Why don't fathers on unborn babies have rights?

[Carol25]

A thread on the Politics Thread had me thinking how unfair it is to fathers of unborn children that only the mothers have the choice to abort.

In the thread, it tells of a couple who had made the decision of having a child, but after seeing what it did to the mother's waist line, she aborted the child. The father was devastated.

There were two people who were bringing this child into the world and were going to be parents. The mother ended this child's life for her vain reasons, while the father had planned on being a father for the rest of his life. It just didn't seem fair.

A woman is in charge of her own body and her waistline is part of it. Just at what cost?

What do you think? Does a father have a right to decide this issue, too?

[Patriot]

I agree with you, Carol. Half of the baby's DNA is the father's, why he has no say in the matter is very unjust. But that doesn't upset me nearly as much as the fact that the baby has no say in whether (s)he lives or dies.

[Deb7]

Carol, good question!
I have always thought that both parents should have a decision in the matter. Ugh, I have too many thoughts on this issue, I think I will just watch in the wings.

:chicken:

[Tracian]

I am already ducking, but the bottom line is that the woman is the one taking the health risk to have a child, not the father.

I do believe in a perfect world a woman would consult her boyfriend/husband about an abortion, but this is clearly not a perfect world.

IMO, if a woman goes behind the back of her husband to have an abortion because she wants to keep her figure, it is better that the husband knows what kind of woman she is before he ends up cleaved to her because they share a child.

[TBIBeg]

I've actually given this a lot of thought. Morally, I don't believe in abortion. On the flip side, I believe that it is a personal choice, just one I wouldn't make.

My problem with men having no rights to the fetus is that they are often forced to assume responsibility when the woman isn'.t I've always believed that it takes two to tango.

So IMO if a woman has a right to determine whether or not she is ready to 'parent' then a man should have the same right. I believe the man should have the right to choose 'abortion' but not force it on the woman. Because, of course, it's her body.

BUT, if a man doesn't want to keep the baby and the woman does then he should have the right to terminate parental rights, prior to birth, and not be forced to financially support the child.

The flip side is the question posed, should a man be able to force a woman to carry a baby to term? Of course not. My mama always taught me that life wasn't necessarily fair.

MHO, JMO, TIMO, IMO and all that jazz.

[Carol25]

Have you ever thought how many woman choose to abort when the father wants the baby just to avoid having to pay for child custody payments for 18 years? That just came to me.

[StarShine]

I agree with you, Carol. Half of the baby's DNA is the father's, why he has no say in the matter is very unjust. But that doesn't upset me nearly as much as the fact that the baby has no say in whether (s)he lives or dies.

:thumbsup: Best answer yet!!

[Carol25]

I've actually given this a lot of thought. Morally, I don't believe in abortion. On the flip side, I believe that it is a personal choice, just one I wouldn't make.

My problem with men having no rights to the fetus is that they are often forced to assume responsibility when the woman isn'.t I've always believed that it takes two to tango.

So IMO if a woman has a right to determine whether or not she is ready to 'parent' then a man should have the same right. I believe the man should have the right to choose 'abortion' but not force it on the woman. Because, of course, it's her body.

BUT, if a man doesn't want to keep the baby and the woman does then he should have the right to terminate parental rights, prior to birth, and not be forced to financially support the child.

The flip side is the question posed, should a man be able to force a woman to carry a baby to term? Of course not. My mama always taught me that life wasn't necessarily fair.

MHO, JMO, TIMO, IMO and all that jazz.

How many months is a woman really "inconvenienced"? Six at the max? And it really is rare these days when her life is in jeopardy giving birth.

Is 6 months asking too much for a life? Like you said, life isn't fair. She was born a woman and that is what women do. She should have taken precautions if she didn't want this to occur. But once she did, it's up to her to do the woman thing and let life occur and not kill it.

If a father wants to care for the child and the mother doesn't want any part of it, he can agree there will be no monthly compensation and legally take over parental rights.

Then likewise, if the mother wants the child and the father wants no part in it, he too can opt out of the parental rights and child custody forever if not married. But now the women will be up in arms, but it takes two and what's fair for one is fair for the other.

This takes out the fear that the father may intentionally hurt the mother to abort the children which is what the new law in Oklahoma addresses. The woman can now legally kill anyone who is intentionally trying her to hurt her when she is pregnant. (Politics Thread)

[Carol25]

I agree with you, Carol. Half of the baby's DNA is the father's, why he has no say in the matter is very unjust. But that doesn't upset me nearly as much as the fact that the baby has no say in whether (s)he lives or dies.
And it really is amazing that we don't have a law to protect these little ones.
And there are so many childless couples waiting for newborns.

[Deb7]

How many months is a woman really "inconvenienced"? Six at the max? And it really is rare these days when her life is in jeopardy giving birth.

Is 6 months asking too much for a life? Like you said, life isn't fair. She was born a woman and that is what women do. She should have taken precautions if she didn't want this to occur. But once she did, it's up to her to do the woman thing and let life occur and not kill it.

If a father wants to care for the child and the mother doesn't want any part of it, he can agree there will be no monthly compensation and legally take over parental rights.
Then likewise, if the mother wants the child and the father wants no part in it, he too can opt out of the parental rights and child custody forever if not married. But now the women will be up in arms, but it takes two and what's fair for one is fair for the other.

This takes out the fear that the father may intentionally hurt the mother to abort the children which is what the new law in Oklahoma addresses. The woman can now legally kill anyone who is intentionally trying her to hurt her when she is pregnant. (Politics Thread)

Carol, I was mulling your suggestion around and then decided that it wouldn't work and here is why. Too many men that get a woman pregnant would say "I'm opting out". This would leave so many children without support from 2 parents and I think that would be a bad thing. Instead, you would just have to say if 2 parties do not agree, then the party that would like to have the child would get the parental rights and the other parent (no matter which one) would have to pay child support. Men have been doing it (child support) no matter what, for years. This is the only "fair" way that this would work.
I also think that if the mother gives up her parental rights she should not have to pay for any of the hospital or prenatal visits, and she should also be compensated for maternity clothing and any other expenses related to maternity/ childbirth/ fitness. This way she isn't stuck with all of those expenses that a man wouldn't ever have.

Ooops I wanted to add, Carol I bolded the part of your post that I was addressing. Sorry I forgot to put that originally.

[TBIBeg]

How many months is a woman really "inconvenienced"? Six at the max? And it really is rare these days when her life is in jeopardy giving birth.

Is 6 months asking too much for a life? Like you said, life isn't fair. She was born a woman and that is what women do. She should have taken precautions if she didn't want this to occur. But once she did, it's up to her to do the woman thing and let life occur and not kill it.

If a father wants to care for the child and the mother doesn't want any part of it, he can agree there will be no monthly compensation and legally take over parental rights.

Then likewise, if the mother wants the child and the father wants no part in it, he too can opt out of the parental rights and child custody forever if not married. But now the women will be up in arms, but it takes two and what's fair for one is fair for the other.

This takes out the fear that the father may intentionally hurt the mother to abort the children which is what the new law in Oklahoma addresses. The woman can now legally kill anyone who is intentionally trying her to hurt her when she is pregnant. (Politics Thread)

I started my post with the contention that I don't believe in abortion. IMO the same women that argue a woman should have full and total control of her body, then seem to forgive her irresponsibility when she has an unwanted pregnancy but the same 'forgiveness' isn't afforded to father.

IMO, if women really want total control of their bodies, then they would take full control.

ie, if you get pregnant and the man does not want to be a father, then the choice is yours: raise the child alone, adoption or abortion.

If the father has no choice.....then he should legally have no obligation.

The caveat would be that that decision would have to be made withing 3 months of conception. If the father doesn't terminate his rights within those 3 months, then he should accept the responsibility of support payments.

For those of you that would argue 'what if the mother didn't tell him'..I say two things #1 what difference would that be from the way things are now and #B maybe that will prompt men to take responsibility too. Use protection, know who you're sleeping with..etc.

IMO

[Carol25]

Carol, I was mulling your suggestion around and then decided that it wouldn't work and here is why. Too many men that get a woman pregnant would say "I'm opting out". This would leave so many children without support from 2 parents and I think that would be a bad thing. Instead, you would just have to say if 2 parties do not agree, then the party that would like to have the child would get the parental rights and the other parent (no matter which one) would have to pay child support. Men have been doing it (child support) no matter what, for years. This is the only "fair" way that this would work.
I also think that if the mother gives up her parental rights she should not have to pay for any of the hospital or prenatal visits, and she should also be compensated for maternity clothing and any other expenses related to maternity/ childbirth/ fitness. This way she isn't stuck with all of those expenses that a man wouldn't ever have.

Ooops I wanted to add, Carol I bolded the part of your post that I was addressing. Sorry I forgot to put that originally.

Deb, I believe in what you are saying, too. But the sad fact is, that could be a reason so many babies are being aborted, even without knowledge of the father. The women don't want to be responsible for 18 years of payments. Awful to say that, but I bet it's true.

On the other hand, it may be so prevalent that the father tries to injure the pregnant mother to have her naturally abort that would result in no 18 years of payments for him, just assault charges, usually. (The Oklahoma law)

So there are other manifestations to this. If each is absolved of their legal obligation, that wouldn't happen and more little babies could be saved. I also agree that each should pay for the upbringing, but it's not worth a child's life.

Each could have prevented the conception of this child, that what makes this such a mean spirited issue. It's all about uncaring and greed. The woman isn't caring or mature enough to give up a few months allowing a child to be born and both are too greedy to even think about contributing to the welfare of the child that is their own. It is just disgraceful and an ugly comment on the human race.

Sometimes I just want to look at a Pro Choice Supporter and Say, "Aren't you grateful your mother was Pro Life?"

[Carol25]

I just wanted to add, my mother was a product of a rape. Her mother was 13 when she had her. It would have been very easy my mother would have never existed, especially if it would have happened now. But then, where would that leave me?

I consider myself a good person. I never hurt anyone ..physically. I would guess I have emotionally... everyone has. But what I am getting at, I am not a monster and have been a very loved teacher in my career and a very loved Grandma now!

And my mom was the greatest, too! She was so creative and funny as heck! You would have loved her, so you never know about some things....

[crocdog1]

I am a man, and I happen to believe that a woman has the right to make personal decisions about her body.

That being said, there is something that needs to be brought out out regards this topic about fathers rights.

Men wanting the baby, and women that don't, are in a very low minority.

It is in, the vast majority of cases, the other way around. You see this every day with hundreds of thousands of men who impregnate women and who do not want to pay child support.

Just My Humble Opinion.

[Jay]

I am a man, and I happen to believe that a woman has the right to make personal decisions about her body.



Does that include a woman who uses drugs while pregnant and has a baby addicted to crack?


Does that include a woman who is an alcoholic and has a baby born with fetal alcohol syndrome?


Fetal alcohol exposure is the leading known cause of mental retardation in the Western world.[10][dubious – discuss] In the United States the FAS prevalence rate is estimated to be between 0.2 and 2.0 cases per 1,000 live births, comparable to or higher than other developmental disabilities such as Down syndrome or spina bifida.[11][dubious – discuss] The lifetime medical and social costs of each child with FAS are estimated to be as high as US$800,000

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_alcohol_syndrome

[Deb7]

I just wanted to add, my mother was a product of a rape. Her mother was 13 when she had her. It would have been very easy my mother would have never existed, especially if it would have happened now. But then, where would that leave me?

I consider myself a good person. I never hurt anyone ..physically. I would guess I have emotionally... everyone has. But what I am getting at, I am not a monster and have been a very loved teacher in my career and a very loved Grandma now!

And my mom was the greatest, too! She was so creative and funny as heck! You would have loved her, so you never know about some things....

Carol, you do seem like a very nice person. And I am glad your grandmother made the choice she did. :smile:

I agree with your response to me too. I know women would just have abortions. Do you think if my thoughts were the law and it was considered to be "just the way it is", that maybe people would be more careful in their decision to have sex?

I don't know, but it has to be a fair issue for both parties involved, otherwise we will have more problems. Such a hard issue. :sad:

[Details]

Abortion is not about vanity about how my belly looks - this is just the most transparent of strawmen.

And life endangering complications are not uncommon at ALL. Gestational diabetes is quite common - and while most survive it, it gives great odds of you developing real lifelong diabetes after the pregnancy - diabetes kills. Other complications - they are not uncommon at all either. I had one (AFLP), a sister had preeclampsia - life-threatening pregnancy complications are common. And post-pregnancy, it's also common for your body to never quite go back to what it was - whether it's my sister's cracked tailbone that still hurts her, joint pain, etc.

Nor is this a mere 6 months (as if it's OK to force me to sacrifice my life for 6 months because someone wants me to be their incubator). Morning sickness starts right from the beginning. Knowing you are pregnant, legal or not, your boss may well be looking for excuses to lose you before they have to pay maternity leave. You have expensive doctors appointments - especially if you don't have medical insurance. Job hunting during pregnancy is almost impossible. Post-pregnancy, it is over a year before your body is considered as being mostly back to what it was - your endurance, your physical abilities, etc. You have to take a few weeks or months off right after birth, and if you are someone who is responsible at all, you will try to breastfeed for at least a year, maybe two - so lugging a pump to work is a new part of your routine - hope your job allows for it!

Not to mention you must orient your entire life to being an incubator - if your job involves chemicals, physical strain - you have to change it. If you like going out and drinking - you must stop. If you smoke - you must stop. If you have chronic joint pain and take meds for it - you must change to milder meds and endure the pain. You need to watch what you eat, go to the doctor, get a new wardrobe, etc.

The reason fathers don't have equal rights is because they don't have equal responsibilities. When my body is the incubator, it's my choice, period. Abortion isn't something we allow because we think it's a good thing to terminate fetuses, because it's an extension of birth control. Abortion is legal because a woman's body and life is HUGELY involved and at risk from pregnancy, and thus it must be her decision whether or not to do it.

[barskin&co.]

Deb, I believe in what you are saying, too. But the sad fact is, that could be a reason so many babies are being aborted, even without knowledge of the father. The women don't want to be responsible for 18 years of payments. Awful to say that, but I bet it's true.

On the other hand, it may be so prevalent that the father tries to injure the pregnant mother to have her naturally abort that would result in no 18 years of payments for him, just assault charges, usually. (The Oklahoma law)

So there are other manifestations to this. If each is absolved of their legal obligation, that wouldn't happen and more little babies could be saved. I also agree that each should pay for the upbringing, but it's not worth a child's life.

Each could have prevented the conception of this child, that what makes this such a mean spirited issue. It's all about uncaring and greed. The woman isn't caring or mature enough to give up a few months allowing a child to be born and both are too greedy to even think about contributing to the welfare of the child that is their own. It is just disgraceful and an ugly comment on the human race.

Sometimes I just want to look at a Pro Choice Supporter and Say, "Aren't you grateful your mother was Pro Life?"

Carol, I was pregnant many years ago. I was not raped. I was recently married, as a matter of fact. I had an abortion. It was the right choice for me to make, I believe. I am sorry you do not believe that women have the right to make this decision for themselves. I am glad the law thinks otherwise.

[A-hem_1]

Deb, I believe in what you are saying, too. But the sad fact is, that could be a reason so many babies are being aborted, even without knowledge of the father. The women don't want to be responsible for 18 years of payments. Awful to say that, but I bet it's true.

On the other hand, it may be so prevalent that the father tries to injure the pregnant mother to have her naturally abort that would result in no 18 years of payments for him, just assault charges, usually. (The Oklahoma law)

So there are other manifestations to this. If each is absolved of their legal obligation, that wouldn't happen and more little babies could be saved. I also agree that each should pay for the upbringing, but it's not worth a child's life.

Each could have prevented the conception of this child, that what makes this such a mean spirited issue. It's all about uncaring and greed. The woman isn't caring or mature enough to give up a few months allowing a child to be born and both are too greedy to even think about contributing to the welfare of the child that is their own. It is just disgraceful and an ugly comment on the human race.

Sometimes I just want to look at a Pro Choice Supporter and Say, "Aren't you grateful your mother was Pro Life?"

I am a pro-choice supporter and unfortunately my mother didn't have a legal choice. She had to have me as abortion was against the law. Now, if she had the choice back then I would want her to do what is best for her. I would not want my mother to continue a pregnancy she didn't want just so I could exist.

And if you are a single mother (or father), unless you are on welfare, qualify for legal aide or can afford an attorney you are pretty much SOL on child support payments.

[Details]

It's always kinda ironic how some people are so up in arms that a man might be required to pay child support, when he doesn't have the ability to choose abortion - but then a woman's desire not to have her body turned inside out to be an incubator for 9 months plus a year to get beck to normal is an OK penalty for sex.

If having sex means you might get pregnant, both parties must accept that responsibility. For the woman, it means the soul-scarring choice of an abortion or 2 years minimum of physical and emotional changes due to pregnancy, plus the never ending responsibility of having brought a new life into the world, plus some real risk to her life, job, and health. For the man, it means the possibility of 18 years of child support. And while that can go on a long time - it's just money - they don't have to tell their boss they'll be taking a few weeks off, having to have different duties, might not be back at all, don't have to risk their health, don't have to endure stranger's scorn for the private choice of abortion.



And... Ah-hem-1 is right - my sister was divorced almost a decade ago. Child support? Nope, never saw it - even in a state that is pretty good about trying to collect it. She lived with mom to go back to college, worked multiple jobs, and managed to pay all the bills - even the bills for her daughter to go visit the father - even when it was supposed to be his turn to pay. Him - he works under the table, changes jobs when child support finds him - and has made a few more babies since then.

[Cooper]

I am a man, and I happen to believe that a woman has the right to make personal decisions about her body.

That being said, there is something that needs to be brought out out regards this topic about fathers rights.

Men wanting the baby, and women that don't, are in a very low minority.

It is in, the vast majority of cases, the other way around. You see this every day with hundreds of thousands of men who impregnate women and who do not want to pay child support.

Just My Humble Opinion.


I would agree.

If men don't want to be fathers they have other choices before the woman is pregnant. If they want to be fathers they need to find partners who want to be mothers.

[A-hem_1]

I am in a committed relationship. I do everything I can to protect myself from pregnancy as I do not want another child. If my protection fails I will seek termination. I am on heavy psychiatric meds and other meds that are not good for a developing fetus. I do not feel that I should be forced to stop my meds just because some infertile couple wants a child. I will consult with my physician and he and I will make the decision. Ultimately the decision is mine. My boyfriend also knows this and has known it from day one so he has a choice whether or not to stay with me or have sexual intercourse with me. Perhaps men should ask prior to sexual intercourse what the womans views are on abortion. If they (men) are against abortion they should find another woman. Women generally know what they would do in the event of an unintentional pregnancy.

[dref99]

A thread on the Politics Thread had me thinking how unfair it is to fathers of unborn children that only the mothers have the choice to abort.

In the thread, it tells of a couple who had made the decision of having a child, but after seeing what it did to the mother's waist line, she aborted the child. The father was devastated.

There were two people who were bringing this child into the world and were going to be parents. The mother ended this child's life for her vain reasons, while the father had planned on being a father for the rest of his life. It just didn't seem fair.

A woman is in charge of her own body and her waistline is part of it. Just at what cost?

What do you think? Does a father have a right to decide this issue, too?

If the father (I use the term loosely, if termination is considered, he obviously is not seen in the parent role) is willing to give up his employment, live on a pittance for years, have no freedom to do the things he used to like doing, but instead be responsible for the 24 hour care of the infant - then yes - give him some rights. Otherwise, teach him about contraception and unwanted pregnancies, but don't give him control over a woman's body.

[gnm109]

To date, fathers of unborn children are not doing well in Court. The women seem to hold all of the cards. The Wikipedia link below has some of the international case law on the topic.

Obviously many men who father children would be relieved to avoid the prospect of 18+ years of child support, especially if the relationship with the woman were a casual one.

Nonetheless, there are some fathers who would be very pleased to raise a child and who would be devastated to lose the opportuniy.

The situation was best summed up by the late, great comedian, Redd Foxx. In one of his many comedy skits, he had a very sage thought. He said: "It's Momma's baby and Poppa's maybe" This was in a slightly different context. He was referring to the fact that where a woman engages in promiscuous behavior with more than one man, it's rather hard to determine paternity. Obviously, since he passed away in 1991 before DNA came into its own, he wasn't speaking from a scientific standpoint.

Nonetheless, his point is well taken since it also fits when there is a dispute over whether or not to have an abortion. Unfortunately, men usually lose this battle, if indeed there is a battle.

Personally, I hate the very thought of abortion. I think that anyone who is in favor of it should be forced to witness a few of them, the later in the gestation period, the better, if you catch my drift.

My wife and I had three children who are all now grown and successful adults. We lost one child during pregnancy and we are sad for that even today. I guess people are all different.

My 2 cents.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paternal_rights_and_abortion

[mafitz701]

Still the legal avenue is the best way to go if a father wants to prevent an abortion. I am pro choice for many reasons. But I am also in support of equal parenting rights, so this issue is a difficult one for me. But if a man discovers he has impregnated a woman, and she wants to have an abortion but he doesn't, then he would need to file in civil courts to stop the abortion.

One of the reasons the woman tends to come out the winner in these cases is that there is a lack of real case law to decide on the cases.

[Jay]

Still the legal avenue is the best way to go if a father wants to prevent an abortion. I am pro choice for many reasons. But I am also in support of equal parenting rights, so this issue is a difficult one for me. But if a man discovers he has impregnated a woman, and she wants to have an abortion but he doesn't, then he would need to file in civil courts to stop the abortion.

One of the reasons the woman tends to come out the winner in these cases is that there is a lack of real case law to decide on the cases.



The "real case law" is Roe v. Wade. A Father has no legal "standing" to file suit to stop her abortion.

If such a suit were filed, it would be dismissed as easily as it was filed.

I am Pro life, so my answer is strictly a legal one.

[LisaM22]

A thread on the Politics Thread had me thinking how unfair it is to fathers of unborn children that only the mothers have the choice to abort.

In the thread, it tells of a couple who had made the decision of having a child, but after seeing what it did to the mother's waist line, she aborted the child. The father was devastated.

There were two people who were bringing this child into the world and were going to be parents. The mother ended this child's life for her vain reasons, while the father had planned on being a father for the rest of his life. It just didn't seem fair.

A woman is in charge of her own body and her waistline is part of it. Just at what cost?

What do you think? Does a father have a right to decide this issue, too?

the father has rights, they just do not trump the rights of the mother, the father can not force a women to have his baby

[gnm109]

The "real case law" is Roe v. Wade. A Father has no legal "standing" to file suit to stop her abortion.

If such a suit were filed, it would be dismissed as easily as it was filed.

I am Pro life, so my answer is strictly a legal one.

I think a man could exercise his standing to complain by filing a complaint to establish his parental relations. This is commonly done prior to the birth of the child. I was under the impression that Roe v. Wade provided a right for a woman to have a late-term abortion rather than stripping the father of any right to complain.

[Jay]

I think a man could exercise his standing to complain by filing a complaint to establish his parental relations. This is commonly done prior to the birth of the child. I was under the impression that Roe v. Wade provided a right for a woman to have a late-term abortion rather than stripping the father of any right to complain.


I was not refering to paternity suits, but a suit to prevent an abortion.

If a woman says she is going to have one and the man who thinks he is the father files suit to establish paternity, sure standing is there, but if part of the Petition prays for an Injunction to stop the abortion, there is no legal standing.

[gnm109]

I was not refering to paternity suits, but a suit to prevent an abortion.

If a woman says she is going to have one and the man who thinks he is the father files suit to establish paternity, sure standing is there, but if part of the Petition prays for an Injunction to stop the abortion, there is no legal standing.

You are correct in that. Sad, isn't it?

[Jay]

You are correct in that. Sad, isn't it?


I have brought up before, not only on this board, but others, if the Equal Rights Amendment had passed, I wonder if a woman would be quick to agree R v. W should be compromised as "equal reproductive" rights for men?


Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.

Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.

[LisaM22]

I have brought up before, not only on this board, but others, if the Equal Rights Amendment had passed, I wonder if a woman would be quick to agree R v. W should be compromised as "equal reproductive" rights for men?


Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.

Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.

until a birth their is no baby, your rights do not trump someone else's rights

[LisaM22]

I was not refering to paternity suits, but a suit to prevent an abortion.

If a woman says she is going to have one and the man who thinks he is the father files suit to establish paternity, sure standing is there, but if part of the Petition prays for an Injunction to stop the abortion, there is no legal standing.

as long as these kinda suits take, it would be kinda pointless no? the abortion would be long done and over with

how about this, why can they both decide to give a child up for adoption and neither is financially responsible for that child, but if only one decides to give the child up they need to continue to support said child? lots of things are not fair in life.... that's life

[Details]

I have brought up before, not only on this board, but others, if the Equal Rights Amendment had passed, I wonder if a woman would be quick to agree R v. W should be compromised as "equal reproductive" rights for men?


Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.

Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.Equal Rights do not apply, as the situations are not equal. Fathers do not die in childbirth. Fathers do not have to monitor all they eat and drink. Fathers do not have massive physical changes that commonly include problems that may last the rest of the mother's life. Fathers don't have to go through labor, delivery, and recuperation. The father's job is not threatened by employers who have to pay maternity costs for time off, medical costs, etc.

There is no equal, until a father can carry the baby to term himself.

The reason why women are allowed to abort is not some notion about your freedom of reproductive rights. It is about the fact that my body will be used as an incubator, that I will have significant risk, impact, suffering, and financial issues as a result, up to loss of a job, loss of the ability to work for months or more, loss of health, at worst, loss of my life. This is not about reproduction. This is about my control of my body.

The father has none of this. I'm sure there are indeed some or many who would be willing to pay the financial burden and take the child - but you cannot take the medical burden away, you cannot guarantee a good outcome, you cannot promise me my job will remain (many employers will use most any trick to get rid of a pregnant employee, and if I have health issues during or after, I may not be able to go back, if I work around hazardous chemicals, I may HAVE to leave the job for 9-10 months).

[gnm109]

until a birth their is no baby, your rights do not trump someone else's rights

It's ironic that a woman can arrange to have her "fetus" aborted, yet in many states, the killing of a fetus (baby) during the commission of a crime brings long jail terms.

Your statement that until a birth there's no baby makes no sense to me.

[gnm109]

Equal Rights do not apply, as the situations are not equal. Fathers do not die in childbirth. Fathers do not have to monitor all they eat and drink. Fathers do not have massive physical changes that commonly include problems that may last the rest of the mother's life. Fathers don't have to go through labor, delivery, and recuperation. The father's job is not threatened by employers who have to pay maternity costs for time off, medical costs, etc.

There is no equal, until a father can carry the baby to term himself.

The reason why women are allowed to abort is not some notion about your freedom of reproductive rights. It is about the fact that my body will be used as an incubator, that I will have significant risk, impact, suffering, and financial issues as a result, up to loss of a job, loss of the ability to work for months or more, loss of health, at worst, loss of my life. This is not about reproduction. This is about my control of my body.

The father has none of this. I'm sure there are indeed some or many who would be willing to pay the financial burden and take the child - but you cannot take the medical burden away, you cannot guarantee a good outcome, you cannot promise me my job will remain (many employers will use most any trick to get rid of a pregnant employee, and if I have health issues during or after, I may not be able to go back, if I work around hazardous chemicals, I may HAVE to leave the job for 9-10 months).


The mother also forecloses any rights she may have to any help from the father when she chooses an abortion. It seems that there's a tendency to blame the male for most conceptions. Perhaps women should exercise some of the control they so cherish prior ro conception. That might help.

[airportwoman]

I am in a committed relationship. I do everything I can to protect myself from pregnancy as I do not want another child. If my protection fails I will seek termination. I am on heavy psychiatric meds and other meds that are not good for a developing fetus. I do not feel that I should be forced to stop my meds just because some infertile couple wants a child. I will consult with my physician and he and I will make the decision. Ultimately the decision is mine. My boyfriend also knows this and has known it from day one so he has a choice whether or not to stay with me or have sexual intercourse with me. Perhaps men should ask prior to sexual intercourse what the womans views are on abortion. If they (men) are against abortion they should find another woman. Women generally know what they would do in the event of an unintentional pregnancy.

Nobody ever knows what they would do in a given situation until it happens to them.

There are lots of men, especially very young men, who will not date pro-life women because "I don't want to be stuck paying child support." Truthfully, if this woman got pregnant, he probably wouldn't be paying for the abortion either because he would disappear, and how would he know for sure she would even want one in the first place?

[penguin01]

Have you ever thought how many woman choose to abort when the father wants the baby just to avoid having to pay for child custody payments for 18 years? That just came to me.
That could be dealt with in a written agreement, couldn't it? Its so sad to imagine a couple deciding together to have a child - and then she decides to change her mind. Its her body and she can do that... but she could have the baby and give it to him under any contract conditions they both agree on - including her never paying support or even having to see the child. Just like an "open adoption".

[LisaM22]

It's ironic that a woman can arrange to have her "fetus" aborted, yet in many states, the killing of a fetus (baby) during the commission of a crime brings long jail terms.

Your statement that until a birth there's no baby makes no sense to me.

those laws were created by the religious right rather recently just for that reason, to cloud the issue - try to buy life insurance for a child that doesn't exist yet....

[gnm109]

Nobody ever knows what they would do in a given situation until it happens to them.

There are lots of men, especially very young men, who will not date pro-life women because "I don't want to be stuck paying child support." Truthfully, if this woman got pregnant, he probably wouldn't be paying for the abortion either because he would disappear, and how would he know for sure she would even want one in the first place?

They really don't all disappear. Many want their children. They often file a Petition to Establish Parental Relations to establish their paternity, give them a reasonable visitation schedule and set reasonable child support according to the guidelines.

I've done dozens of these cases here in California. It is quite common to see them filed by a father. To say that they will not live up to their rights is not always the case.

[LisaM22]

Have you ever thought how many woman choose to abort when the father wants the baby just to avoid having to pay for child custody payments for 18 years? That just came to me.

if you don't want to have a child, no one can force you too... whatever the reason, many use condoms for the same reason... doctor induced Abortion is a last resort form of birth control

[Details]

That could be dealt with in a written agreement, couldn't it? Its so sad to imagine a couple deciding together to have a child - and then she decides to change her mind. Its her body and she can do that... but she could have the baby and give it to him under any contract conditions they both agree on - including her never paying support or even having to see the child. Just like an "open adoption".A friend of my mom's did a similar thing - wanted a child, arranged with a friend to make one - with an agreement, no child support, no visitation required, etc. It worked out great for them. But LEGALLY - if she had felt like it at any time, she could have gone after him for child support. I don't know today's law - but in general I think the rules are that all this is about the child - so it doesn't matter what the mother or father signs - you both created this child, you are both responsible for it, until adoption.

[airportwoman]

They really don't all disappear. Many want their children. They often file a Petition to Establish Parental Relations to establish their paternity, give them a reasonable visitation schedule and set reasonable child support according to the guidelines.

I've done dozens of these cases here in California. It is quite common to see them filed by a father. To say that they will not live up to their rights is not always the case.

True, and those aren't the men I'm talking about.

And a-ha, there seemed to be a big overlap between the men I described (who won't date pro-life women) and men I have known who said they planned to go into their marriages with the intent of treating their wives poorly after the children arrive so they will be divorced dads - i.e. all the fun and none of the responsibility. One of these guys had to live in a homeless shelter after his dad left, and I asked him, "Why would you want to do that to your own kids?" He replied, "Dad got a 17-year-old girlfriend out of the deal."

My #1 rule for a man has always been that he cannot ever have been divorced, for any reason, because I feel that in most cases, if he had treated his wife better, he would probably still be married to her, and if there were children, he wasn't good with them and this is a major reason why they're divorced. It's really fun to say this in front of a lot of men and watch them squirm.

Keep in mind that more than once, I have thought, "What if I meet the perfect man, and it turns out he's divorced from a woman like this?"

[Details]

Still though - people keep making this about child support and who takes care of the kid - when abortion is about pregnancy, a woman's body, the risks and pain and changes that are going to happen only to her, that cannot be assumed by even the most well meaning father.


Airportwoman - I'm married to a previously divorced man. He's great with kids. The divorce was for good reason, but it also taught him a lot about how to be married - he says it's a bit ironic - all the things he had to learn to do, after the divorce, to keep an acceptable relationship with his ex and see his kids, if he'd learned to do them earlier, they would have never gotten divorced. Sometimes it is also about an evil woman - you know we can be entirely at fault too! Marriage is intense, to be with someone so much - I'd never judge anyone for a marriage failing - no matter how long you date, when you marry, you will find out it's entirely different, and sometimes two people are just not compatible enough.

[gnm109]

A friend of my mom's did a similar thing - wanted a child, arranged with a friend to make one - with an agreement, no child support, no visitation required, etc. It worked out great for them. But LEGALLY - if she had felt like it at any time, she could have gone after him for child support. I don't know today's law - but in general I think the rules are that all this is about the child - so it doesn't matter what the mother or father signs - you both created this child, you are both responsible for it, until adoption.

That's quite correct. In all states of which I'm aware, child support belongs to the child. Both parernts are equaly responsible and it may not be waived. Payment of child support can sometimes be deferred within the context of a divorce when the Court is satisfied that the welfare of the child wil be properly maintained. For example, this could be done when both parents are self-supporting and visitatioin is being carried out properly. Otherwise, it's always on the table.

[Jay]

Equal Rights do not apply, as the situations are not equal. Fathers do not die in childbirth. Fathers do not have to monitor all they eat and drink. Fathers do not have massive physical changes that commonly include problems that may last the rest of the mother's life. Fathers don't have to go through labor, delivery, and recuperation. The father's job is not threatened by employers who have to pay maternity costs for time off, medical costs, etc.

There is no equal, until a father can carry the baby to term himself.




So you are saying IF the ERA had passed it would NOT include "reproductive rights", am I correct in that?

Oxymoron?

What if a court decided it did, you obviously would disagree, correct?

[Jay]

those laws were created by the religious right rather recently just for that reason, to cloud the issue - try to buy life insurance for a child that doesn't exist yet....


MOST state legislatures are the "religious right"?

Federal law also criminalizes such fetus harm/murder.

The crux is if most women consider thier fetus as NON human, and just a bunch of glob and chemicals mixed together, why are the same women FOR fetal harm laws when another commits the act.

[LisaM22]

MOST state legislatures are the "religious right"?

Federal law also criminalizes such fetus harm/murder.

The crux is if most women consider thier fetus as NON human, and just a bunch of glob and chemicals mixed together, why are the same women FOR fetal harm laws when another commits the act.

because just as you can not force a women to HAVE a baby, you can not force a women NOT to have a baby

[Jay]

because just as you can not force a women to HAVE a baby, you can not force a women NOT to have a baby


Roe could have been sustained also. What state of mind would a woman enter into then?

Break the law, civil disobedience?

[airportwoman]

because just as you can not force a women to HAVE a baby, you can not force a women NOT to have a baby

Here in Illinois, there is talk about making it a crime to force a woman to get an abortion when she doesn't want one.

I'm not sure how something like this could be enforced, because it would be awfully hard to prove IMHO.

[mafitz701]

Perhaps I am rusty, but where in Roe vs Wade does it discuss father's rights? Where in Roe vs Wade did the father of the unborn Roe baby file to stop Roe from pursueing an abortion?

It is presumptive to accuse Roe vs Wade of somehow violating a father's rights to a child prior to its birth. To overturn Roe Vs Wade which btw is the very example of case law establishment, is to intercede in a woman's right to choose.

It is a poor foundation to use this particular caselaw as a means of establishing a father's rights are violated when a woman has an abortion.

Case law is used to establish a precedent in cases where such issues have not been addressed by the legislature. So, once again, the father would need to file through civil courts and bring about the case law that would allow courts in future to consider the father's wishes as well as the woman's.

It is beyond unrealistic to suggest that most men want the baby when an unplanned conception takes place. If this were the case however, caselaw will have been established by now.

Where the right of a woman to abort or give birth violates the man's rights is that in the end it is the woman who in giving birth will put the man into the position of having to pay child support for a child that he did not plan to have.

However, these cases should be decided by the courts in applicable caselaw, and not in overturning the very foundation of a woman's right to choose. Not just anyone should be able to just step in and dictate a woman's own right to decide when it comes to her body. You for example have NO RIGHT whatsoever to control ME.

It is in that reality that a balance must be struck. I have no issue with a man who is the other half of a conception fighting for his right to have the child. I have great issue with some man who has no relation whatsoever to a pregnancy thinking he should have some divine right to dictate to a female what she can or can not do with her body.

[LisaM22]

why would we ever give men the right to force a women to have an abortion, it's not their body

[gnm109]

Perhaps I am rusty, but where in Roe vs Wade does it discuss father's rights? Where in Roe vs Wade did the father of the unborn Roe baby file to stop Roe from pursueing an abortion?

It is presumptive to accuse Roe vs Wade of somehow violating a father's rights to a child prior to its birth. To overturn Roe Vs Wade which btw is the very example of case law establishment, is to intercede in a woman's right to choose.

It is a poor foundation to use this particular caselaw as a means of establishing a father's rights are violated when a woman has an abortion.

Case law is used to establish a precedent in cases where such issues have not been addressed by the legislature. So, once again, the father would need to file through civil courts and bring about the case law that would allow courts in future to consider the father's wishes as well as the woman's.

It is beyond unrealistic to suggest that most men want the baby when an unplanned conception takes place. If this were the case however, caselaw will have been established by now.

Where the right of a woman to abort or give birth violates the man's rights is that in the end it is the woman who in giving birth will put the man into the position of having to pay child support for a child that he did not plan to have.

However, these cases should be decided by the courts in applicable caselaw, and not in overturning the very foundation of a woman's right to choose. Not just anyone should be able to just step in and dictate a woman's own right to decide when it comes to her body. You for example have NO RIGHT whatsoever to control ME.

It is in that reality that a balance must be struck. I have no issue with a man who is the other half of a conception fighting for his right to have the child. I have great issue with some man who has no relation whatsoever to a pregnancy thinking he should have some divine right to dictate to a female what she can or can not do with her body.


Your position is an interesting one. You state, correctly, that a father has no right to intervene in an abortion in the light of Roe vs. Wade.

Then you go on to speak of the importance of case law, again correctly. You fail to tell us, however, under what rule a husband might find standing to go to trial to oppose Roe vs. Wade and establish some case law.

Following that you assure us, based on what I can only guess, that most men don't want to be fathers when an unplanned pregnancy occurs. You attempt to prove this by the very lack of case law you cite, when we both know that the father has no standinig to bring such a case.

Rather than citiing the lack of lack of case law, the reason for which has been mentioned, why not just come out and say what is really the case, that the father has no rights whatsoever. Under present law, with few exceptions mostly having to do with the timing of the planned killing of the fetus, the mother has the absolute right of life and death over the unborn. While it makes it sound nicer when we call it merely a fetus, it is still a potential human being, at least in my estimation. This view is shared in an increasing group of jurisdictions as well since laws have been passed that call a criminal killing of a fetus a murder. This presumably is based on the theory that you can't murder something that isn't alive.

You are using some circular reasoning, at best and, at worst, some pretty thin rhetoric.

[Details]

So you are saying IF the ERA had passed it would NOT include "reproductive rights", am I correct in that?

Oxymoron?

What if a court decided it did, you obviously would disagree, correct?I'm saying the ERA wouldn't apply. Or that it would - but there is no equal situation. A man who is carrying a baby in HIS belly has an absolutely equal right to an abortion, to decide if HE wishes to give up 9 months of HIS life, take the medical risks, to carry the child. Absolutely an equal right.

You might as well say that the ERA would mean all laws that involve a man's beard would apply equally to a woman's right to have a beard. They do - but since women don't have beards, it's irrelevant. Men don't have the physical ability to carry a child, so laws about an individual's right to choose whether or not to spend 9 months as an incubator, do not apply to them. Not until medical technology allows a man to grow a uterus, a placenta, etc.


There is no equality issue here, because the situation quite simply is not equal. One gender, and only one gender, is carrying the child. Now, if a husband and wife were using a surrogate mother, and the wife decided she no longer wanted it - guess what - in that case the husband has an absolutely equal right to say he does want it - or vice versa. Because in that case the situations are equal. But not when I am carrying a fetus, a baby, a potential human being by using my body, risking my health and well being and life. No man carries that burden.

[Jay]

Case law is used to establish a precedent in cases where such issues have not been addressed by the legislature.


Have you ever read Roe? TX criminalized abortions, by statute, the SC overturned that.

Case law is court made law/common law. USSC decisions ARE case law.

On matters of "first impression" for a court, either they have not dealt with a case before on a statutory law or tort case, but there is usually legal background to it.

Take Marbury v. Madison, for instance, 1803. CJ Marshall, writing for the court, held that the SC has the power to declare acts of Congress Unconstitutional, this is one instance that you address, but these are rare.


So, once again, the father would need to file through civil courts and bring about the case law that would allow courts in future to consider the father's wishes as well as the woman's.



Until Roe is overturned there is NO standing for a Father to do so, as the Supremacy clause of Article 6 controls.

[mafitz701]

Your position is an interesting one. You state, correctly, that a father has no right to intervene in an abortion in the light of Roe vs. Wade.

Then you go on to speak of the importance of case law, again correctly. You fail to tell us, however, under what rule a husband might find standing to go to trial to oppose Roe vs. Wade and establish some case law.

Following that you assure us, based on what I can only guess, that most men don't want to be fathers when an unplanned pregnancy occurs. You attempt to prove this by the very lack of case law you cite, when we both know that the father has no standinig to bring such a case.

Rather than citiing the lack of lack of case law, the reason for which has been mentioned, why not just come out and say what is really the case, that the father has no rights whatsoever. Under present law, with few exceptions mostly having to do with the timing of the planned killing of the fetus, the mother has the absolute right of life and death over the unborn. While it makes it sound nicer when we call it merely a fetus, it is still a potential human being, at least in my estimation. This view is shared in an increasing group of jurisdictions as well since laws have been passed that call a criminal killing of a fetus a murder. This presumably is based on the theory that you can't murder something that isn't alive.

You are using some circular reasoning, at best and, at worst, some pretty thin rhetoric.

No it is you using some "rhetoric". My point is exact. Roe vs Wade does not deal with a father wanting to have a baby and a woman fighting for the abortion. Roe vs Wade entails a woman fighting to have an abortion at a time when abortion was against the law. It does not in any way involve "father's rights".

Roe vs Wade was the case law that established the right of a woman to have an abortion.

What part of that do you not understand. Yes, I have actually read it and it is specifically why I asked you where in the text did it reference a father's right to an unborn?

The actuality is that if men wanted to challenge their rights to an unborn child they would do so. We have had spouses sue the mistress in cases of adultery, spouses sue for withdrawal of sexual relations, suits for unplanned pregnancy. It is how you establish caselaw.

[gnm109]

No it is you using some "rhetoric". My point is exact. Roe vs Wade does not deal with a father wanting to have a baby and a woman fighting for the abortion. Roe vs Wade entails a woman fighting to have an abortion at a time when abortion was against the law. It does not in any way involve "father's rights".

Roe vs Wade was the case law that established the right of a woman to have an abortion.

What part of that do you not understand. Yes, I have actually read it and it is specifically why I asked you where in the text did it reference a father's right to an unborn?

The actuality is that if men wanted to challenge their rights to an unborn child they would do so. We have had spouses sue the mistress in cases of adultery, spouses sue for withdrawal of sexual relations, suits for unplanned pregnancy. It is how you establish caselaw.


You cite exceptions. I was agreeing with you that the father has no rights. You said the fact that there was no caselaw (other than Roe) was proof of the unborn fathers not caring or wanting the children. You have no proof of that.

You also said that caselaw is established by suit. What suit? Fathers can't even bring suit without losing to a demurrer.

Furthermore, caselaw is only published after an appeal is decided. How many unmarried fathers would have the funding for such an appeal to prevent an abortion? Wouldn't those cases become moot as the result of the abortion? It seems likely.

There will never be any caselaw under the present setting since the father has no standing.

I'm unable to understand your position but it's amusing to read it.

[mafitz701]

You cite exceptions. I was agreeing with you that the father has no rights. You said the fact that there was no caselaw (other than Roe) was proof of the unborn fathers not caring or wanting the children. You have no proof of that.

You also said that caselaw is established by suit. What suit? Fathers can't even bring suit without losing to a demurrer.

Furthermore, caselaw is only published after an appeal is decided. How many unmarried fathers would have the funding for such an appeal to prevent an abortion? Wouldn't those cases become moot as the result of the abortion? It seems likely.

There will never be any caselaw under the present setting since the father has no standing.

I'm unable to understand your position but it's amusing to read it.

No this is not what I meant at all, but I am not floored that I did not make that clear. In my own defense I had to have a surgery due to the damage that giving birth 4 separate times did to my body. I had screws put into my right hip and for some unknown reason 3 years after the fact my hip is hurting so bad I can barely stand myself.

I do not believe it is because fathers just don't care that they do not fight for caselaw. The problem is that for a father to fight for this he would need to get the advocacy groups to take on his cause. There are cases that I found of fathers fighting to stop an abortion. The downside to these cases that I did find are that in those very small handful of cases the father's motives were questionable. In two of the cases domestic violence was involved (established cases of domestic violence), and in another case the couple were going through a divorce and they were both petty childish individuals with far too much money.

You and Jay both cite Roe v Wade as being the cause of father's not having a say in the abortion. I disagree as once again Roe v Wade does not involve a father fighting to stop the abortion.

Roe v Wade was made possible because people banded together and funded this woman's fight for an abortion. The same thing has to happen for caselaw to be established that would enable a man to fight for his rights in stopping the abortion.

The cases also need to involve fathers who do not have a well established history of abusing the woman who is carrying their child. The woman should also not be underage at the time of conception, which was the case in two of the cases I found.

The problem is that I found NONE in which valid issues as to the man's motives were not raised. So other than sitting on some message board where is the advocacy?

[Jay]

You and Jay both cite Roe v Wade as being the cause of father's not having a say in the abortion. I disagree as once again Roe v Wade does not involve a father fighting to stop the abortion.



This is from Roe, page 163:


...This means, on the other hand, that, for the period of pregnancy prior to this "compelling" point, the attending physician, in consultation with his patient, is free to determine, without regulation by the State, that, in his medical judgment, the patient's pregnancy should be terminated. If that decision is reached, the judgment may be effectuated by an abortion free of interference by the State..


If there can be no interference by the state, it also means legally if a Father's complaint were filed, a state could not entertain it as a valid cause of action.

This, of course, includes inferior federal courts.



The choice is soley between a woman and her doctor. My legal opinion has no bearing on my personal opinion, as I am pro life, but I don't want to debate that either, I am just pointing out the law.



As we also note in a progeny of Roe:


Read the syllabus carefully.


http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-744.ZS.html



You are saying that since there is no wording in Roe such as "This ruling does not prohibit a father from litigating his right to prevent his mate from seeking an abortion", etc., he has legal standing. With all due respect, that is incorrect.

[mafitz701]

This is from Roe, page 163:


...This means, on the other hand, that, for the period of pregnancy prior to this "compelling" point, the attending physician, in consultation with his patient, is free to determine, without regulation by the State, that, in his medical judgment, the patient's pregnancy should be terminated. If that decision is reached, the judgment may be effectuated by an abortion free of interference by the State..


If there can be no interference by the state, it also means legally if a Father's complaint were filed, a state could not entertain it as a valid cause of action.



The father is not the state. Interference by the state carries very different definition. In Roe's case the father did not attempt in any fashion to come forward and claim paternal right to the unborn. Roe was clear cut in its definition of the rights of the individual in respect to the laws of the state.

A man's right to an unborn could be argued effectively in a similar fashion, in that the man's rights are in effect hampered by the laws of the state.

[Jay]

The father is not the state. Interference by the state carries very different definition. In Roe's case the father did not attempt in any fashion to come forward and claim paternal right to the unborn. Roe was clear cut in its definition of the rights of the individual in respect to the laws of the state.

A man's right to an unborn could be argued effectively in a similar fashion, in that the man's rights are in effect hampered by the laws of the state.


I can't make it clearer, so I will just leave it at that. Assuming your legal premise is correct, why has it not been successful in over 36 years?

Surely some Father somewhere would have tried, if your theory is correct, so assuming some did, thier complaint must have been dismissed?

Are you aware of any complaint that was filed that was sustained at the filing court level?

[airportwoman]

That's quite correct. In all states of which I'm aware, child support belongs to the child. Both parernts are equaly responsible and it may not be waived. Payment of child support can sometimes be deferred within the context of a divorce when the Court is satisfied that the welfare of the child wil be properly maintained. For example, this could be done when both parents are self-supporting and visitatioin is being carried out properly. Otherwise, it's always on the table.

I've lived in Iowa and Illinois, and know more than one family in each state where the custodial parent (in each case that I know of, the mother) took no child support in exchange for no visitation. Apparently it is not illegal to do that, or else that was changed very recently.

In a few cases, it was justified, and in others, it wasn't (the no visitation thing, that is).

[gnm109]

I can't make it clearer, so I will just leave it at that. Assuming your legal premise is correct, why has it not been successful in over 36 years?

Surely some Father somewhere would have tried, if your theory is correct, so assuming some did, thier complaint must have been dismissed?

Are you aware of any complaint that was filed that was sustained at the filing court level?

I was also attempting to make that point with the poster. No right to sue, no appeal and ultimately, no caselaw.

Like you. I personally don't like it but I understand that's the present state of the law. nor do I believe at the other poster does that most all fathers of unborn children are happily rid of the responsibilities involved.

One simply cannot use the absence of cases on appeal as an indication of the fathers' interests and desires in the matter.

Good posts on your part. At least two of us got it.

[momof6]

There is a site called Father/Men's rights, that has lots and lots of websites for men. Free attorney's for men's rights.

I'm glad men are finally getting rights when it comes to their children.

Make all the excuses you want, abortion is still torture.

[Tracian]

There is a site called Father/Men's rights, that has lots and lots of websites for men. Free attorney's for men's rights.

I'm glad men are finally getting rights when it comes to their children.

Make all the excuses you want, abortion is still torture.



Make all the excuses you want...it is still the body of a woman...

[Jay]

Make all the excuses you want...it is still the body of a woman...

I'll ask you what I asked on page 1 in this thread and got no response:


Does that include a woman who uses drugs while pregnant and has a baby addicted to crack?


Does that include a woman who is an alcoholic and has a baby born with fetal alcohol syndrome?


Fetal alcohol exposure is the leading known cause of mental retardation in the Western world.[10][dubious – discuss] In the United States the FAS prevalence rate is estimated to be between 0.2 and 2.0 cases per 1,000 live births, comparable to or higher than other developmental disabilities such as Down syndrome or spina bifida.[11][dubious – discuss] The lifetime medical and social costs of each child with FAS are estimated to be as high as US$800,000

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_alcohol_syndrome

[Jay]

I was also attempting to make that point with the poster. No right to sue, no appeal and ultimately, no caselaw.

Like you. I personally don't like it but I understand that's the present state of the law. nor do I believe at the other poster does that most all fathers of unborn children are happily rid of the responsibilities involved.

One simply cannot use the absence of cases on appeal as an indication of the fathers' interests and desires in the matter.

Good posts on your part. At least two of us got it.


Even the Roe opinion itself ruled on the "standing" to sue:

Held:


2. Roe has standing to sue; the Does and Hallford do not. Pp. 123-129.



http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0410_0113_ZS.html


I understand the poster's argument, but legally a Father would have no Article 3 right of action/standing.

This is not to say if a Father tried it some rogue Judge may permit the suit to go forward, but you can bet an Interlocutory appeal would be filed before the merits were even decided, and a reversal is certain.

I have never read anywhere where such a case happened. If it did you can bet it would not be a legal secret, some legal mind would know somehwere. I am not attorney, but I have never heard of such.

If we remember the Nedow Pledge of Allegiance case, it went all the way to the SC and they ruled he had no standing to file it for his daughter as he was not the custodial parent.

Although this dealt with prudential standing, it is an example for the poster to try to understand:

Held: Because California law deprives Newdow of the right to sue as next friend, he lacks prudential standing to challenge the school district’s policy in federal court.


http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-1624.ZS.html


The body of the opinion mentions Article 3 standing.


In a second published opinion, the Court of Appeals reconsidered Newdow’s standing in light of Banning’s motion. The court noted that Newdow no longer claimed to represent his daughter, but unanimously concluded that “the grant of sole legal custody to Banning” did not deprive Newdow, “as a noncustodial parent, of Article III standing to object to unconstitutional government action affecting his child.” Id., at 502—503.

[gnm109]

Even the Roe opinion itself ruled on the "standing" to sue:

Held:


2. Roe has standing to sue; the Does and Hallford do not. Pp. 123-129.



http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0410_0113_ZS.html


I understand the poster's argument, but legally a Father would have no Article 3 right of action/standing.

This is not to say if a Father tried it some rogue Judge may permit the suit to go forward, but you can bet an Interlocutory appeal would be filed before the merits were even decided, and a reversal is certain.

I have never read anywhere where such a case happened. If it did you can bet it would not be a legal secret, some legal mind would know somehwere. I am not attorney, but I have never heard of such.

If we remember the Nedow Pledge of Allegiance case, it went all the way to the SC and they ruled he had no standing to file it for his daughter as he was not the custodial parent.

Although this dealt with prudential standing, it is an example for the poster to try to understand:

Held: Because California law deprives Newdow of the right to sue as next friend, he lacks prudential standing to challenge the school district’s policy in federal court.


http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-1624.ZS.html


The body of the opinion mentions Article 3 standing.


In a second published opinion, the Court of Appeals reconsidered Newdow’s standing in light of Banning’s motion. The court noted that Newdow no longer claimed to represent his daughter, but unanimously concluded that “the grant of sole legal custody to Banning” did not deprive Newdow, “as a noncustodial parent, of Article III standing to object to unconstitutional government action affecting his child.” Id., at 502—503.

Those are good points. I'm in the Sacramento area and practiced Family Law in the very court where Newdow's case was decided at the trial level, although I wasn't present at the time. The following is what I gleaned from talking to other attorneys and also from readng the Sacramento Bee which had some excellent background stories on Newdow and the progress of the case while it was going on.

There were other issues surrounding the case that caused the judge to rule against Newdow. He was allegedly acting in pro per yet he obviously had a great deal of legal and financial assistance. While there is nothing wrong with that, it damages one's credibility to deny it.

Also, early on the the judge discerned that the case was really only about Newdow's desires as an athiest. In essence it was a wolf in sheep's clothing and the judge knew it. It had nothing whatsoever to do with his daughter's welfare. wishes, or desires. She is a comitted Christian and clearly did not feel oppressed or damaged by reciting the Pledge of Allegience.

Had the child been maladjusted, living in poverty or even with poor grades in school, the coulrt might have found some other reason to grant partial custody to Newdow. That was not the case, however. Fortunately, the Elk Grove School district is a very good one and the child is thriving and thus the judge was able to see that the damages alleged by Newdow were a facade for his athiestic program. The mother of the child is doing an admirable job raising the child and sheltering her from Newdow's contant haranguing and attacks on her person and the raising of the child.

Thus, the trial judge got the clear impression that the child was being used as a pawn to gain a higher advantage for Newdow. That triggered the most important issue for the judge which is the wellbeing of the child. There is nothing more important.

The papers written by Newdow in this case in the local court were were extensive. Responding and trying the case kept two attorneys on the opposition busy for most of two years. I can't even imagine how much work was done on the appeals. I really don't know much about the appeals or the issue of removing the Pledge of Allegience since the local court really had no jurisdiction over that part anyway. They perhaps could have granted custody to Newdow and he then could have forbidden her to recite the pledge but that was really never going to happen in the local court. I could have told him that but he never asked me. LOL.

So you ask, how was the mother able to pay for all of that? Good question. She wasn't. Very early on, the judge found Newdow's actions so egregious that he began awarding her attorney fees from Newdow as is commonly done to level the playing field. The more aggressive and unreasonable the attacker, the more likely that he will get hit with a bill.

Ultimately, I understand that Newdow had to pay, and did in fact pay, more than $380,000 cash for his folly. I recall the number vaguely. It might be a few dollars one way or the other. The big question is where does a part-time, new, lawyer get the money. His day job is working as an ER MD locally which doesn't make that sort of money except perhaps on T.V.

Keep up the good posts, Jay. You sound smarter than most of the lawyers I practiced with. I hope you manage to stay away from Law school though. It's really an unleasant business.

Regards.

[Lyndawitha"Y]

I'll ask you what I asked on page 1 in this thread and got no response:


Does that include a woman who uses drugs while pregnant and has a baby addicted to crack?


Does that include a woman who is an alcoholic and has a baby born with fetal alcohol syndrome?


Fetal alcohol exposure is the leading known cause of mental retardation in the Western world.[10][dubious – discuss] In the United States the FAS prevalence rate is estimated to be between 0.2 and 2.0 cases per 1,000 live births, comparable to or higher than other developmental disabilities such as Down syndrome or spina bifida.[11][dubious – discuss] The lifetime medical and social costs of each child with FAS are estimated to be as high as US$800,000

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_alcohol_syndrome


I have highlighted your three issues and will address this way:

If any future father of anyone of these scenerio children bring to light the threat to the unborn baby...then it is the courts who will get involved with those cases (Larry Birkhead)....Now, if there is NO future father complaining, then if their doctor perceives threatening lifestyle which endangers the unborn fetus, they can and do report that to the proper authorities...(like child abuse), then unfortunately, these scenerios never get exposed until the birth of those babies, and yes do become "Societies Burden" to treat, care for and raise...Sad by true.

So back to to the topic..It is entirely too complicated to assign one answer to father's rights..and simply have to deal with those rights on an individual circumstances..At this point, the courts deal with this issue one case at a time.

I for one dont believe in abortion, but that is for myself only, and understand the decision to abort has to be for that individual. There are many circumstances when abortion is the right decision, whether medically, or mentally thought based. Some people want to cookie cutter a law, however there is no ONE Right Answer to your question. Assigning Right or Wrong is in my mind not possible to such a convoluted issue.

LMS

[gnm109]

I have highlighted your three issues and will address this way:

If any future father of anyone of these scenerio children bring to light the threat to the unborn baby...then it is the courts who will get involved with those cases (Larry Birkhead)....Now, if there is NO future father complaining, then if their doctor perceives threatening lifestyle which endangers the unborn fetus, they can and do report that to the proper authorities...(like child abuse), then unfortunately, these scenerios never get exposed until the birth of those babies, and yes do become "Societies Burden" to treat, care for and raise...Sad by true.

So back to to the topic..It is entirely too complicated to assign one answer to father's rights..and simply have to deal with those rights on an individual circumstances..At this point, the courts deal with this issue one case at a time.

I for one dont believe in abortion, but that is for myself only, and understand the decision to abort has to be for that individual. There are many circumstances when abortion is the right decision, whether medically, or mentally thought based. Some people want to cookie cutter a law, however there is no ONE Right Answer to your question. Assigning Right or Wrong is in my mind not possible to such a convoluted issue.

LMS


The Birkhead case had to do with paternity and custody of a living child.

[airportwoman]

I'm not sure quite where to post this, so I'll put it here.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/192463

He couldn't handle one child, but they go ahead and have two more (twins to boot)? Innnnnnteresting.

[Lyndawitha"Y]

The Birkhead case had to do with paternity and custody of a living child.

I know thats what it ended up to be during the Bahama hearings, then after ANS death in Fla., but she fled the USA to avoid LB, because he was seeking interventions on ANS, while she was pregnant..thus fleeing juristictions..Anyway, my point was that courts try to intervene (uphill battle if flee's) but I also said, as a father of unborn baby at the time, he tried to prove paternity and intervene on behalf of his unborn baby.

LMS

[gnm109]

I know thats what it ended up to be during the Bahama hearings, then after ANS death in Fla., but she fled the USA to avoid LB, because he was seeking interventions on ANS, while she was pregnant..thus fleeing juristictions..Anyway, my point was that courts try to intervene (uphill battle if flee's) but I also said, as a father of unborn baby at the time, he tried to prove paternity and intervene on behalf of his unborn baby.

LMS

The Birkhead case is not on point. It's not going to help the father of an unborn child prevent an abortion. It really made no law on any abortion issue. In any case, Anna Nicole would not have wanted an abortion. She never threatened one and the issues of the Birkhead case were about paternity and custody.

Nice try. You get an A for effort. LOL. :biggrin:

[Lyndawitha"Y]

The Birkhead case is not on point. It's not going to help the father of an unborn child prevent an abortion. It really made no law on any abortion issue. In any case, Anna Nicole would not have wanted an abortion. She never threatened one and the issues of the Birkhead case were about paternity and custody.

Nice try. You get an A for effort. LOL. :biggrin:

You are correctomundo..however my post was in response to the poster posing the question Father's rights when mother is a drug addict, alcoholic..or threatening their fetus??..So scuse me for that ..Not trying to get off topic..but the remainder of my post, was plain and simple..There IS no RIGHT OR WRONG..There's always certain conditions where paternal/ fathers can insert their rights..when circumstances present ..but like all legal issues, or claims..you have to have proof of impending harm of fetus...Such a muddy water to tread in..:blushing:

LMS

[mafitz701]

I can't make it clearer, so I will just leave it at that. Assuming your legal premise is correct, why has it not been successful in over 36 years?

Surely some Father somewhere would have tried, if your theory is correct, so assuming some did, thier complaint must have been dismissed?

Are you aware of any complaint that was filed that was sustained at the filing court level?


I think you are missing my premise. If a father filed and had the funding and advocacy of a group behinde him he would have as good a chance at winning such a case as Roe did in her battle.

The cases I did find, as I said were not good cases to look at because there was disfunction on the man's part, and domestic violence. The father would need to be an average joe not someone that can be discredited.

It can be done. What surprises me the most is that with the number of pro life electeds you would think it would be even more possible, yet they refuse to touch the issue. It is hypocritical.

Look at the catalyst in the Roe case. She became the project, and the same needs to occur for caselaw to be established for a father.

[gnm109]

I think you are missing my premise. If a father filed and had the funding and advocacy of a group behinde him he would have as good a chance at winning such a case as Roe did in her battle.

The cases I did find, as I said were not good cases to look at because there was disfunction on the man's part, and domestic violence. The father would need to be an average joe not someone that can be discredited.

It can be done. What surprises me the most is that with the number of pro life electeds you would think it would be even more possible, yet they refuse to touch the issue. It is hypocritical.

Look at the catalyst in the Roe case. She became the project, and the same needs to occur for caselaw to be established for a father.


The problam is, there is no present right for the father to attack the issue of abortion. Thus, procedurally the case will be dismissed on a demurrer. That is, the defendant, whoever she might be, can respond that the case has failed to state a cause of action in that the plaintiff father has no standing to sue.

It would be the same if it were brought too late after the expiration of the statute of limitation. No case.

It's possible that the law could change some day but I'm at a loss to think of the mechanism. Certainly Obama is not going to try to change Roe. He has consistently voted in favor of abortion when he was a Senator in Illinois as any good liberal or idealogue would. I'm not trying to be policical there, just stating a fact. You can ask anyone.

So, there's not much more to say. Maybe it will change some day.....We have to keep hoping. Like Tim Robbin's character, Andy Dufrene, said to Morgan Freeman, playing Ellis "Red" Redding in The Shawshank Redemption.........." Red, hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"......

[Jay]

I have highlighted your three issues and will address this way:

If any future father of anyone of these scenerio children bring to light the threat to the unborn baby...then it is the courts who will get involved with those cases (Larry Birkhead)....Now, if there is NO future father complaining, then if their doctor perceives threatening lifestyle which endangers the unborn fetus, they can and do report that to the proper authorities...(like child abuse), then unfortunately, these scenerios never get exposed until the birth of those babies, and yes do become "Societies Burden" to treat, care for and raise...Sad by true.

So back to to the topic..It is entirely too complicated to assign one answer to father's rights..and simply have to deal with those rights on an individual circumstances..At this point, the courts deal with this issue one case at a time.

I for one dont believe in abortion, but that is for myself only, and understand the decision to abort has to be for that individual. There are many circumstances when abortion is the right decision, whether medically, or mentally thought based. Some people want to cookie cutter a law, however there is no ONE Right Answer to your question. Assigning Right or Wrong is in my mind not possible to such a convoluted issue.

LMS


That still does NOT answer my question.

Some have said that a woman has a right to do anything with HER body she wants to. I asked what I asked. IF the answer is YES, then that means that the baby is just out of luck when it's born, right?

If the answer is NO, then that means a woman does NOT have a right to do anything with her body she chooses.

I can never get a direct answer, yes or no, it is always another answer. There is a yes or no answer here.

In this case, as you suggested, I am not talking about a Father asserting a right, let's assume the Father is unknown.

I still want to know if a woman has a right to give birth to a baby addicted to crack?

[Jay]

Keep up the good posts, Jay. You sound smarter than most of the lawyers I practiced with. I hope you manage to stay away from Law school though. It's really an unleasant business.

Regards.


Why thank you for the nice compliment, it is appreciated.

Although I studied Criminal Law in College as my Major, I did not have the fortitude to go to Law school, it just was not in me. I give credit to those who did though.


Criminal law branches into so many other areas of Constitutional law, as the 4th is just a stepping stone to other protections, as the 5th and 6th outline and even the 2nd.

I have heard some lawyers say after they practiced for some years, if they would have known about the long hours, etc., involved, they may have chosen a different major.

[Jay]

I think you are missing my premise. If a father filed and had the funding and advocacy of a group behinde him he would have as good a chance at winning such a case as Roe did in her battle.

The cases I did find, as I said were not good cases to look at because there was disfunction on the man's part, and domestic violence. The father would need to be an average joe not someone that can be discredited.

It can be done. What surprises me the most is that with the number of pro life electeds you would think it would be even more possible, yet they refuse to touch the issue. It is hypocritical.

Look at the catalyst in the Roe case. She became the project, and the same needs to occur for caselaw to be established for a father.


I am not missing your premise, I understand, and yes, IF, that's IF, it were to be undertaken, there would have to be some heavy financial backers and high profile pro life attorney's on board.

Roe's case, as we pointed out, had a ready made constitutional claim in it to argue. True, the "right to privacy" was invented by the court to allow Roe, but still, it was not a legal stretch to appeal on.

As I pointed out if it has been in the 36 years since Roe, it was not successful.

As the SC points out, stare decisis is not always binding on the court, as they have reversed themselves about 200 times since thier existence in 1789, mostly minor decisions, but some major, most notably Brown v. Board overturing Plessy.

The Sodomy case, Lawrence v. Texas, they overruled themselves also from Bowers.

So I do understand your premise, trust me.

[Hengirl]

He doesn't deserve rights if he raped the woman.

[Tracian]

A "father" is not a "father" until a birth, imo. A human is BORN, not a 'parasite' (don't cringe at a scientific term). Even after then, far, far, too many "men" CHOOSE to abandon their parental responsiblity. We see it everywhere, in every state, in every city. This is not to say that there are decent, responsible fathers in our world, but you know as well as I that that just isn't the norm.

It is not his body or his health or his direct livelyhood that is affected during a pregnancy. Women are not incubators. We are not wombs. And we have the right, as men do, to decide what happens to our bodies. Have women not been treated like property instead of individuals long enough?? And, I fully believe with my whole heart, that if men could get pregnant, that abortion would be a non-issue.

Men who do not want to become fathers practice abstinence, ie self-reliance. I have yet to meet a man who thinks that birth control is a two way street - they claim "she got pregnant" as though they played no part. Or, the ever popular "she tricked me" as though the men had no forthought into their OWN birth control and future.

Men have the right to decide what happens to their bodies.

Woment have the RIGHT to decide what happens to their bodies.

THEIR bodies, not someone ELSES.

No brainer folks.


Yep...you summed it up...well done!:thumbsup:

[Jay]

Well Muffin, all I can say is a person who was very close me, a father to be, his wife had an abortion after telling him she was going to, so the love and honor and cherish in sickness and in health, for better or worse meant nothing to her.


While she was away exercising her "constitutional right", his living heart was being ripped out to the point he was almost in a crazy state, so you women who choose to do such are selfish and actually make me sick.

[dref99]

Well Muffin, all I can say is a person who was very close me, a father to be, his wife had an abortion after telling him she was going to, so the love and honor and cherish in sickness and in health, for better or worse meant nothing to her.


While she was away exercising her "constitutional right", his living heart was being ripped out to the point he was almost in a crazy state, so you women who choose to do such are selfish and actually make me sick.


Well Jay - all I can say is, if the wife of this person who was very close to you, chose to have an abortion, she can't have been very close to him or he would have known she did not want to have a child. It takes 2 to make a child, 2 to love a child and 2 to look after that child. In so many cases men abandon this role, often well before the child is born.

If a man is so desperate to have a child, I would suggest he check out with his partner first if she also wants to go down this path, not simply expect that she will do this because it is his desire.

As for ripping out his living heart, I'm sure he will quickly find someone to put it back together!

jmo

[Details]

Well Muffin, all I can say is a person who was very close me, a father to be, his wife had an abortion after telling him she was going to, so the love and honor and cherish in sickness and in health, for better or worse meant nothing to her.


While she was away exercising her "constitutional right", his living heart was being ripped out to the point he was almost in a crazy state, so you women who choose to do such are selfish and actually make me sick.His heart was ripped out metaphorically. A woman forced to continue a pregnancy has REAL risks to non-metaphorically destroy any number of organs or die, have all kinds of medical issues. There's no metaphor - it's reality. He doesn't get to force her to go through with that because he wants a child and she does not.

My father had his heart ripped out by a woman, almost made him literally crazy, he couldn't eat, a real life-threatening situation for awhile. It was because she broke up with him. Should women be thus forbidden to break up with men because it hurts them? Nope.

This is about the facts, and the simple fact that to have a baby requires the woman, and only the woman, to choose to sacrifice her body and take risks no man has to take, and this must always be a choice.

[mafitz701]

I am not missing your premise, I understand, and yes, IF, that's IF, it were to be undertaken, there would have to be some heavy financial backers and high profile pro life attorney's on board.

Roe's case, as we pointed out, had a ready made constitutional claim in it to argue. True, the "right to privacy" was invented by the court to allow Roe, but still, it was not a legal stretch to appeal on.

As I pointed out if it has been in the 36 years since Roe, it was not successful.

As the SC points out, stare decisis is not always binding on the court, as they have reversed themselves about 200 times since thier existence in 1789, mostly minor decisions, but some major, most notably Brown v. Board overturing Plessy.

The Sodomy case, Lawrence v. Texas, they overruled themselves also from Bowers.

So I do understand your premise, trust me.

Okay Jay see this is where it would fail. Father's rights are not about Pro Choice v Pro Life. For something like this to take place no one should be pro life or pro choice. The reason being that the subject would become political and the moment it does that it loses its credibility.

I am Pro Choice for a reason. Nothing will ever change my mind on that issue. I am a woman and developed my view from hard fought experience.

I am for father's rights also, which has nothing to do with abortion. There is a difference between the two.

The best way to fight for Pro Life would be to fight for men to have access to better birth control. Men should be able to take a birth control pill to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

[LisaM22]

A thread on the Politics Thread had me thinking how unfair it is to fathers of unborn children that only the mothers have the choice to abort.

In the thread, it tells of a couple who had made the decision of having a child, but after seeing what it did to the mother's waist line, she aborted the child. The father was devastated.

There were two people who were bringing this child into the world and were going to be parents. The mother ended this child's life for her vain reasons, while the father had planned on being a father for the rest of his life. It just didn't seem fair.

A woman is in charge of her own body and her waistline is part of it. Just at what cost?

What do you think? Does a father have a right to decide this issue, too?

if they want to create a baby and bring it into this world they can, for right now all they can do is give a women a critical ingredient to life, the women still needs to bake the cake and she can decide not to if she wants - a father can ask the women up front what would happen if she got pregnant, and not have sex with her if she did not want to have children right now or take a chance that she may get pregnant and need a abortion no matter what bc is used - men have a choice, just forcing women to have their baby is not one of those choices

your own words says it best "There were two people who were bringing this child into the world and were going to be parents." -- they were not parents yet as no baby had been born

[LisaM22]

a women can give up a baby once it is born and never pay child support, a man can't do the same thing, do you think they should be able too? men and women both have choices, they are each responsible for their own bodies, not the body of their partners - things do not always turn out like you want them too, that is a fact of life

fact is, men can not force a women to have or not have an abortion, you give them one right and the other comes with it too

[penguin01]

a women can give up a baby once it is born and never pay child support, a man can't do the same thing, do you think they should be able too? men and women both have choices, they are each responsible for their own bodies, not the body of their partners - things do not always turn out like you want them too, that is a fact of life

fact is, men can not force a women to have or not have an abortion, you give them one right and the other comes with it too

OMIG - can't you just imagine all the irrisponsible teen-aged boys - and the men who act like them - cheering for that idea? Yay - no more condoms! They would be freely going about being happy-go lucky sperm donors -with no concern about having to participate in the support of a child.

[Details]

They were a married couple? A married Father might stand more of a chance taking it to court with a cease and desist order to prevent the abortion. ...I doubt it - abortion rights aren't about the ability to create a child - they are about an individual's right to control their own body. Until the father can risk his own health, even his own waistline - he can't share the risks, no reason he should be able to force her to take the risks.

If a husband can be pregnant, then they, and only they, can decide if the pregnancy goes forward in their own body, or not - the wife should not be able to force them to abort, nor force them to continue an undesired pregnancy. Likewise, they cannot control their wife's body, force her to take risks or accept the changes that do come with pregnancy.

Everything goes back to the body - not reproductive choices, not anyone's desire to have or not have a child, not child support. It's about pregnancy causing massive changes to the mother's body, requiring a large real time commitment, having risks to their job, health, figure, and life.

We have no situation where someone is required to take a health risk to save another.

If you get tested for bone marrow compatibility, and a cute little boy is dying of leukemia, and you are the only match - and you chicken out - we cannot demand you donate marrow, even though it is safe and only a minor discomfort, minor time expenditure, minor risks.
If you are dying for lack of a blood transfusion, and the only possible donor feels needle-phobic, or worries about a clot, or whatever else - they still cannot be forced to so much as donate blood, even to save your life.
But some would say a potential life is worth forcing a woman to endure 9 months of change, discomfort, lifetime physical changes, and real risks to her health AND life.

[kellabeck]

A thread on the Politics Thread had me thinking how unfair it is to fathers of unborn children that only the mothers have the choice to abort.

In the thread, it tells of a couple who had made the decision of having a child, but after seeing what it did to the mother's waist line, she aborted the child. The father was devastated.

There were two people who were bringing this child into the world and were going to be parents. The mother ended this child's life for her vain reasons, while the father had planned on being a father for the rest of his life. It just didn't seem fair.

A woman is in charge of her own body and her waistline is part of it. Just at what cost?

What do you think? Does a father have a right to decide this issue, too?

I find it hard to believe that a woman aborted a viable fetus "because of her waistline."

This brings to mind the kind of talk promoted by the likes of Bill O'Reilly and the notion that thousands and thousands of women are going through pregnancies into the last month and then suddenly deciding not to have the baby after all because they have a concert to go to or they're depressed. This is nonsense.

Late term abortions are performed because of serious situations, like the health/life of the mother, or because the baby is majorly deformed and won't live anyway.

They aren't performed on whims.

[FurthurBB]

Does that include a woman who uses drugs while pregnant and has a baby addicted to crack?


Does that include a woman who is an alcoholic and has a baby born with fetal alcohol syndrome?


Fetal alcohol exposure is the leading known cause of mental retardation in the Western world.[10][dubious – discuss] In the United States the FAS prevalence rate is estimated to be between 0.2 and 2.0 cases per 1,000 live births, comparable to or higher than other developmental disabilities such as Down syndrome or spina bifida.[11][dubious – discuss] The lifetime medical and social costs of each child with FAS are estimated to be as high as US$800,000

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_alcohol_syndrome

Wow! That article is crap considering that Down syndrome is a chromosomal disorder and not a developmental disorder. Alcohol is the leading cause of birth defects let us not add nonsense to it. Also, this has nothing to do with a man. IMO

[FurthurBB]

Well Muffin, all I can say is a person who was very close me, a father to be, his wife had an abortion after telling him she was going to, so the love and honor and cherish in sickness and in health, for better or worse meant nothing to her.


While she was away exercising her "constitutional right", his living heart was being ripped out to the point he was almost in a crazy state, so you women who choose to do such are selfish and actually make me sick.

I am sorry you feel like you are so special and should have more rights than anyone else, but, that attitude is absolutely selfish and makes me sick. IMO

[lunchlady]

A thread on the Politics Thread had me thinking how unfair it is to fathers of unborn children that only the mothers have the choice to abort.

In the thread, it tells of a couple who had made the decision of having a child, but after seeing what it did to the mother's waist line, she aborted the child. The father was devastated.

There were two people who were bringing this child into the world and were going to be parents. The mother ended this child's life for her vain reasons, while the father had planned on being a father for the rest of his life. It just didn't seem fair.

A woman is in charge of her own body and her waistline is part of it. Just at what cost?

What do you think? Does a father have a right to decide this issue, too?

This woman sounds like a poor bet for motherhood, if she decided to abort a previously wanted baby just because of her waistline. She was surprised about having an expanding waistline? Was it really just vanity or did the relationship change when her figure changed?
Is she unable to think realistically or extremely immature or even mentally unstable?
I suspect there is more to this story than just an Evil Woman. Anti-abortion stories often feature an Evil Woman, I've noticed.

Yes, I think the father should have some say, but the final decision is still left with the woman, perhaps because there is still such an inequity in responsibility for the child after its born. That perhaps doesn't fair but think of how many single moms you know compared to how many single dads.
I recently heard a divorced dad slip and say "her kids" when referring to his own children. He's moved on to the next woman who wants children of her own.Mom is the default parent, which is biology but also our cultural norms. Perhaps this woman sensed that she was going to end up doing all the work and Dad was just going to bask in the manly glory of being a Dad? I'm just guessing, but like I said above I bet there's more to this story than the OP states.

[Details]

This woman sounds like a poor bet for motherhood, if she decided to abort a previously wanted baby just because of her waistline. She was surprised about having an expanding waistline? Was it really just vanity or did the relationship change when her figure changed?
Is she unable to think realistically or extremely immature or even mentally unstable?
I suspect there is more to this story than just an Evil Woman. Anti-abortion stories often feature an Evil Woman, I've noticed.

Yes, I think the father should have some say, but the final decision is still left with the woman, perhaps because there is still such an inequity in responsibility for the child after its born. That perhaps doesn't fair but think of how many single moms you know compared to how many single dads.
I recently heard a divorced dad slip and say "her kids" when referring to his own children. He's moved on to the next woman who wants children of her own.Mom is the default parent, which is biology but also our cultural norms. Perhaps this woman sensed that she was going to end up doing all the work and Dad was just going to bask in the manly glory of being a Dad? I'm just guessing, but like I said above I bet there's more to this story than the OP states.Yeah, whenever you hear a word of mouth story like this, from one side only - you can bet there's more to it than that.

I think the reason the decision can only be left with the woman is not due to inequity AFTER the child is born - but before. We risk death, illness, injury, we have to deal with all of the physical and emotional effects, some before, some after birth. The father quite simply has none of that.

Their body is not affected, they do not die in childbirth, they do not get gestational diabetes, they do not get postpartum depression, they do not get a huge belly that makes them unemployable and a target for firing, they do not have 9 months of increasing exhaustion, nausea, etc., they do not have to deal with recovery, the year or more it takes for your body to return to normal even in a good pregnancy - not even so much as a few stitches in their genitals after delivery - none of it.

If they had to deal with that, if they could take that rather than the woman, then I'd say it was entirely their choice to carry or not. Of course - as the very wise and balanced Roe Vs Wade decision stated - within guidelines that take into account the degree of development of the fetus. Anyone who tells a tale of a late term abortion that was "just because she felt like it" is simply not correct, because legally, per Roe V Wade and many state laws - you cannot get a late term abortion "just because". There are limits of increasing difficulty the further into the pregnancy you get, based on a complex balancing act of the development of the fetus into a baby, versus the woman's right to her own body and to choose how much to risk her health and life.

[Brentwood]

A thread on the Politics Thread had me thinking how unfair it is to fathers of unborn children that only the mothers have the choice to abort.

In the thread, it tells of a couple who had made the decision of having a child, but after seeing what it did to the mother's waist line, she aborted the child. The father was devastated.

There were two people who were bringing this child into the world and were going to be parents. The mother ended this child's life for her vain reasons, while the father had planned on being a father for the rest of his life. It just didn't seem fair.

A woman is in charge of her own body and her waistline is part of it. Just at what cost?

What do you think? Does a father have a right to decide this issue, too?

Link please to the devastated father story.

[Keegan]

This board is a good reminder to parents. If your son is against abortions teach him to use protection until he is ready for the responsibility of an aborted baby or fatherhood.

[Mimi428]

I find it hard to believe that a woman aborted a viable fetus "because of her waistline."

This brings to mind the kind of talk promoted by the likes of Bill O'Reilly and the notion that thousands and thousands of women are going through pregnancies into the last month and then suddenly deciding not to have the baby after all because they have a concert to go to or they're depressed. This is nonsense.

Late term abortions are performed because of serious situations, like the health/life of the mother, or because the baby is majorly deformed and won't live anyway.

They aren't performed on whims.

I'm with you, I find it more than a little hard to believe that there is any truth to this "I want to be pregnant, but gosh, I didn't know it would affect my waistline, so nevermind, I'm getting an abortion" story. And I certainly don't believe that late-term abortions are performed in this country simply because some woman decides in the 7th or 8th month that she has changed her mind & doesn't want to be pregnant anymore.

I think the whole discussion would be a lot more productive if there were fewer preposterous claims that utterly defy reality. Hard to have a serious debate on any subject when the original premise is so far out in left field it has entered into some other universe.

[lunchlady]

This board is a good reminder to parents. If your son is against abortions teach him to use protection until he is ready for the responsibility of an aborted baby or fatherhood.

Absolutely. No more double standard. No more "sowing his wild oats" like its a cute thing, no more "boys will be boys".

[lunchlady]

I'm with you, I find it more than a little hard to believe that there is any truth to this "I want to be pregnant, but gosh, I didn't know it would affect my waistline, so nevermind, I'm getting an abortion" story. And I certainly don't believe that late-term abortions are performed in this country simply because some woman decides in the 7th or 8th month that she has changed her mind & doesn't want to be pregnant anymore.

I think the whole discussion would be a lot more productive if there were fewer preposterous claims that utterly defy reality. Hard to have a serious debate on any subject when the original premise is so far out in left field it has entered into some other universe.

ITA. I'm tired of these Evil Women and Evil Doctors fairy tales. I'm sure you can find an example of such characters, but I think nearly all of them are made up or highly highly exaggerated.