Should fathers have equal rights as women in abortion?

Asked by: elvislives
  • Yes, they should.

    It's his baby too. He should be allowed to keep the baby if he wants it. Just because he doesn't have to carry it, doesn't mean that he doesn't have a say. If men could carry babies, I'm sure they would but they can't, so the woman in the situation should consider the father's feeling. If you ask me, it's SELFISH for a mother to say "oh, you don't have to carry this baby for 9mos so, you don't get to be a father." Yes, it's going to hurt; yes, your body is going to change; yes, it's going to be a long process, but the mother's must understand that they're not alone. When a woman is pregnant, everyone is pregnant. Her husband/boyfriend, her family, his family, her friends. They're all pregnant too, in a sense. And they're there to help her feel as comfortable as possible. Just because she's pregnant, doesn't mean she's gonna go through it alone. So yes, the father absolutely deserves rights.

  • The Vested Interest of the Father should be acknowledged.

    Before I begin, please note that I am not "pro-life." If both the mother and father agree with the abortion, then by all means. Let it commence.

    The status of a fetus must conform to one of the following:
    A. The fetus is an independent human. If this is the case, then neither the mother or father should be able to unilaterally decide to abort. A guardian ad litem would have to be brought in to ensure the fetus' rights are protected. This is the basic position of the "pro-life" crowd.

    B. The fetus is a public resource. If this is the case, then again, neither the mother or father should be able to unilaterally decide to abort. The state, as a representative of the public, would have to step in to ensure the public's needs are protected.

    C. The fetus is property. If this is the case, then it must belong to someone.

    C1. The fetus is owned by the mother. Current law is structured such that the mother is the apparent owner and as such can unilaterally abort the fetus.

    C2. The fetus is owned by both the mother and father. IMO, this is a more appropriate stance based on how we treat other objects in which multiple people have a vested interest. As an analogy, suppose a stream extended through a woman's land into a man's land. Because the spring is effectively owned by both the woman and man, and anything the woman does to the stream would affect the man, the woman would not have the legal right to do whatever she wanted to it.

    I side with C2.

  • It's their baby too.

    Remember, it was in his testicles before it was in you.. But that aside..

    Genetically, that baby is still HIS baby too. Just because it's in you doesn't mean it only belongs to you. It's his DNA, his sperm, his child. I'll be damned if you are thinking of killing what is genetically my child, and I can't stop it.

  • If he has to pay for the kid then yes.

    If we make it to where a father must pay even when he doesn't want a child then yes he must have an equal say in what happens to the child, it's only fair. If a father doesn't want a child then he shouldn't have to pay for that kid, just like if he does want the kid and it looks like he's a good parent then he should be allowed to raise the child as his own. Though again if you want the father to have to pay then he must have a saying in whether or not the child with his DNA gets to live or not.

  • I believe that fathers should have just as many rights as a mother has when it comes to a childs life.

    For believing this reasoning is because, a father helps create a child just as much as a mother does. Yes for those going to disagree I understand the mother goes through more issues than the father but there would be no child to bare if there was no male/father. Would there!

  • It's more the idea of equality in the acceptance or forfeiture of legal responsibility and guardianship after birth than simply abortion

    This is a loaded question. Assuming both parties had consensual sex and they were unrelated (no rape or incest), then both had an equal contribution in the conception. It only follows that both should have equal rights in the responsabilities associated with that conception. If both wish to bring the pregnancy to term or to terminate it, then there is no problem, but both should have equal say in the case that one party wants to forfeit their responsabilities. This forfeiture of resonsabilities can be accomplished by either termination or adoption.

    Since women have the right to terminate pregnancies under the law, then men should also have the right to terminate [their connections and responsabilities to the] pregnancy.


    Men should also have a right to see that pregnancy to term, even if the mother wishes to forfeit her responsabilities, given he has the means, reasources, and faculties to do so. In this situation, it follows that the mother must carry the pregnancy to term despite her desire for a termination because she was an equal participant in conception. Upon the birth of the child, all responsabilities would then pass to the father, with the mother being relinquished of further responsability.

    Equal rights.
    Equal work.
    Equal pay.
    Equal responsbilities.
    Equal forfeitures.

  • Yes I am actually an avid supporter of abortion,

    However the women is carrying the baby yes, but the baby would not be created if it wasn't for a man. I believe in abortion because of the following reasons: one being if the woman's body cannot handle it and will reject it by all means she should be allowed and two if nether wants the baby and is going to take care of it. There is just nothing one can do if someone doesn't want to take care of their baby, or they will take care of it but they will abuse it in some way. However if the woman doesn't want to take care of the baby then why cant the man have a say and get full custody if the woman doesn't want to take care of it? Now ironically they would be forced to pay child support but its better than killing a kid that one wants but the other doesn't. I don't know it seems cruel to deny that baby a life if the other one is fully capable of taking care of something. So I think it should be half and half. Fathers do indeed need more rights.

  • Yes, as in No Rights

    Men and women should have equal rights when it comes to life: no rights to kill their kid. A human life is created instantly upon conception, but many people fail to recognize this. In most abortions, the baby can actually feel the pain. It is simply not morally acceptable to kill a human life.

    Should it be impossible to overturn Roe v. Wade, this law would help, as it would require two parties to agree to an abortion, thus making one statistically less likely. Therefore, there would be fewer murders.

  • Yes, they should

    And by that I mean they should have a right to 'abort' responsibility for the child. Men are currently bound by whatever decision the woman makes - if she chooses to keep the child and they split up or something, the man will be responsible for 'child support' (which can be, say, half of his income!) for the next 18 years. In contrast, the woman will never have to pay child support, and can terminate her pregnancy whenever she wishes. I am pro-life and that discrepancy is absurd. As long as abortion is legal, men should not be bound by the decision of the woman. It's not HER money to take, and it's not her right to force a man to slave a quarter of his life for her.

    Posted by: TN05
  • Only in cases where he didn't consent to the impregnating intercourse

    Generally, I'd say that the Fetus simply isn't a 'person' in the way that we actually use that term in the real world, until the 26 week mark at least, so the woman's right to her own body is the strongest possible claim until at least this point. Afterwards, it's still pretty grey, but I'd probably lean towards saying It's her say in most circumstances. Now, on to my actual point! The main reason that we wouldn't allow the man a say after the fact is because it isn't his body, he made his choice when he agreed to have sex with the woman. Even if birth control was involved, and used correctly, he still made a choice. If he was strongly leaning toward wanting an abortion, and the woman didn't care about his opinion at all, she'd probably be called 'cruel/heartless/whatever', though that's a different argument. I'd say at least that if all birth control was used, correctly, and the man absolutely did not want children at all, and made this clear, then it'd be unfair to *force* him to pay child support for a child he never wanted at all. In the (less rare than you'd think) circumstance of a man who's actually been forcibly raped by a woman, against his will, he never could have made a choice to have sex at all, so it'd be totally unethical to make him pay for that child. It'd probably be unethical to allow his rapist to bear his child as well, so, assuming it's not at the 26-week mark, I'd say that, in this specific case, the father's choice is probably more important than the choice of the rapist who never allowed him one.
    Sorry for rambling, just thought I'd be better off going into detail than being too vague. So, to summarize, near-equal rights most of the time, at least take his situation and opinion into account, and give him preference if he never gave/couldn't have given consent.

  • There is no way to do so without eliminating the woman's rights.

    How would one go about giving "equal rights" in determining an abortion to the man involved? If the couple agrees, there is no issue. If they disagree, there is no "equal rights"- someone will get what they want and someone won't. There's no half way.

    Since the woman is the one that would be bearing the entirety of the physical pregnancy, and ninety nine times out of a hundred would be bearing the burden of raising said child, her decision carries more weight.

  • Of course not.

    Okay, if the parents disagree on whether or not they want to abort the child, there are two possible situations.

    Mother wants to keep the child, father doesn't- This is pretty easy, the father walks away and the mother is pregnant for nine months and then raises her child all by herself.

    Father wants to keep the child, mother doesn't- You get rid of the child. The father can't force the mother to go through a grueling nine-month pregnancy. A pregnancy changes everything. I'm not talking about taking care of the child, but just carrying it. Being bloated and uncomfortable for nine months, terrible morning sicknesses, giving up alcohol and cigarettes. It changes the mother's entire lifestyle. You can't ask a person to do that if they don't even want the baby. Oh, and did I mention the hours of painful labor? It's TERRIBLE. And afterwards it takes FOREVER to lose the baby fat. A lot of times, pregnancy is a woman's introduction to a life of obesity. It becomes infinitely harder to lose weight. A pregnancy changes a woman's entire life, whether she keeps the child or not. And I will reiterate, you CANNOT ask a woman to go through that for a child that's biologically yours. If a man wants a child, he should adopt, or if his issue is with the actual abortion, well then grow a pair.

  • It's not their body

    Until the baby can live on its own outside of the womb, it's still a part of the woman's body. She will be the one who has to carry it the full nine months and in more cases than not, she'll be the one who will have to take care of it should she decide to follow through. The father can back out at any time me pleases. There is no monetary commitment, or physical commitment to the woman's body, so why should be have the authority to control her body in such a way? The only other person who should have ANY say in this matter is the woman's doctor, no one else.

  • Ultimately they shouldn't.

    I understand the argument that supports them having the same rights. But it is the woman's body, and she ultimately should have the decision if she gets an abortion or not. Also, if the woman wanted an abortion, and the man didn't, what exactly would happen? Would the woman be forced to have the baby?
    Or vice versa, would the woman be forced to have an abortion? What would happen if one wanted it an the other didn't? I can understand the man and the woman having a discussion on whether to or not, but it should ultimately be the woman's decision, as it is her body.

  • Not until they take responsibility for birth control

    Don't get me wrong. A father should have a say, but only if he does everything within reach to prevent pregnancy. Ultimately, the woman has to carry the child...And often, the stigma and cost of the pregnancy and birth. Men need to start being equally responsible for birth control. When they do that, they deserve equal say.

  • Definitely not, men should not have rights after the event

    It is the women's body, the man has the chance to make his decisions before fertilization, so he can decide then, he should never make decisions about the woman's body after the event, his time for responsible thinking is prior to impregnation; it will effect the woman all her life, but he can just walk away

  • Definitely not.... He has the easy way out

    He doesn't have to carry around extra weight for 9 months, he doesn't have to suffer the intense pain of childbirth, he doesn't have to go through a bunch of medical things before and after, he doesn't gain lots of weight from it, he doesn't do ANYTHING except sit on the side and help with finances. Therefore, it ain't his choice.

  • He should have rights, but they shouldn't be equal.

    Is the fetus the father's child? Check! (1 pt)
    Is the fetus the mother's child? Check! (1 pt)
    Can women get pregnant? Check! (1 pt)
    Can men get pregnant? Nope!
    Women: 2
    Men: 1

    Mathematically, women should have more rights than men over abortion. (Although men should still have some.)

  • This drives me nuts

    WE as females are the ones that have to carry the child for 9 months and the ones that have to care for the child after they are born where a man can easily just walk away. I sure as hell would not allow a man to tell me to go through with a pregnancy just because he wants the child and I don't. All they did was contribute sperm which is easy. After that they have no responsibility to that child so no, they do not have equal rights.

  • No they shouldn't

    Let's see.. Who is conceiving the child again? Oh that's right, the woman. If the woman wants the child she can keep it. If the woman does not want the child she can lose it. It's her body; her decision. What kind of rights would the father have anyways? There must be a mutual agreement in having a child anyways; other wise it is considered rape. So if the woman does not want the child, the man has no power in that situation. Her body, her decision.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
Bruinshockeyfan says2013-08-11T19:14:34.833
Notice all the people who said yes are pro life.
AnonyFeline says2013-08-15T07:02:58.103
It's important to realize that they were both contributors and equal participants in the conception. Given these were two consenting adults agreeing to share the intimacy of sex together, all responsabilities should be equally devided between them. (*see opinion comment above, left, under "Yes"*). The primary purpose of vaginal sex is for procreation. The enjoyment and pleasure in the experience is simply a bonus, a perk, a residual benefit. Even if the pleasure and intimacy were their only intentions, the principal function of sex is to make babies, not to climax, which is just a plus.

If they had any ethical foresight, and contraception was used properly, then it is clear that neither had the intention to procreate. In the event of an accidental pregnancy, both parties could easily agree to an early abortion.

If a pregnancy occurs when no contraception was used, then it should be taken to term based on three votes: father, mother, and the unborn. It is very important that the potential father is notified and asked, unless he is dead. Since the unborn will always "vote" to live, a single parent voting yes should carry the motion. The other party, mother or father, can choose whether or not to support the child after birth.

The heavier burden of contraception lies with the female. If she is entirely certain that she does not want to become pregnant, then a single spermicidically lubricated condom may not be enough. A diaphragm with gel, birth control pills, and the ring, are further non-surgical layers of protection.

The man also had the option of male birth control, but the act of sex is more "invasive" to a woman, as is the possible pregnancy, so should take more precautions. It's unfair but it's biology. If males could bear children, the argent would be identical but the responsibilities reversed.
AnonyFeline says2013-08-15T08:54:31.663
Correction: *divided

Full disclosure:
If I were a man, and I wanted the child, I would advovate for the unborn.
If I were a woman, I would want complete control of the decision to terminate or continue the pregnancy.

The comments prior to this one are as logically objective as possible.
Bruinshockeyfan says2013-08-18T03:07:54.657
The majority of people saying no are female.
Bruinshockeyfan says2013-08-18T03:11:53.390
And the majority of people saying yes are male.
AnonyFeline says2013-08-19T03:13:28.993
The female should have the decision if she used at least one form of female birth control, other than a regualr condom, and it fails. A common condom is a male form of birth control since it is placed on him. Other than that, the decision should be equal.
Jingram994 says2013-08-20T04:47:22.843
Hi, you may have noticed my comment on the 'Yes' side, with a large 'But' included; I'm a pro choice male, so you're half right, Bruinshockeyfan. Actually, there's a surprising amount of evidence, as well as basic logic, that says that sex is *mostly* for pleasure, with the procreation being the 'added bonus'. Among complex animal organisms, the pleasurable aspect of sex is the main psychological motivator to have sex, to say nothing of the other 'side-effects' you mentioned; it's only among organisms that are *much* less complex than humans or other apes are that we see a breakdown of this aspect. It seems unlikely that animals, and humans, would instinctively 'just know' that having sex would lead to the creation of a child. A lot less likely than the psychological pleasure motivation that we know exists, at least.


While stating that using extra birth control is the most rational and safe thing to do is correct, the fact is that there is *no* way, short of having your testicles/ovaries removed, or having the tubes tied and looked at every month, to totally prevent pregnancy. You are correct in saying that both parties have a 'responsibility' to use birth control, correctly and consistently, but putting the ultimate decision down to a 'vote' between the mother whose body is at risk, the unborn, unconscious and not self-aware fetus, who thus logically couldn't possibly 'vote to live', and the same father who lacked the foresight and intelligence to use birth control (in this circumstance) simply doesn't work. Either both parties actually 'voting' agree, and there's no issue, or they disagree, and someone's 'choice' doesn't matter. Assuming that, both parties having used birth control, they would choose to abort the fetus is not necessarily correct; the mother/father may not believe in abortion, or there may be disagreement as to whether or not to actually do so. Again, there's disagreement that could lead to one party being forced to abide with someone else's choice.

While I agree that, if birth control was used correctly, then neither party should be *forced* to accept negative consequences that they never chose and were unprepared for, that's simply not the case in the real world right now; either the fetus is aborted, or the father is forced to pay for the mother to raise that child, regardless of how 'responsible' he was earlier on. You are correct to put the 'weight' of individual decision on how responsible each party was with birth control, but a male is only able to use on form of birth control, whereas a woman has a lot more at her disposal; assuming that each party is equally 'weighted' if both used only one form of, on no, birth control, leads to the same dilemma of choice. And a birth control pill and condom are the standard for what is considered to be 'safe sex'; any less, it's not safe, any more is considered to be expensive overkill. Either there's a total stalemate, and the point of legal abortion comes and goes before this is resolved, or one party is forced to go along with what the other wants. My ideal solution would be to just give total authority to each party on the areas of the decision that most affect them more than the other; for example, give the woman total authority of choice on whether or not the pregnancy actually goes ahead, and give the man total authority on whether he'll actually help raise the child or pay for it. Assuming that each party was responsible enough to use birth control, and that they are aware of each others choices, this should be the easiest way to ensure fairness, general 'equality' and lack of coercion or force in the decision.
Bruinshockeyfan says2013-08-22T16:18:32.283

Here elvislives. Not bias. Proof it doesn't excist.
Lauren_Duggan says2014-10-21T00:23:47.850
Everyone who said yes is stupid, if you want to know why shoot me a message cuz i sure as heck ain't explaining here.