Hypothetical: Let's say I get a woman pregnant. She doesn't want to have the child but I do. She is planning on having an abortion, and I am against it. What rights does a father have? Can a father sue the mother to prevent the abortion? Kinda sparked by an article on yahoo today that talks about a father who created a billboard of a 2 year old baby, and it said "this is what my baby would have looked like if her mother hadn't aborted our child". or something like that.
Tough question, I'd be pissed if I wanted the child and she went off and had it murdered. What a see you next tuesday. Sure, I guess it would be tough on her to carry it for 9 months and then give birth but hey, a few strokes of the pen and you never have to see the child again. Hope she goes to jail.
I think you're right and if he did have a legal say then it would be problematic to the pro choice side of the argument. It can't be about the woman having the right if the man has a say in it.
Correct, prevailing cases have decided that it is the woman’s choice. I’ve read one case that the father was willing to accept complete and sole liability for the child and the courts said it is nothing they can do, it is the woman’s choice. I’m pro choice when it comes to some very fact specific scenarios, but I think it is bull **** that the father has no say in the matter. But then again if the woman doesn’t care about the pregnancy or the baby do you really want her to carry it to term…sounds like fetal alcohol syndrome waiting to happen.
Hmmm, I am a pro-choice guy, but this kind of a conundrum for me. On one hand I totally believe in the mother's rights, but at the same time, if there is a perfect way for the mother to have the child with no risk, and then immediately give up that child to the father, couldn't that be construed as a viable option, or even a better option? But, lets say the mother is some rich woman, if the mother agreed to give up custody to the father after birth, could the father sue for child support? Kind of a 180 going on....
Being that you are a woman, I totally respect the fact that you feel that way. However I cannot and will not ever support men in congress and the senate, federal and state, telling a woman what she can and cannot do with her body. This is such a touchy subject, and a very confusing one.
No. If he had such a right, then he could also sue to assure an abortion. When you get pregnant, then you get to choose what happens with a pregnancy. Not until then and nobody else gets to choose. Say the mother died during childbirth. Do we charge the father with murder? No. What if the father dies when the child is one month old? The baby goes back to his mother. Say the child is born with profound retardation requiring permanent 24-hour care and the father defaults on his promise? What if the father simply skips out when the child is 6? No, it is the mother in all cases who has to carry the child to viability and who will end up with all responsibility for it when anyone else defaults on it. It must ultimately be her life, her body, and her decision what to do with it. Abortion is a personal, private family matter between a woman, her husband, her pastor and her doctor. The family makes a choice based on their medical and spiritual advisers. The government has no business interfering. Third parties have no business interfering. If the father and mother have a difference of opinion, they should work it out. If they can't then it is the mothers decision.
Yeah…this is the thing…like Sooner said, if the child was born she could not touch it, but before the second trimester she can kill it. Makes no since, the child should have rights to in my opinion. I'm mean come on...they won't even let you end your life with medical assistance, but you can kill one before it takes it first breath? Just don't seem to me to have one outside very few circumstances.
i guess that would depend on what the general consensus is when it comes to when "life" is determined. I mean how far back does it go? Is the morning after pill considered abortion?
