Situation:
A man and a woman have sex. End result is that the woman gets pregnant. She decides not to have the baby. The man wants the kid. He wants to have a son or daughter. However, the woman decides to get the abortion, thereby terminating her parental duties. And there’s nothing that the man can do. All well and good in the eyes of the law, right? If I’m missing something crucial anywhere along the way here, please point it out to me.
Second situation:
A man and a woman have sex. End result is that the woman gets pregnant. The man wants her to have an abortion, because he doesn’t want the responsibilities (any of them) of having a child of his. She sees it otherwise, and has the kid anyway. So now, he’s stuck with a kid that he doesn’t want.
My question is…why does the woman get to make all of the decision in this case? Is that child only hers? Doesn’t it also belong to the father? Reproductive rights and choice, but only for the woman in the equation?
Comments, counterpoints, opinions are all, of course, welcomed.
The woman is the one gets pregnant, so what to do about the pregnancy has to be up to her. Males can’t always be in charge of everything. This is something they just have to get used to.
I guess Hazel’s point is that they don’t have equal responsibilities so one shouldn’t expect equal rights/consideration. There is also the problem that a man’s decision to have a baby without the woman’s consent would basically coerce the woman into doing something she doesn’t want to(9 months hormonal/physical changes terminating in an apparently painful procedure).
It’s whether or not you consider her body sovereign territory or not. And I know there are oodles of examples of house-husbands and stay-at-home fathers, but realistically speaking, having a child has by far the biggest impact on the female parent, not the male.
And if you really, really don’t want a child, TAKE PRECAUTIONS. Part of which is bearing in mind that no contraception is failsafe, so if you have made the decision to have a sexual relationship, you are also making a decision to run the risk of a pregnancy. This goes for both genders obviously.
What we all fail to remember is that no matter how much fun intercourse is, it’s primary biological purpose is procreation.
“Decisions” should be made before the (f)act, not after. If a man does not want kids, let him cover his dick before he dives. Then he won’t have to worry about what the woman does later. If he does want kids, let him make a conscious effort to find a woman who wants kids too, not just sex.
I’m not saying that women should have no responsibility to prevent pregnancy. I’m only saying that if you fail to exercise your responsibilities when you should, you’re left with the result, whatever it may be.
Men like to act like they have absolutely NO decision-making capability in the matter of procreation. A man’s primary decision-making takes place BEFORE the sex act. If you give no sperm, there can be no kids.
Cillasi: Well said. Nature did not make the game equal, but the idea that a man could require a woman to have an abortion or he wouldn’t support the child creates some pretty horrible scenarios.
But if both sides disagree on the outcome, it is logically impossible for “equal” consideration to exist. The fetus is either aborted or not aborted-you cannot birth half a baby. I think that what Rodney is really asking is why, if the two sides cannot agree, does the final decision fall on the female. The answer is obvious, of course.
The man has no say because it’s not his body. It’s that simple.
Just out of curiosity though:
1.) how would the man be able to prove that he was the one who impregnated the woman? (in either the case where the man disagreed with the woman’s decision)
2.) Even if the man was given some kind of equal standing with the woman as to decisions about her body ( a truly repulsive thought) all you would have is a stalemate. You would still not have a case where the wishes of the male would take precedence over the wishes of the female. How would you break the stalemate?
A variant on the question: Man wants child; woman doesn’t. Would it be within reason for him to have either permissive or coercive rights to expect her to complete the pregnancy (which as noted is biologically hers to decide), after which he takes sole responsibility for the welfare of the child? Note that “permissive or coercive” makes it two separate questions – i.e., (1) can he contractually arrange with her that she will not terminate the pregnancy and he will reimburse her for the inconvenience of her pregnancy and delivery, and (2) might he be able to compel her to do so, once they have conceived a child together, since he is physiologically incapable of bearing (as opposed to begetting) the child he wants? I’m not necessarily advocating either, just raising collateral questions in this regard.
Of course the woman can agree to whatever arrangement she wants, but the man has no coercive rights whatsoever. It is absolutely unjustifiable even to contemplate granting one person any sovereignty at all over the physical body of another. The woman owns one hundered percent of her own body, the man owns zero percent. End of argument.
And for those who insist on a man’s having a right to have a child, might I suggest adoption? Yeah, it might be difficult and time-consuming and expensive, but so is pregnancy, and you don’t have to put up with labor pains.
Not to minds, to money. No one has a right to be a billionaire, and the government has a responsibility to look after the well-being of all its citizens. I am a dyed in the wool redistributionist. If you have too much money, the government needs to take it away from you. You can think and say whatever you want about it, but you’re gonna give up the green (in Diogenetopia, that is).
Surely I’m not the first to come up with this solution but I guess I’m the first in this thread. How about this:
If a female wants an abortion, she can get one, despite the protests of the male. The male has no choice in the matter.
If a female wants to keep the baby, she can, despite the protests of the male. But in this case, the man must sign a contract which extinguishes both his rights and his obligations towards said baby. The female, knowing she will receive no financial support for that baby can make her decision on what to do based upon that knowledge.
flame away.