a4a]

well I only have second hand info... but I know one had to pay for the hospital (birth and prenatal care).

 

Maybe he made a ton of money or something and they figured he could afford it?

 

Can married people use Wic or medicare?

 

Just curious?

 

I saw on the news where they changed some of the rules on Wic.. wow that is an odd program..... certain foods and such..... only so many vegetables allowed.... just did not make a whole lot of sense to me.

[hotgurl]

well I only have second hand info... but I know one had to pay for the hospital (birth and prenatal care).

 

Maybe he made a ton of money or something and they figured he could afford it?

 

Can married people use Wic or medicare?

 

Just curious?

 

I saw on the news where they changed some of the rules on Wic.. wow that is an odd program..... certain foods and such..... only so many vegetables allowed.... just did not make a whole lot of sense to me.

 

a4a it all depends on income level. I think WIC can be for anyone. It is basically about good nutrition for mother & child. It pays for certain foods while breast feeding. like tuna fish for the mother and for formula which saves loads of $$ plus cereal and juice for when the kid starts eatibng food. Also you can only get it till the kid is 5. It really helped me out witht he formula. They also have nutrition conseling.

[RecordProducer]

Sorry, folks, but putting money and labor in the same basket implies that if the father has the bucks and the desire to take the respnsibility - he has a right to dictate whether the baby will be born or not. HE DOES NOT!

 

Next thing, someone will say that if someone can pay me a lot for sex, I should be legally forced to have sex with him. Oh, prostitution is illegal? OK, someone will force me to clean his house because he will have enough money to pay me.

[Buttaflyy]

The risk of the father running to avoid the responsibility would be there, just as the risk of the woman going to Mexico to have the abortion is there. There are always going to be people like this around.

 

Yes true. Both are choices.

 

My opinion on BC is that it's a shared responsibility. If both are using it, the chances of pregnancy are so miniscule as to be non-existent. If it's shirked and a pregnancy occurs, the responsibility is equally shared.

 

A point I've been trying to make for a while. On this thread and other threads.

 

This discussion has kind of diverged into a dozen loosely related subjects which are becoming confusing. The main argument was that, if fathers are equally the parent in a conception and are expected to support the pregnancy and resulting child as a responsibility, they should also have equal rights in that pregnancy and child which they are held responsible for.

It's about the rights being divided equally as well as the responsibility. I'm not saying a father should be able to force an abortion, but rather that they should be able to stop one if they want their child. This of course, only being if the pregnancy does not risk the mothers health. They should have the right to be able to have their child, be the primary custodial parent, and get child support, if the mother doesn't want the baby. It's asking for the same options available to the mother, to be available to the father.

 

I disagree with this. Simply because it does not make sense biologically (as someone else also said). It's not even only about who carries the baby, but who has to raise the child. Because mother carries it, Father can dissappear before it even gets here. Mother has a choice in whether she wants to be a single mother or not. Even if dad says, "give it to me, just have it." As RP said, and I'm sure alot of mothers might agree, I'd not be willing to give birth and give my child up to anyone.

 

The only problem with this otherwise completely reasonable viewpoint is that the mother has to bear the burden of the actual pregnancy and labor. This is what makes it so hard to come to a consensus. I'm sure many fathers would take the burden too if they could, but they can't. Would financial compensation be appropriate in this case? It's interesting to think about to say the least.

 

I don't think that viewpoint is reasonable because, no matter what, the father does have the option to bail out. Even when you factor in all of the financial responsibilities that he can be sued for, the mother is not guaranteed any help from him. I feel that all women, especially unmarried women, should consider whether they'd be able to handle raising a child alone when considering keeping the baby. Believe me, his tears, pleas, threats can all be futile later.

 

My other point is if, you can't bear the father having rights in the pregnancy, then you can't expect to exact the responsibilities either. It's completely unfair to do this a social norm. It's either YOUR pregnancy and YOUR responsibility for it, or OUR pregnancy and OUR responsibility for it.

 

If it were guaranteed equal responsibility from the start, I'd be ALL for equal rights as well. This is just not biologically possible. It just isn't.

[Guest]

I disagree with this. Simply because it does not make sense biologically (as someone else also said). It's not even only about who carries the baby, but who has to raise the child. Because mother carries it, Father can dissappear before it even gets here. Mother has a choice in whether she wants to be a single mother or not. Even if dad says, "give it to me, just have it." As RP said, and I'm sure alot of mothers might agree, I'd not be willing to give birth and give my child up to anyone..

 

You may be letting personal experience ruin your objectivity. The guy sounds like a real jerk, but you shouldn't assume him a template for all fathers. You can't preventatively shackle all men because of the actions of one. Not being willing to give up your child after birth is a laudable stance, but that doesn't mean the option isn't available. Technically, with the exception of the last two trimesters of pregnancy, the mother CAN bail anytime also. Abortion, or adoption are always available choices. Adoptive parents will generally even pick up the tab for all medical expenses with the pregnancy for the priviledge of getting a newborn child!

 

 

I don't think that viewpoint is reasonable because, no matter what, the father does have the option to bail out. Even when you factor in all of the financial responsibilities that he can be sued for, the mother is not guaranteed any help from him. I feel that all women, especially unmarried women, should consider whether they'd be able to handle raising a child alone when considering keeping the baby. Believe me, his tears, pleas, threats can all be futile later.

 

 

 

If it were guaranteed equal responsibility from the start, I'd be ALL for equal rights as well. This is just not biologically possible. It just isn't.

 

The mother has the option to bail as well, with the exception of the last two trimesters of pregnancy. Mothers just DON'T bail as often.

 

There are no guarantees in life. Many people have problems like you and some are fathers. If you want an exercise in futility, try sueing a mother for not following minimum visitation rights, or not providing properly for the child, or using a trust fund for what it was intended. A mother who is the non-custodial parent can be just as hard, if not harder to get support out of as a deadbeat dad. Especially if they don't have a job. The only recourse is to throw them in jail, and the local judiciaries are generally not all that eager to throw women in jail for that. Hell, they're not even particularly eager to throw men in jail for that.

[Buttaflyy]

You may be letting personal experience ruin your objectivity. The guy sounds like a real jerk, but you shouldn't assume him a template for all fathers. You can't preventatively shackle all men because of the actions of one. Not being willing to give up your child after birth is a laudable stance, but that doesn't mean the option isn't available. Technically, with the exception of the last two trimesters of pregnancy, the mother CAN bail anytime also. Abortion, or adoption are always available choices. Adoptive parents will generally even pick up the tab for all medical expenses with the pregnancy for the priviledge of getting a newborn child! .

 

Who's the guy? Please don't assume anything about me. I am not at all talking about any personal experience. As I said, BIOLOGICALLY, meaning in all instances.

 

The point here is that yes, initially, abortion, adoption, or keeping the baby and raising it are ALL the mothers available choices. They are HER choices up until a certain point of the pregnancy! These are the facts, and I happen to agree with them, objectively speaking

 

The mother has the option to bail as well, with the exception of the last two trimesters of pregnancy. Mothers just DON'T bail as often.

 

There are no guarantees in life. Many people have problems like you and some are fathers. If you want an exercise in futility, try sueing a mother for not following minimum visitation rights, or not providing properly for the child, or using a trust fund for what it was intended. A mother who is the non-custodial parent can be just as hard, if not harder to get support out of as a deadbeat dad. Especially if they don't have a job. The only recourse is to throw them in jail, and the local judiciaries are generally not all that eager to throw women in jail for that. Hell, they're not even particularly eager to throw men in jail for that.

 

WTF? Many people have problems like me? Again you are assuming that you know my situation, and circumstances.

 

BTW, you don't have to explain to me about an abandoning mother. As I said in another post, my brother is raising two of his children singlehandedly. I know all about the struggles of an abandoning mother. But I still realize that she had a choice in whether or not she wanted to be a mother at all. Even BEFORE my brother had the choice in whether or not he wanted to be a "single" dad. I still stick by my statements from earlier, and it's not only my opinion that it is justified for being the woman's choice, but I understand why it is.

[Guest]

Who's the guy? Please don't assume anything about me. I am not at all talking about any personal experience. As I said, BIOLOGICALLY, meaning in all instances.

 

The point here is that yes, initially, abortion, adoption, or keeping the baby and raising it are ALL the mothers available choices. They are HER choices up until a certain point of the pregnancy! These are the facts, and I happen to agree with them, objectively speaking .

 

 

Then you agree that a mother CAN bail and that your previous statement of the mother HAVING to take care of a baby while only the father can bail is null and void? Am I misunderstanding, or do you have another justification in mind?

 

 

WTF? Many people have problems like me? Again you are assuming that you know my situation, and circumstances.

 

BTW, you don't have to explain to me about an abandoning mother. As I said in another post, my brother is raising two of his children singlehandedly. I know all about the struggles of an abandoning mother. But I still realize that she had a choice in whether or not she wanted to be a mother at all. Even BEFORE my brother had the choice in whether or not he wanted to be a "single" dad. I still stick by my statements from earlier, and it's not only my opinion that it is justified for being the woman's choice, but I understand why it is.

 

Sorry Buttaflyy, I got you mixed up with another poster. My mistake. It's hard to remember who's who in the threads sometimes.

 

I am also not trying to say a woman shouldn't have a say, but rather that a father should have a say too. I'm specifically looking for a logical justifying reason why they shouldn't have any rights, but still should have to be held responsible for the pregnancy medical costs. One should not have rights without responsibilities, but one should also not have responsibilities without rights.

 

Could you please disregard the non-relevent statements I made thinking you were someone else? I'd like to hear your view.

[Buttaflyy]

Then you agree that a mother CAN bail and that your previous statement of the mother HAVING to take care of a baby while only the father can bail is null and void? Am I misunderstanding, or do you have another justification in mind?

 

ANYONE can bail. Yes, I know this first hand. My point is that, I guess the mother has the lone responsibility of the embryo/fetus from that very beginning stage and most likely (or in most cases) for the rest of it's life. It is her body carrying, it is her body going through abortion, it is her body birthing, and most times, it takes her life to raise it. IMO this justifies it being her choice solely what she wants to do. I'm not speaking of the cases where she doesn't wind up doing so.

 

Sorry Buttaflyy, I got you mixed up with another poster. My mistake. It's hard to remember who's who in the threads sometimes.

 

I am also not trying to say a woman shouldn't have a say, but rather that a father should have a say too. I'm specifically looking for a logical justifying reason why they shouldn't have any rights, but still should have to be held responsible for the pregnancy medical costs. One should not have rights without responsibilities, but one should also not have responsibilities without rights.

 

Could you please disregard the non-relevent statements I made thinking you were someone else? I'd like to hear your view.

 

It's ok. It happens.

[blind_otter]

I am also not trying to say a woman shouldn't have a say, but rather that a father should have a say too. I'm specifically looking for a logical justifying reason why they shouldn't have any rights, but still should have to be held responsible for the pregnancy medical costs. One should not have rights without responsibilities, but one should also not have responsibilities without rights.

 

The biological unfairness really trumps the whoel "fairness through legislation" thing you seem to be promoting. The bottom line is, whether the father likes it or not, if the woman does not want to carry the child, then she should never, ever be forced to do so.

[Buttaflyy]

I just realized that my last post didn't read as it should have so here goes...

 

Originally Posted by Guest

Then you agree that a mother CAN bail and that your previous statement of the mother HAVING to take care of a baby while only the father can bail is null and void? Am I misunderstanding, or do you have another justification in mind?

 

The missing part of the post by me:

 

ANYONE can bail. Yes, I know this first hand. My point is that, I guess the mother has the lone responsibility of the embryo/fetus from that very beginning stage and most likely (or in most cases) for the rest of it's life. It is her body carrying, it is her body going through abortion, it is her body birthing, and most times, it takes her life to raise it. IMO this justifies it being her choice solely what she wants to do. I'm not speaking of the cases where she doesn't wind up doing so.

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guest

Sorry Buttaflyy, I got you mixed up with another poster. My mistake. It's hard to remember who's who in the threads sometimes.

 

I am also not trying to say a woman shouldn't have a say, but rather that a father should have a say too. I'm specifically looking for a logical justifying reason why they shouldn't have any rights, but still should have to be held responsible for the pregnancy medical costs. One should not have rights without responsibilities, but one should also not have responsibilities without rights.

 

Could you please disregard the non-relevent statements I made thinking you were someone else? I'd like to hear your view.

 

 

It's ok. It happens.

[Buttaflyy]

The biological unfairness really trumps the whoel "fairness through legislation" thing you seem to be promoting. The bottom line is, whether the father likes it or not, if the woman does not want to carry the child, then she should never, ever be forced to do so.

 

yep, this is it.

[RecordProducer]

What does responsibility have to do with this? We are talking about one single type of case where the woman DOES NOT want the fetus in her uterus, but the father wants to have the right to NOT let her abort it.

 

1. I don't want to give my baby to the father even if I was forced to have it. I don't want 0% responsibility.

 

2. I don't want 100% responsibility.

 

3. I don't want 50% responsibility.

 

4. I don't want 30 or 47 or 62 or or 86% of responsibility.

 

If I thought I wouldn't get pregnant because I used some protection and am reluctant to have the child, no one will force me to go through labor. We are talking about labor here. As someone said: we are not breeding machines.

 

If a law like that is ever passed, women will simply stop having sex or risk their lives in illegal abortions or abort their babies in other countries or corruption will start blooming. (By the way, I don't see anything risky health-wise in going to another country to have an abortion. It doesn't have to be Mexico, it can be Europe.)

 

The law is supposed to protect me from others violating my rights, not to violate my rights by protecting men and making women's lives miserable.

 

Come on, let's face the truth! You only vote for men's rights, cuz you're a man. Find yourself a woman who will want to have your baby, not one that doesn't want it. Besides, children are born out of love, not legal threats to put you to jail if you don't want to have somebody's baby.

 

For how long would I be in jail? I would rather go to jail!

[a4a]

The biological unfairness really trumps the whoel "fairness through legislation" thing you seem to be promoting. The bottom line is, whether the father likes it or not, if the woman does not want to carry the child, then she should never, ever be forced to do so.

 

well yeah that is a given...... but what if he wants her to abort.

[blind_otter]

well yeah that is a given...... but what if he wants her to abort.

 

My psycho ex wanted me to abort. His mom asked me to abort, too. I told them that he could sign away his parental rights and never contact me again and I didn't want any money from him, ever.

 

Since I didn't expect him to provide any financial support I thought it gave him a good, easy out.

[blind_otter]

If I thought I wouldn't get pregnant because I used some protection and am reluctant to have the child, no one will force me to go through labor. We are talking about labor here. As someone said: we are not breeding machines.

 

RP brings up another very good point. Giving birth is dangerous. Less dangerous than in the times when sanitation wasn't attended to -- but still. Not only can a woman die, she can suffer from copmlications that may affect her for the rest of her life.

 

You can't force someone to risk their life. Ever.

[a4a]

My psycho ex wanted me to abort. His mom asked me to abort, too. I told them that he could sign away his parental rights and never contact me again and I didn't want any money from him, ever.

 

Since I didn't expect him to provide any financial support I thought it gave him a good, easy out.

 

and no doubt he would have made your life hell as well if you did not have him sign over rights.

 

and I honestly think more woman should think like that or give the male the chance to get out if they really are dead set against kids.

 

That is where I think men get shafted in this whole discussion.

 

I just saw a "shocking things" video where a roommate (male) was busted poking hole in his (male) roommates condoms...... this guy could have ended up in hell even tho he was using condoms. A odd case yes. but condoms do fail.

 

I guess every guy just should get neutered asap so not to fall into parenthood by mistake.... if one sperm gets away to its destination he has no leg to stand on after that.

[Buttaflyy]

RP brings up another very good point. Giving birth is dangerous. Less dangerous than in the times when sanitation wasn't attended to -- but still. Not only can a woman die, she can suffer from copmlications that may affect her for the rest of her life.

 

You can't force someone to risk their life. Ever.

 

I think this is pretty extreme though. It's no more dangerous normally than the next thing, say, driving a car. It is more natural though. For a woman to say she doesn't want a baby because she could possibly die, sounds pretty ridiculous unless she's high risk or has had complications before.

[blind_otter]

I think this is pretty extreme though. It's no more dangerous normally than the next thing, say, driving a car. It is more natural though. For a woman to say she doesn't want a baby because she could possibly die, sounds pretty ridiculous unless she's high risk or has had complications before.

 

1 in 10,000 is the current rate. But the US has the second highest infant mortality rate in the world.

 

But in terms of complications that could alter her future fertility, there actually are a lot of issues like this. God knows, I lost two babies.

[Buttaflyy]

1 in 10,000 is the current rate. But the US has the second highest infant mortality rate in the world.

 

But in terms of complications that could alter her future fertility, there actually are a lot of issues like this. God knows, I lost two babies.

 

I'm sorry to hear that B_O. I've also miscarried and suffer from HG with my pregnancies. But normally, having a baby is really not a risk to the mothers life. Those are abnormal and seperate instances when death does occur.

[norajane]

I'd be really interested in knowing the stats on how many men actually want the rights and responsibilities of fatherhood after an accidental pregnancy, even though their girlfriends don't want the baby and ultimately get an abortion.

 

I suspect it's really not that many men who are saying, look, if you don't want the baby, I'll be totally responsible for raising it and you don't have to be involved once you have the baby if you don't want to. Don't know how many women would go for that option anyway, but I just doubt that men are jumping up and down to be single fathers.

[a4a]

I'd be really interested in knowing the stats on how many men actually want the rights and responsibilities of fatherhood after an accidental pregnancy, even though their girlfriends don't want the baby and ultimately get an abortion.

 

I suspect it's really not that many men who are saying, look, if you don't want the baby, I'll be totally responsible for raising it and you don't have to be involved once you have the baby if you don't want to. Don't know how many women would go for that option anyway, but I just doubt that men are jumping up and down to be single fathers.

 

 

My H is probably one of those....... :lmao:

 

friggin weirdo!

[Guest]

Don't forget! Since I'm in this discussion to state my views and the logic driving them, and also to find out others views, and the logic driving them, I gave a flip side to my "Fathers Rights" coin. "If a father has no rights to a pregnancy, he should not be held financially liable for that pregnancy or delivery."

 

My thoughts that drove this whole dicussion stem from the fact that I feel there is an unequal division of rights and responsibilities when it comes to mothers, fathers, and the law. Mothers seem to get more legal rights and fathers seem to get more legal responsibilities. I've had plenty of women say that it's BS, women get the worse end of things, but I've yet to find one who would gladly change positions with the man. So, that kind of say's it all. The job of two you don't want is generally the worst, no matter how bad you say the one you pick is.

 

If you don't think father's should have right's about the pregnancy, which seems to be the general consensus with women at least, do you believe fathers should still have financial responsibility for that pregnancy? In other words, why should a father be responsible for the medical bills of a pregnancy he has no rights with?

 

At this point in time, fathers generally have to pay some or all of the medical for pregnancies. As a realist, I understand that this is partly because the government wants to defer medical aid costs out as much as possible. Fathers are a prime target. This sets up a precedent for mothers to hold fathers responsible for the medical costs of a pregnancy even if aid is not recieved. When it comes to spreading out big expenses like that, I find the last thing on most people's minds is fairness.

 

BTW, of course I argue for my own interests as a man! No more than women look out for their own interests as women I'm sure.

 

I like to throw out controversial subjects on boards like this from time to time, just for the fun of discussing it. I never expect to change peoples minds to my point of view, but I do hope to learn something. There's always the danger of a flame war but I think this one turned out pretty good. We had a lot of well thought out responses and no flaming to speak of. I hope everyone enjoyed this as much as I did. We can still go on, but I get the feeling the thread is starting to petter out.

[RecordProducer]

I'm sorry to hear that B_O. I've also miscarried and suffer from HG with my pregnancies. But normally, having a baby is really not a risk to the mothers life. Those are abnormal and separate instances when death does occur.

And bad things always happen to other people, right? Never to you.

 

And giving birth to an unwanted child is a peace of cake, right? You've obviously never gone through labor or any major physical pain. When somebody forces you to do it (as B_O said "it's a form of rape!") then please tell; me it's OK.

 

Most importantly, we are talking about the LAW here. If you're defending men's rights, you're implying that the LAW should put imperatives on my right to abort or give birth.

 

I absolutely think that men have the right to choose. For god's sake, I just aborted a child two weeks ago because my husband didn't want it. So I am the first in the line to defend their rights. But to involve the LAW in this decision is violating my natural rights. Women choose because nature gave THEM uterus, not the men. The law doesn't interfere (anymore)!

 

To give men legal rights to choose means to take them away from the woman. And it's her body.

 

Being forced by the LAW to go through labor when you don't want to is a major punishment. Nobody has the right to punish me. Nobody has the right to know that I am pregnant, for that matter. And my doctor has to keep a secret. Just like he has to keep a secret if I have AIDS or gonorrhea.

 

This whole "should be illegal" reasoning reminds me of Afghanistan's laws.