The argument that its the womans body and her choice is a fallacy, post hoc. The woman chose to carry with that person when she had consensual relations with him. If you can hold the man legally responsible for the child in life ... Then the same should go for it in death. If all rights are surrendered to the mother at coitus ... Then all child support responsibilities should go to that same person who holds the sole privilege of making the choices in the matter. Hold the person with the power of choice responsible for their choices, not the people who don't.
In a consensual relationship if the woman is to become pregnant and later wants to terminate said pregnancy. Then the male should have a shared responsibility in the decision unless he doesn't want anything to do with it. It should be the same in the opposite if she wishes to keep it. In that situation if the male doesn't want the child and she does she is then able to gain help from the government in making that male take care of the child. A private field can not be planted with out consent. It is the Responsibility of the female to protect her eggs, just as it is the responsibility of the male to restrict his seeds.
Let's say I am a 20 year old man and I found out I impregnated a woman I had sex with a few months ago. She wants the baby aborted but I decided for myself that I want the baby. If she doesn't want it then thats fine, I'll take the baby and care for him or her myself.
But I think it's fine if it comes from rape or the father never appears or answers back from emails or calls and simply ignores it. Then thats fine. But if this happened to me then I would take the baby if the mother doesn't want it.
A baby shouldn't be considered part of a woman's body. The baby/fetus itself shouldn't be confined to not having its own rights as it has its own thoughts and feelings also. Therefore, making it a parental choice over the idea of aborting a baby. Plus, abortion shouldn't be legal in the first place due to the information stated before.
I think that unless the woman is a rape victim, then by CHOOSING to have sex she knew she was risking getting pregnant (especially if it was unprotected) in the same way that the man knew he was taking a risk of getting the woman pregnant. The baby is just as much his as it is hers. I think that if the man wants to keep the baby the woman should be made to have the baby but it is her choice if she wants to have anything to do with it once the child is born.
I also think it is complete bullshit that it is "her body, her choice" because it's not just her body, it's the child's body as well and the child should have rights as well. There is a reason why if a pregnant woman is killed it is called a double homicide.
I think that like the statement says unless the father is uninterested or the woman was a victim of rape, then why should the man not get a say in whether his child lives or not? The woman is just as responsible as the man for getting pregnant because unless the woman was a rape victim then she consented to sex meaning that she took the risk that she may get pregnant, and if she didn't want to get pregnant then she should of taken birth control and made sure she had a condom on. I think that it is unfair on men because if it was the other way round and the woman wanted to keep the baby but the man didn't then the man would be made out to be in the wrong for not being involved in the child's upbringing or paying any maintenance.
I think the future-father should have a say in abortion too as long as the father did not run off and leave the mother by herself, in that case, it is her decision. But in a household where both parents are either married, live together, or are in contact with each other, it should be recognized as a family decision. Sure the mother carries the baby, but the father gave the sperm to make the baby in the first place. Therefore, the father did also contribute to the baby, and if he did not run off, he should have a say too
If you want to have unprotected sex, have at it. It's your risk to take. But when that sex results in a pregnancy, you're BOTH responsible. That woman didn't have that child without a man and that man didn't have a child without a woman. If there is no consensus on abortion, it shouldn't happen. And to address the other side, when it comes to having a child, YES, a man CAN indeed tell his wife to eat a good diet for a healthier baby. If that baby is going to live it is entitled to a healthy one. YES, a man CAN tell his wife to stop smoking cigarettes, even if its just for the term of the pregnancy, to ensure that the baby isn't born prematurely or underweight. You were both irresponsible and that's why you have a baby in the first place, so its time to be responsible for yourselves and mutually agree on the best path for you child.
If only one parent determines whether they have a child, then that's absolute and unfair control over the family. It doesn't matter which gender it is, but the fact that either parent would exert that much control should be worrying to anyone. It is also endangering the father's right to have a child of their own if they intend to. Because the second person involved can just take that away willy nilly.
The father should have a say on the abortion.
1. If the father agrees on abortion, mother disagrees, the mother cannot file for child support.
2. If the father agrees on abortion, mother agrees, the mother does not have child thus child support is non-existent.
3. If the father disagrees on abortion, mother disagrees, the father must pay child support.
4. If the father disagrees on abortion, mother agrees, the abortion is done.
This notion that a woman must have the consent of the father is a complete violation of the right to body autonomy. A man can no more force a woman to carry than the state can (and must to make this work).
. . . . . . . .
Do we have to carry the baby, deal with major hormonal changes, and give birth to it? No we don't, therefor its the women's choice, due to the fact that it will affect her the most. Any emotional affects it will have on us are insignificant compared to what the women will have to endure.
If you read the actual title of the question you can see that this is an obvious 'no' answer for anyone who understands the meaning of words... You should be allowed to get an abortion even if the father is not interested in the child, that alone if true only reinforces why getting an abortion might not be such a bad idea.
This is one of the most hideous debates I have seen. Why are we debating who has a right over another person's body! Wow. I don't see how it matters how the fetus got where it is, who it is genetically related to, or any of that. It is in a human body! The person who's body it is in clearly has 100% of the say regarding what goes on in that body. Seriously. Where are you people drawing the line? If the guy says "nope, no abortion" do you then allow him to force the woman to eat a good diet for a healthier baby? Allow him to force her to quit smoking. How about forcing himself into the delivery room (so glad that when a case regarding divorced parents went to court the woman won! No one is allowed in your hospital room without your consent!).
I really just don't understand how anyone thinks anyone has a right to anyone else's body. I don't care if the woman is housing the last descendent you could ever produce, it doesn't give you a right to make any decisions regarding what she does or doesn't do with her body. If she wants to kick out that descendent, 100% her uterus and her right.
If a man doesn't consent a woman aborting his child, he can battle it out with her personally. But to say that she must have the child if he does not give his consent for her to abort it is not only ridiculous, but horrifying. At the end of the day, both parents have equal right to the child - once it is born. While the baby is still a part of the woman's body, it is ultimately her own choice to abort it.
I cannot think of any situation where we allow that just because something you value is in another human being, you can make choices for that human being. If I intentionally swallow a very expensive ring of yours, you can't insist which medical treatment will be used to remove it even though it is your ring and I was intentionally being a jerk. Even if my choice would damage or make the ring garbage, no one would accept that you now have a right to make medical decisions for me. The absurdity of this thought is exactly how absurd it is to decide you can control someone just because they will produce your child.
There was a case in the news a few years ago where a couple had a surprise pregnancy, and the woman took off to attend college in another state. The guy sued stating she abducted his child. Amazingly enough, the first judge agreed with the guy! Fortunately he lost on appeal. The second just saw how absurd it was to give someone such control over another human for even 9 months. Get someone pregnant, and suddenly you can put her in lock-down and she can't leave the state even to attend college?
This question is just as absurd. It doesn't matter how she got pregnant. It could have been an expensive in-vetro fertilization or a surprise pregnancy, you cannot make decisions about other people's bodies. If you decide you don't want the child, you cannot force her to a hospital and insist she get an abortion. And if you decide you do want the child you cannot sign her rights away to get one.
If the premise is that it is share responsibility, then I would say that is only valid if the fetus can be held in either parent's body. If a friend and I go skiing, even if the friend bumps me causing me to break my leg, that friend doesn't suddenly have a right to decide my medical care because he/she was involved. Your body, your choice. You don't have rights over someone just because their body houses something you want. That is slavery.
A woman must risk her life to sustain a pregnancy. In many states men can sign away patently rights and just walk away. So... He can force her to stay pregnant and walk away?
Even in states where you cannot walk away, I don't understand how some financial responsibility can allow you to force someone to risk their life. If my child were to fall in a well with limited oxygen supply, and the rescue department decided that they needed to wait for it to be safe to rescue the child, would you insist that they risk their lives to save you some money because the child may be brain damaged and need extra care? Yeah, I am fairly certain everyone would support safety over you saving some money. You can't own people, even people who are incubating your child inside their own body.
Also, I was in an emotionally abusive relationship with a man who forcibly impregnated me by first convincing me to go off birth control then telling me he would pull out during sex but he didn't. He got me pregnant on purpose to try and keep me. Anyways my first reaction was abortion as soon as possible because he was horrible to be with and I knew I was working on leaving him and had he had the rights over my body to say that he wanted me to carry his baby to term and give birth, I'm sure he would have forced me too which would have tied me to him and the baby for life, no one should be forced to go through such a thing. Is the dark ages ?? Women are human beings god damnit, we deserve autonomy over our own bodies ! If a man wants a baby so bad, he needs to find a woman who genuinely wants one with him, not force a woman into pregnancy and having his baby.
Even a surrogate who put another family's embryo in her own body had a right to keep a pregnancy or abort a pregnancy for her own reasons. And somehow a partner has less rights?
I just want to say that as a woman, if I wanted an abortion and a guy thought he actually could decide no and hold me to it, I would dump him in a heartbeat. And I would be glad to know that I got out of that relationship before spending so long with someone who was possessive.