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?

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.

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

Best answer yet!!

[Carol25]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Carol25

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]

Originally Posted by Carol25

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]

Originally Posted by Deb7

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]

Originally Posted by crocdog1

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]

Originally Posted by 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....

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

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.

[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.]

Originally Posted by Carol25

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]

Originally Posted by Carol25

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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/Paterna...s_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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by Jay

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]

Originally Posted by gnm109

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]

Originally Posted by Jay

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]

Originally Posted by gnm109

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]

Originally Posted by Jay

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]

Originally Posted by Jay

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]

Originally Posted by Jay

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]

Originally Posted by LisaM22

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]

Originally Posted by Details

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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?

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by gnm109

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]

Originally Posted by airportwoman

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.