Pregnancy and a Father's Rights

[Rich]

From my own understanding, the legal argument for legalized abortion in the United States actually satisfies this question as well.

Pregnancy is, more or less, a threat on the life of the mother. Society doesn't like to see it that way, but the fact is that that is the case. Obviously this has been dramatically reduced in modern times due to the advances in medicine, but it still holds water in a legal sense.

The decision, therefore, rests on the mother for whether or not she wishes to continue the pregnancy. The child she carries measurably reduces her chances of survival for a 9 month time period, and she therefore is allowed to make the decision to continue with it or not. To allow the father some power in the making of that decision could leave the life of the mother in the father's hands, to some degree.

 

[Johnny Stooge]

To allow the father some power in the making of that decision could leave the life of the mother in the father's hands, to some degree.

The reverse can be true, too.

To not allow the father any power could allow for his financial future to be put in the hands of the mother.

 

[Rich]

The reverse can be true, too.

To not allow the father any power could allow for his financial future to be put in the hands of the mother.

True, but I've found that when it comes to legal matters, actual life is places ahead of finance, typically.

 

[Luap]

True, but I've found that when it comes to legal matters, actual life is places ahead of finance, typically.

But in a world where your financial capabilities control your life, how is it too different? A woman can wind up literally dead, and a man can be pushed into not living the life he wanted to live. "Financial abortions" really need to be a thing. I can understand the decision being in the mother's hand on whether to actually give birth to the thing, because of the whole life/death thing. But, a woman can also have an abortion simply because she doesn't want it. A guy can't do that. If it's known for sure who the dad is, he's forced to take care of it.

 

[Johnny Stooge]

True, but I've found that when it comes to legal matters, actual life is places ahead of finance, typically.

What about when the child support demands of the father exceed what he's able to pay (made redundant, injured, etc.) and he's sent to jail for failing to pay?

 

[Rich]

But in a world where your financial capabilities control your life, how is it too different? A woman can wind up literally dead, and a man can be pushed into not living the life he wanted to live. "Financial abortions" really need to be a thing. I can understand the decision being in the mother's hand on whether to actually give birth to the thing, because of the whole life/death thing. But, a woman can also have an abortion simply because she doesn't want it. A guy can't do that. If it's known for sure who the dad is, he's forced to take care of it.

Not saying it's fair. All these are very good points. But if the solution is giving the father a say in whether or not the woman keeps the baby, things get VERY complicated VERY quickly.

What about when the child support demands of the father exceed what he's able to pay (made redundant, injured, etc.) and he's sent to jail for failing to pay?

Then we need reform of the child support system. But trying to "level the playing field" by toying around with abortion rights can, again, get very messy. A simpler solution is needed which doesn't involve abortion.

 

[Luap]

Not saying it's fair. All these are very good points. But if the solution is giving the father a say in whether or not the woman keeps the baby, things get VERY complicated VERY quickly.



Then we need reform of the child support system. But trying to "level the playing field" by toying around with abortion rights can, again, get very messy. A simpler solution is needed which doesn't involve abortion.

So what if an issue can be messy or complicated? The only reason something is that way is because people start to take offense. I'd rather that every issue is worked out, not just the one's where people won't be sensitive about it. If a person can't work to help with the problem because of their emotions, then they shouldn't be involved.

Rights involving abortion/child support/children in general tend to lean in the direction of the mother. Every part of it needs to be leveled the most it can. And the way to do that with abortions is to give both parents the ability to choose whether or not they want to be involved with the child.

Also, I wanted to say something else about financial situation vs. life (not to be antagonistic, but only because it's an afterthought I didn't include before). To say that life is more important than a person's financial situation, couldn't that argument to be used to support the outlawing of abortion? It's a common argument that abortion should be an option for people who are not financially stable, or would become financially unstable by having a child. But if life is more important.... then shouldn't letting the child live outweigh that it could make the family poor?

 

[Rich]

So what if an issue can be messy or complicated? The only reason something is that way is because people start to take offense. I'd rather that every issue is worked out, not just the one's where people won't be sensitive about it. If a person can't work to help with the problem because of their emotions, then they shouldn't be involved.

It's not messy and complicated only because of taking offense, but also for legal reasons. How much say should a father get over the mother's abortion? Should they need a unanimous decision? If the mother doesn't want the child, but the father does, should the father be forced to be the primary caretaker?

There are LOT of legal issues that come up when you start involving the father in abortion rights. A much simpler solution lies in reforming child support laws. For example, giving the father the option to forfeit all claim to the child within the first trimester of the mother's pregnancy in exchange for not having to pay child support. There are other such solutions which would be much simpler.

Rights involving abortion/child support/children in general tend to lean in the direction of the mother. Every part of it needs to be leveled the most it can. And the way to do that with abortions is to give both parents the ability to choose whether or not they want to be involved with the child.

Agreed to that, hence my point earlier. But that doesn't require giving the father say over the abortion rights of the mother.

Also, I wanted to say something else about financial situation vs. life (not to be antagonistic, but only because it's an afterthought I didn't include before). To say that life is more important than a person's financial situation, couldn't that argument to be used to support the outlawing of abortion? It's a common argument that abortion should be an option for people who are not financially stable, or would become financially unstable by having a child. But if life is more important.... then shouldn't letting the child live outweigh that it could make the family poor?

Not at all. As stated earlier, the current LEGAL argument for legalized abortion is the threat that pregnancy poses on a mother's life. Abortion is legal in the United States until the child has viability outside the womb. Up until that point, it is considered a part of the woman's body, and it is therefore her right to make decisions with regard to it since it effects her health. There is no "child's life" to speak of for the first and most of the second trimester, it isn't a child. It is a part of the woman. It can't survive without the woman.

 

[Luap]

It's not messy and complicated only because of taking offense, but also for legal reasons. How much say should a father get over the mother's abortion? Should they need a unanimous decision? If the mother doesn't want the child, but the father does, should the father be forced to be the primary caretaker?

It wouldn't be forced, because he wants it. He'd also be responsible for all the hospital bills and what not during the pregnancy, as long as the mother has forfeited her rights to the child during the same time frame that the father would have to.

With this though, we're presented with the issue of where the mother doesn't want the child, but she's also not willing to be pregnant with it so that the father can have it. What do we do here? Force the mother to have the child (if she's healthy enough to do so), or allow the mother to deprive him of having his child?

There are LOT of legal issues that come up when you start involving the father in abortion rights. A much simpler solution lies in reforming child support laws. For example, giving the father the option to forfeit all claim to the child within the first trimester of the mother's pregnancy in exchange for not having to pay child support. There are other such solutions which would be much simpler.

Well, that's what I meant by financial abortion.

 

[Mastermind]

If the mother doesn't want the child, then she shouldn't have to carry it. I think that her rights to her body grossly outweigh the father's right to the child. In the end the mother takes on the larger risk and has to make the more drastic change in lifestyle to accommodate the child.

 

[Dreaded_Desire62]

Yeah, you're right. I mean, with Atkin trying to put a label on rape, it's completely wrong for a woman to have to carry a child, she doesn't want to term. I actually heard a story on the Young Turks, a news segment about a woman in Turkey that had been raped many times by her husband's cousin. She got tired of him harrassing her that she completely lost it. The woman murdered the guy and cut off his head, she took his head into town and said, "Behold, the man that has messed with my owner, now he is dead." (or something along those lines). She was pregnant with her husband's cousin's child and she already had two children from her husband. Her husband was away.

The woman had been trying to get an abortion, but it was after twelve weeks of pregnancy and she couldn't get an abortion. Sad story and the guy was constantly threatening and abusing her. I feel bad that she couldn't get an abortion and has to raise three kids now, her husband's and her husband's cousin's.

 

[ajmrowland]

Pregnancy, I dont really know much about, but the father should have equal rights about it unless the mother takes legal action on this same issue-or another that may threaten her life and the life of her child.

I myself am indifferent to abortion. I dont like it, but if contraceptives are illegalized, the people pushing such bills in America will find themselves having to deal with potentially another baby boom in the population that they wont want to pay for it.

 

[Dreaded_Desire62]

Yeah, that's true. The US could end up like that girl in the Dominican Republic, who lost her life after giving birth. Her health was at risk, but because abortion is illegal there, she lost her life. And, if I remember correctly the baby was stillborn or something like that

Pregnancy, I dont really know much about, but the father should have equal rights about it unless the mother takes legal action on this same issue-or another that may threaten her life and the life of her child.

I myself am indifferent to abortion. I dont like it, but if contraceptives are illegalized, the people pushing such bills in America will find themselves having to deal with potentially another baby boom in the population that they wont want to pay for it.

 

[Johnny Stooge]

If the mother doesn't want the child, then she shouldn't have to carry it. I think that her rights to her body grossly outweigh the father's right to the child. In the end the mother takes on the larger risk and has to make the more drastic change in lifestyle to accommodate the child.

And when the father doesn't want the child?

 

[Mastermind]

And when the father doesn't want the child?

Like I said, the mother has the stronger vote in the matter.

 

[Dreaded_Desire62]

Yeah, that's true. I mean, carrying a child that you don't want for nine months isn't really helpful. It's also painful having to give the child up for adoption. Either way, there's always pain involved.

 

[MangaCrazy101]

*Sigh* How do I respond to this with out being killed?

Okay well My mother broke up with my father at the age of 29 with 4 children all under the age of 6 (just).
The reasons being the guy is a psychopath, physical abuse ect.
After a few years of an AVO ( a certificate warranting him not being able to come near us) he was allowed to see us again.
Now because if mum went to court and made him pay a certain amount of money per child per fortnight she would've probably gotten about $200 extra on top of her pay.

Because mum knew he'd never agree to this my 'Sperm Doner' just gave mum $50 a fortnight for FOUR children. When I was older and seeing how much my mother struggled to get by with us on her pay and his 'generosity' makes me think yes, a father if he is not actively involved in his children's lives should pay support.

I've had the discussion with my boyfriend about what we would do if I ever fell pregnant and he said "I'd stick around and help you raise it." Now considering my boyfriend hates children this meant a lot to me, except he never said if wed still be together or if we'd be separated.

If a man is actively involved with his children- the beings that he's 50% responsible for then NO he shouldn't have to pay support.
But if he diddlys off then YES.
The thing is a man is lucky enough to walk away from a massive commitment like having a baby at ANY time.
If a woman passes the date of where she can have an abortion and her man leaves her having cold feet. WHAT THE HELL IS SHE SUPPOSED TO DO!?! Not like she can walk away.

*IMPORTANT*
If a family breaks up and the man takes the children then YES the woman should have to pay child support!
The world works both ways.

 

[XIII Heartless]

If the mother doesn't want the child, then she shouldn't have to carry it. I think that her rights to her body grossly outweigh the father's right to the child. In the end the mother takes on the larger risk and has to make the more drastic change in lifestyle to accommodate the child.

This is bullshit. If she doesn't want it, but the father does, and she's healthy enough to give birth to it without it posing some kind of threat on her life or well-being, she's the only one with any say in the situation. When it's reversed, the man is forced to "man up" and take on responsibility just because SHE wanted it. This isn't a one-way thing. If the man wants to have his child and it won't threaten the livelihood of the mother, she should have it.

Once again, we live in a world where men are expected to own up to the consequences of their actions and women aren't. Oh, but they want equality LOL.

 

[Mastermind]

This is bullshit. If she doesn't want it, but the father does, and she's healthy enough to give birth to it without it posing some kind of threat on her life or well-being, she's the only one with any say in the situation. When it's reversed, the man is forced to "man up" and take on responsibility just because SHE wanted it. This isn't a one-way thing. If the man wants to have his child and it won't threaten the livelihood of the mother, she should have it.

Once again, we live in a world where men are expected to own up to the consequences of their actions and women aren't. Oh, but they want equality LOL.

Like I said, the woman's right to her body GROSSLY outweigh the man's right to the child. So yes, the man's future is dependent largely on her decision. If he wants the child and she doesn't want it or to carry it, then tough luck for him. If she wants it and he doesn't, then tough luck for him. Make better decisions next time. Better yet, get in a meaningful relationship and plan it out like some couples do.



Look at it in this light. Would you like it if somebody told you that you could or couldn't do something with YOUR body? That right solely belongs to you and not anyone else. This, of course, assumes competence of the person in question.

 

[XIII Heartless]

It ceases to be just about her and her body when the child that she shares with another man is brought in the picture. You just proved my point; the man is told to make better decisions next time, the woman is let off Scott free. This is the "women can hit men, but men can't retaliate" argument all over again, and it's bullshit. Women want equality? Then stop expecting preferential treatment.