Ask Your Question today
Let's say there is a couple (male/female). They've been together for a significant amount of time (not that time really matters in this case) and they become pregnant. The female does not want to keep the child but the male does. Do you think the male should have any say in if the female can have an abortion or not?
Explain your answers in the comments.
| Yes | 22 | |
| No | 16 | |
| Not sure | 14 |
Legally, no, but ideally his opinion should matter. He is a human being with feelings and it is his potential child too. He will feel the loss of the pregnancy too even though he is not the one going through the procedure.
I say legally no because to force a woman through pregnancy is just unconscionable. It's slavery, it's a health risk, it's mentally taxing, it can deform her body, she could be unsuitable for carrying a baby, she could have genetic issues, who knows and that's her business, she should have the right to have a medical procedure without justifying it or it violating her privacy.
Thank you for your answer.
I actually think about this question a lot and I'm in agreeance with you.
Ultimately I think it is the woman's choice since she bares the 'burden' of carrying the child for nine months. On the other hand is it really fair to the male to give him no say? That child is half of his creation. That child wouldn't even be there if it wasn't for his semen. Again not fighting against what you said was just really curious what others thought.
I think it should be the choice of the woman because in order to have children, they have to sacrifice more (usually). However, if a woman is anti-abortion but still doesn't want the kid, she could still sign over parental rights to the father. Both parties would win in this case (man gets the child, woman doesn't have to worry anymore).
If it was a one night stand, no, since you guys are actually in a relationship and have been for awhile you should get a say.
I'm going with the Supreme Court, her body, she can do with it what she wants.
The Right to Life group can STFU until every baby/child in every orphanage has been adopted.
The male has no say in whether the female keeps it. But as the child of a single mother, i believe the father shouldn't be forced to pay child support. If you can't support the kid, and don't want to give it up to people who can, then you don't deserve any money for your stupid choices. You had the kid, you carried the kid, you ignored the father's wishes, you suffer.
Whoever wants, and can afford the kid, should get to have it. Love means nothing if you can't provide for a child who didn't ask to be born.
Ah. Are you saying if the man wants the child but it's ultimately up to the mother whether to have an abortion or not, if she chooses no against the mans will and goes ahead with the abortive procedure she'll have to pay child support to the man for 18 years even thou the fetus has already been flushed.... That's an interesting perspective
Hmm? If the fetus has been aborted then there isn't any reason for talk of child support at all.
If the man is hurt that his kid wasn't born he can easily go make more. Hopefully with a woman who actually wants to carry his child
I'm saying that fathers have no say in whether the kid is aborted or not. And mothers who had a kid as a result of consensual adult sex deserve no sympathy or money for their actions.
If a man wants his kid and can provide for it better than the mother, then the kid should go to him.
It's a very slippery subjust because this one can go into a third trimester abortion aka "partial birth abortion" There's no such thing as "a little bit pregnant" either you are or aren't.
I'd say if it was consensual and she got pregnant and he wanted the kid he can pay her spousal support for 9 months and have the kid sparing the tax payer the Partial Birth Abortion procedure cost for her mistake.
The public shouldn't be funding procedures for people that said "whoops I made a mistake, oh well" just like they shouldn't be funding sex change operations
Pay her to carry the baby and give it to him once its born? Sounds reasonable, but she may not find the experience worth the money.
And if the government isn't willing to pay for abortions, then it needs to lower the cost of adoption.
As for the last bit of your comment, that's a bit random and highly irrelevant
That last bit of my comment means tax payers shouldn't be paying for someone elses mistake (abortion) especially when there's countless contraceptives out there which boils down to irresponsibility, the next step is already here, tax payers paying for sex changes.
I don't think you see the part where people need to take responsibility for their actions, its like having car insurance except there's no "abortion insurance" and somebody has to pay.
"but she may not find the experience worth the money"
Ok sure fine but what if she doesn't have the money for an abortion due to her irresponsibility? Then either the FATHER provides support for 9 months and gets sole custody of the baby or oh yeah, it isn't worth the MONEY to her, then she shall get one publicly funded abortion and if it happens again it's mandatory sterilization, although I'd opt for the first. Sound fair?
Regardless of whether its the man or the woman that wants to keep the child if either of them doesn't want it to be born then it shouldn't be the effects on the parents if it is born can be psychologically crippling
Of course! Even if she doesn't want to become a mother he has every right to be a father.
I don't think the guy has anything to say about it unless he can carry the child to term. If she agrees to do that then opt out of the child's life, she may do so, however the father must be the single parent and not decide to quit later and try to pawn off the child.
I also don't think he deserves child support.
Child support is a right of the child, not 'him' or 'her' (dad or mom). If a child is born it deserves to be supported by the people who created it. The state also has the interest in support from the parents as the first line of responsibility, otherwise we all have to pay for it while the people directly responsible for it go free.
You can't sign off a third party's rights. You can't tell the child or the state that you won't pay, the child and the state and the taxpayers have an interest in you paying and it's far outside your rights to deny that.
If the mother doesn't want to bring the child to term, but does so because the father wants it, then the woman should have no responsibility for the child thereafter. She's just the surrogate womb, nothing more.
Your way forces the woman to have an abortion, with or without the father's consent. How does that make sense?
No, it simply doesn't discriminate based on gender. Neither gender can sign off a third party's rights.