Men are capable of raising their children in a single parent home as much as women. With the introduction of formula and the amount of breast milk that is readily available for purchase there isn't even the issue of child nutrition from being away from the mother. A known abortion request from a mother should be viewed as automatic relinquishment of parental rights.
If it was rape it doesn't count, but if it wasn't then the woman chose to make a baby, with a man, it takes both after all.
It takes two individuals to make a baby, however there is the point that is a woman's body. So I am split. If the kid is a health risk to the mother then that is a different story, and since this question assumes there are no complications then just like a man is expected to provide for a baby, and if he isn't willing to be a dad he still has to provide financial support, equality demands both power and responsibility.
Meaning in an equal society both parties have a say in the babies future.
However, if it comes to simply killing the child because the mother suddenly thought the child was an inconvenience then is an even bigger imperative to ensure she doesn't take the decision on her own.
A woman has to bear the child, but the child did not choose to be there, and aside from rape, it means the woman chose to share her body with a baby, thus her body is not longer only her own, it is also the baby's. However when is life made? Conception? Heartbeat? Brain Signal? This is the question that has to be answered first.
In the end, the child did not choose to be there, and the mother taking an unilateral decision isn't fair for the child nor for the father. A woman's body belongs to her until she willingly, and I focus on willingly, chooses to get pregnant by laying with a man. Of course if it wasn't her choice to have sex then that child might not have chosen to be there, but neither did the mother and thus she bears no responsibility. Is her choice then to keep it or not, and since it would be rape, then the father is a scumbag anyways.
If a woman decides to become a mother, she decides to share that responsibility with the man, and also shares her body with a baby. At that point her body is no longer completely her own. If she wanted her body to remain 100% her own she shouldn't be having children in the first place.
Yes, there is the issue of it not being the father that goes through the pain and trouble of the pregnancy, but it is the father's child as much as it is the mother's. Men are very capable of being a single parent if the mother doesn't want to keep the child, and killing the baby when there is someone completely willing to take care of it, especially that person being a parent of said child, would be wrong, especially considering when there are no medical issues presented to the mother. The father should have a say in whether or not his child is aborted.
First of all, this is not only about the mother's body. It's very, very selfish to base your arguments on the mother's body. And it's disrespectful of the mother too, because her body is quite more than some hotel, and the reproductive process is far more complicated than that. We are talking about the innocent life of a child here. The child is far more than just a little vegetable growing in some garden where the mother is sole ruler who can carry or take life at her whim. The child is an individual, and it doesn't matter if that individual is composed of one cell or a million. The fundamental issue here is the fact that once the embryo/fetus exists, there is the POTENTIAL for an individual to emerge, and it simply becomes a matter of time for this individual to become visible by having this exact genome create copies of itself in a viable milieu. Do you understand? The genome is there, one cell or a million, the genome + potential should constitute the basis for rights of an individual. Once you have a zygote inside a milieu where left to its own devices, without intervention, reproductive physiology will facilitate the expression of this potential, this life should be protected by society at ALL cost. The woman surrenders her body to the child when she decides to carry it. It becomes more than her body, and frankly i think the child has more rights than the father and mother combined. If the mother doesn't want a child, then don't have unprotected sex. If she was raped, well that's truly horrible... But that's not the child's fault, and ultimately the matter can be handled in a way that won't mean you'll be murdering a kid. There is a tremendous responsability in carrying a child, of helping life build itself. This should not be up for discussion. Incredible, how we search for life on other planets... But treat life here as cheap garbage... Shame on people forgetting about the rights of the child in favor of the "woman's right to her own body" pffff. It's not a matter of what is the mother's or the father's, or what tissue belongs too who. Or who paid for the food that allowed the cells for the uterus to replicate, and the glucose in the blood to rise. Of course the father should have a say in protecting his daughter/son from some selfish, murderous woman. The father should be punished for not doing everything to save his child.
Their baby, just because its not the fathers body, doesn't mean he shouldn't get a say in rather or not to kill his son or daughter. It's half the fathers and half the mothers, I'm not going to run up to someone in the street and kill his son am I? It's the same thing with abortion.
"It takes two to make a child!" is the oft-heard cry of women who want their estranged baby daddies to pay child support and be there for them to raise their children. Yet, when one suggests that a man should have a say in whether or not the woman can or cannot have an abortion, a general uproar ensues--as if, suddenly, it is only the woman's baby. Yes: it is the woman's body. No: she is not the only parent of the child. Fathers deserve a say in this.
Hey will not have their figure ruined, they will not have the pain of pregnancy and child birth. And even if they did they could still change their mind about wanting to raise that child. And they would have no legal obligations! I'm assuming that you are a guy due to your username (and ignorance and respect of a woman's choices) so you do not understand how important breast milk is to a baby and the maternal instinct (that is a gene) that you as a male can not have. And breast milk from another woman does not count because it is so dangerous with the transfer of illness that includes aids and HIV and so much more. Saying that a guy should have a say in a women's choice would be preventing our society from being progressive
Women have a measurable risk of death in abortion and childbirth. Men's lives are never at stake in the entire process. Another person deciding over the mortal dangers of the woman is morally unacceptable - be it the husband or anybody else. All decisions on life an death belong to the person in hazard as long as that person is capable of the decision. That is a basic civil and human right.
I do agree that, in instances where abortion for non-medical reasons is the mother-to-be's apparent choice, and so long as the genetic father is in such a situation as he has a legitimate right to be there (he is not also the grandfather of the fetus, and/or did not rape the potential mother, for eg.), then it is at least a good idea to talk through all options with everyone who is affected by the decision, though this certainly should not be an enforced policy and steps should be taken to ensure the potential mother is not being blackmailed, bribed, coerced or otherwise forced into making a decision she does not actually want to make.
That said, I do endorse a system that is somewhat more 'fair' on males, which would give them effectively the same amount of control over the situation without taking any away from the potential mother.
Because giving all rights and actual choices in a decision to only one party, and then still expecting shared responsibility, is completely ridiculous and outstandingly unfair, I would support a system where the genetic father is able to, early in the decision-making process, entirely give up their parental rights and responsibilities, effectively a 'paper abortion' and the equivalent of giving the child up for adoption. In this system, no undue pressure or expectations, let alone actual legal demand, would be placed on these people to 'man up' and look after 'their' child, when it is likely the case that they do not and never did want children and they would be effectively forced into this situation against their consent and will, or to be legally forced to pay, in monetary terms, simply because the child has some of their genetic information. The potential mother will thus be informed early in the decision-making process as to whether or not she will receive physical or monetary support from the genetic father or not, and be able to base her decisions accordingly.
In no circumstance should the genetic father get to 'veto' the mother's legitimate right to say what is to be done to her own body, as though he or anyone else has some kind of 'right' to do that.
Abortion is a choice that only the bearer of the child should handle. Nobody should ever be forced to give birth to a child under any circumstances.
Everyone should be able to make their own choices, and live their own way without any sort of outside interference. To suggest that people should not be allowed a civil liberty is wrong in and of itself (When the civil liberty does not directly harm a member of society or fully sentient and self aware being AKA murder, theft, etc).