# Abortion and Mens Rights **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 13, 2009, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-and-mens-rights/489376 "2009-03-13T23:04:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![CutterJohn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/91b2a8/32.png) [@CutterJohn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CutterJohn)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2009, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-and-mens-rights/489376/41 "2009-03-14T20:25:59Z")
I’ve always been a fan of: 1st trimester: Womans choice alone. 2nd trimester: Father has to consent as well(with the exception of rape) 3rd trimester: Illegal, except for danger to the mother, same as now. I’m all for a womans right to abortion, but its one of the few arguements I can actually understand both sides of the argument clearly, and i feel some consideration is needed for the child as well as the mother. 3 months is, IMEUO(In my entirely uneducated opinion), enough time for the mother to decide to abort the fetus. After that, I think the father should gain some rights, as well as the child. Yeah, this means the woman loses some control over her body, but, hell… Whats so wrong about that? I spent 7 years in the military with only marginal control over my body. Sure, I volunteered, but for the most part, pregnancy is voluntary as well(even if accidental, it is still a risk). I had to submit to operations without my consent… They didn’t ask if I wanted my wisdom teeth pulled, they just told me to show up at the dental office. Didn’t ask about the anthrax vaccinations either. I feel a gradual escalation of rights for the fetus and father is acceptable, from easy free and clear abortions from conception, to requiring all sorts of legal loopholes be jumped just before birth. As I said though, all just my opinion. I’ve no real dog in this fight, having no uterus, nor any desire to have kids. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2009, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-and-mens-rights/489376/42 "2009-03-14T20:43:44Z")
> [@Zeke\_N.Destroi](#): > > I know and that really bothers me too. > > But I can’t help feeling that I am being deprived of something that I deeply want through a problem of biology. I’d be happy to carry the kid if it could be passed off but I can’t. > > It is both our fault that the pregnancy exists. It is not my fault that I couldn’t get pregnant and she could. But she gets to choose whether I lose my future child and all things attendant or I get some visitation and child support. > > That seems like a double standard and it bugs me that I can’t reconcile it. That’s partly why I started this thread. It’s part of the unfairness of biology. Until we can medically change that things won’t change. I think it’s sad if a man was able and willing to support a child and the pregnant mother decided to abort but realistically, it’s still her choice. ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2009, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-and-mens-rights/489376/43 "2009-03-14T20:56:29Z")
I approach this from two directions: 1. If you are positing that the father has some “right” to have the product of conception using his sperm to be born, I assert that this should not be a right, because inherent in that assertion is the assumption that humans should have rights over other humans. In short, you are treating the baby as something that the father has a right in (in this case, the right being to force that the baby be allowed to come to term and be born). This smacks of something more than faintly “propertyish.” 2. If you are positing that the father has a “right” to see that the baby gets born as a proxy for whatever rights the baby has, then you haven’t really solved anything in the ongoing question of whether or not abortion should be allowed, and under what circumstances. Any such proxy right would only exist if we already decided that unborn babies have some legal standing that precludes aborting them. In such case, I’m not sure it’s really necessary to place the “right” to object to an abortion in the proxy of the father; after all, the state has many other ways to make sure that the unborn baby’s right is safeguarded. I will note one thing in response to something someone said above ( **Diogenes**?): there is no reason to believe we can’t do paternity testing on fetuses, even at a quite early stage in pregnancy, though there may at present be some practical limitations. So asserting that as a practical objection to the concept of the OP is not going to hold water, I think. But a more important practical consideration does come up: suppose we grant such a “right” to the putative father of a child. Does that mean that a partner during intercourse has a right to insist that you not use a morning after pill? Or some other method of early abortion? Just how does that get enforced? ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2009, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-and-mens-rights/489376/44 "2009-03-14T20:59:18Z")
> [@Valgard](#): > > In the end, it’s her body and her choice. But the OP seems constructed to make the applicability of this principle unclear. For in the end, everything I do involves my body and is my choice–but this does not mean that no one ever has a right to compell me to do something. ---
**Author:** ![alphaboi867](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alphaboi867/32/3898_2.png) [@alphaboi867](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alphaboi867)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2009, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-and-mens-rights/489376/45 "2009-03-14T21:01:51Z")
> [@Paleface](#): > > …To further illustrate the point, unmarried mothers are not required to name the biological father at the time of birth. If the mother wishes, she can choose to raise the child herself. The state is not concerned if the child is raised fatherless, nor is there any concern for the misnamed “right” to support… AFAIK, if a single mother applys for any kind of government assistance or welfare the state devlops a big interest in knowing who the father is. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2009, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-and-mens-rights/489376/46 "2009-03-14T21:02:20Z")
> [@DSYoungEsq](#): > > But a more important practical consideration does come up: suppose we grant such a “right” to the putative father of a child. Does that mean that a partner during intercourse has a right to insist that you not use a morning after pill? I thought the OP made it clear that s/he’s talking about situations in which the fetus is developing into a child both parties wanted, fully rationally and consensually. If the woman changed her mind the very next morning, that’s not a case of a rationally and consensually jointly “wanted” child. ---
**Author:** ![CutterJohn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/91b2a8/32.png) [@CutterJohn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CutterJohn)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2009, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-and-mens-rights/489376/47 "2009-03-14T21:12:35Z")
> [@DSYoungEsq](#): > > I approach this from two directions: > > 1. If you are positing that the father has some “right” to have the product of conception using his sperm to be born, I assert that this should not be a right, because inherent in that assertion is the assumption that humans should have rights over other humans. In short, you are treating the baby as something that the father has a right in (in this case, the right being to force that the baby be allowed to come to term and be born). This smacks of something more than faintly “propertyish.” I’ll be by tomorrow to pick up your kids. You don’t mind if I have them, right? Since they aren’t your property? Now, I have zero desire to take anyones kids for any reason, since they are far more responsibility than I care to take on, but this position of yours says to me that you wouldn’t care if some person just took someone elses kids without permission, so long as they were being well cared for. Correct me if I’m wrong, but thats how I read it. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2009, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-and-mens-rights/489376/48 "2009-03-14T21:25:34Z")
> [@CutterJohn](#): > > I’m all for a womans right to abortion, but its one of the few arguements I can actually understand both sides of the argument clearly, and i feel some consideration is needed for the child as well as the mother. What child? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2009, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-and-mens-rights/489376/49 "2009-03-14T21:26:40Z")
> [@CutterJohn](#): > > I’ll be by tomorrow to pick up your kids. You don’t mind if I have them, right? Since they aren’t your property? Now, I have zero desire to take anyones kids for any reason, since they are far more responsibility than I care to take on, but this position of yours says to me that you wouldn’t care if some person just took someone elses kids without permission, so long as they were being well cared for. Correct me if I’m wrong, but thats how I read it. He was talking about the attempt to make a property claim on something that’s inside another person’s body, not about asserting parental rights when there is actually a child. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2009, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-and-mens-rights/489376/50 "2009-03-14T21:31:55Z")
> [@DSYoungEsq](#): > > I will note one thing in response to something someone said above ( **Diogenes**?): there is no reason to believe we can’t do paternity testing on fetuses, even at a quite early stage in pregnancy, though there may at present be some practical limitations. So asserting that as a practical objection to the concept of the OP is not going to hold water, I think. Right now it can only be done by puncturing the placenta and taking a sample of amniotoc fluid. A procedure that is both highly invasive and unconfortable as well as risky to the fetus. Plus, there are privacy considerations – what right does one person have to order another person to give him a sample of her own bodily fluids? If I want to assert that I’m the real father of your wife’s developing fetus, should I have the right to demand an invasive test? This kind of law would be a huge can of worms. A HUGE can of worms. ---
**Author:** ![CutterJohn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/91b2a8/32.png) [@CutterJohn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CutterJohn)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2009, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-and-mens-rights/489376/51 "2009-03-14T22:16:27Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Right now it can only be done by puncturing the placenta and taking a sample of amniotoc fluid. A procedure that is both highly invasive and unconfortable as well as risky to the fetus. > > Plus, there are privacy considerations – what right does one person have to order another person to give him a sample of her own bodily fluids? If I want to assert that I’m the real father of your wife’s developing fetus, should I have the right to demand an invasive test? > > This kind of law would be a huge can of worms. A HUGE can of worms. How often do women assert that a particular man is the real father, and have a court order the father to undergo an invasive test to get a sample of bodily fluids for a paternity test in order to force him to pay child support? Woman wants child, Man doesn’t: Tough titty for the man. Sorry, here’s 18 years of child support to console you. Man wants child, woman doesn’t: Tough titty for the man. Sorry, the fetus is dead. Try it with another woman. Man and woman both don’t want child: You’re lucky she picked the same option as you, since you didn’t have a choice anyway. Man and woman both want child: You’re lucky she picked the same option as you, since you didn’t have a choice anyway. Apparently, as a man, the entirety of your purpose is to act as a sperm donor, then financial support, and at no time between conception and birth do you have any rights to exercise. Seems a bit messed up to me. ---
**Author:** ![alexandra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e68b1a/32.png) [@alexandra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alexandra)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2009, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-and-mens-rights/489376/52 "2009-03-14T22:48:26Z")
> [@CutterJohn](#): > > How often do women assert that a particular man is the real father, and have a court order the father to undergo an invasive test to get a sample of bodily fluids for a paternity test in order to force him to pay child support? > Woman wants child, Man doesn’t: Tough titty for the man. Sorry, here’s 18 years of child support to console you. Child support isn’t comparable to abortion. It’s not a right of a woman to choose it, it’s a necessary requirement for the \*\*child’s \*\* welfare. > [@](#): > > Man wants child, woman doesn’t: Tough titty for the man. Sorry, the fetus is dead. Try it with another woman. Biology’s a bitch, ain’t it? When men can gestate babies in the womb, they can have all the abortions and children they want. And you completely ignored custody rights. Men aren’t ‘sperm donors’. ---
**Author:** ![Lynn\_Bodoni](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e47c2d/32.png) [@Lynn\_Bodoni](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lynn_Bodoni)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2009, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-and-mens-rights/489376/53 "2009-03-14T22:52:35Z")
> [@aruvqan](#): > > If I were the joke american indian, my 3 kids would be named Ortho-Novum didnt work, Ortho novum didnt work, rubber broke, and my tubal ligation WHAT?!:eek:. > > Short of ripping out the womb, any form of birth control can fail even when used properly. > > And that was 3 times in 35 years of sexual activity. I think I have you beat. Once on the pill (miscarriage), once using foam and condoms together (live birth), and once with an IUD in place (another miscarriage). In the space of two years. [QUOTE=CutterJohn] You’re lucky she picked the same option as you, since you didn’t have a choice anyway. [/QUOTE] Oh, I wouldn’t say it’s luck. I’d say it was more likely making sure your partner had the same goals and ambitions as you did. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2009, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-and-mens-rights/489376/54 "2009-03-14T23:29:04Z")
> [@CutterJohn](#): > > How often do women assert that a particular man is the real father, and have a court order the father to undergo an invasive test to get a sample of bodily fluids for a paternity test in order to force him to pay child support? Usually they don’t assert a paternity claim until after the baby is born, and it does not require an invasive procedure to take a DNA sample (and it doesn’t pose a risk to the fetus or baby). > [@](#): > > Woman wants child, Man doesn’t: Tough titty for the man. Sorry, here’s 18 years of child support to console you. Nobody forced him to put his sperm inside her. When he made that choice, he made the choice to accept responsibility for the outcome. > [@](#): > > Man wants child, woman doesn’t: Tough titty for the man. Sorry, the fetus is dead. Try it with another woman. That’s correct. It’s not his body. Don’t like it? Sue evolution. > [@](#): > > Apparently, as a man, the entirety of your purpose is to act as a sperm donor, then financial support, and at no time between conception and birth do you have any rights to exercise. Seems a bit messed up to me. At no time between conception and birth is the man’s physical body involved, so why the hell should he have any rights? ---
**Author:** ![Lamia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Lamia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamia)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2009, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-and-mens-rights/489376/55 "2009-03-15T17:24:42Z")
> [@Paleface](#): > > OK, I’m jumping in here late, but, through Safe Haven legislation, a mother can abandon a child at a specified location without regards to the biological father, on a no-questions-asked basis. Safe Haven laws vary from state to state (some have no such laws at all), but to the best of my knowledge all such laws allow the mother OR the father to drop off the baby at a designated location. This notion that only the mother has that right seems to pop up in these kinds of debates a lot, but I don’t think there’s any basis for it. See for instance [California Penal Code 271.5](http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=270-273.75): > [@](#): > > (a) No **parent or other individual having lawful custody** of a minor child 72 hours old or younger may be prosecuted for a violation of Section 270, 270.5, 271, or 271a if he or she voluntarily surrenders physical custody of the child to personnel on duty at a safe-surrender site. [General Statutes of Connecticut §17-a58](http://www.cga.ct.gov/2005/pub/Chap319.htm#Sec17a-58.htm): > [@](#): > > (a) An employee designated pursuant to section 17a-57 shall take physical custody of any infant thirty days or younger if the **parent or lawful agent of the parent** voluntarily surrenders physical custody of the infant to such designated employee unless the parent or agent clearly expresses an intent to return for the infant. [Code of Virginia § 18.2-371.1](http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-371.1): > [@](#): > > 1. If a prosecution under this subsection is based solely on the accused \*\*parent \*\*having left the child at a hospital or rescue squad, it shall be an affirmative defense to prosecution of a parent under this subsection that such parent safely delivered the child to a hospital that provides 24-hour emergency services or to an attended rescue squad that employs emergency medical technicians, within the first 14 days of the child’s life. In order for the affirmative defense to apply, the child shall be delivered in a manner reasonably calculated to ensure the child’s safety. [Wisconsin Statutes Chapter 48, §48.195](http://nxt.legis.state.wi.us/nxt/gateway.dll?f=templates&fn=default.htm&d=stats&jd=48.195): > [@](#): > > (1) Taking child into custody. In addition to being taken into custody under s. 48.19, a child whom a law enforcement officer, emergency medical technician, or hospital staff member reasonably believes to be 72 hours old or younger may be taken into custody under circumstances in which a \*\*parent \*\*of the child relinquishes custody of the child to the law enforcement officer, emergency medical technician, or hospital staff member and does not express an intent to return for the child…[snipped rest of section] Emphasis mine in all cases. And that’s just the first few I could pull up that could be linked to easily. I’ve been unable to find a single Safe Haven law anywhere in the US that permits only the baby’s mother to legally abandon it in a designated location. If any state does have such a law it’s the exception rather than the norm. In reality it usually _would_ be the mother dropping off the baby, because the realities of pregnancy and childbirth mean that the mother is far more likely to be the one stuck with an unwanted infant. The mother is the only parent who, by definition, had to have been there when the baby was born. By that time the father has had nine months to remove himself from the picture. But if the father _does_ happen to be the one stuck with an unwanted infant, the law gives him has every bit as much right to drop the baby off at a designated Safe Haven location. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2009, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-and-mens-rights/489376/56 "2009-03-15T17:52:58Z")
> [@CutterJohn](#): > > How often do women assert that a particular man is the real father, and have a court order the father to undergo an invasive test to get a sample of bodily fluids for a paternity test in order to force him to pay child support? > Woman wants child, Man doesn’t: Tough titty for the man. Sorry, here’s 18 years of child support to console you. > > Man wants child, woman doesn’t: Tough titty for the man. Sorry, the fetus is dead. Try it with another woman. > > Man and woman both don’t want child: You’re lucky she picked the same option as you, since you didn’t have a choice anyway. > > Man and woman both want child: You’re lucky she picked the same option as you, since you didn’t have a choice anyway. > Apparently, as a man, the entirety of your purpose is to act as a sperm donor, then financial support, and at no time between conception and birth do you have any rights to exercise. Seems a bit messed up to me. A man has all kinds of options other than donating sperm doesn’t he? ---
**Author:** ![Annie-Xmas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecc23a/32.png) [@Annie-Xmas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Annie-Xmas)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2009, 12:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-and-mens-rights/489376/57 "2009-03-16T12:42:23Z")
In the first Baby M surrogacy trial, the judge upheld the contract in every provision but one: the father could force te surrogate mother to have an abortion; if she didn’t not, he would not be responsible for the child. Judge completely struck it down, saying “She has the final say iwhether to have an abortion and if she doesn’t, the child is entitled to paternal suppport.” Of course, surrogate mother Mary Beth’s whoo-hoo spin on it was “The Sterns forced me to have ammiocentesis and if it showed that one finger was missing, they could force me to abort or walk away.” ---
**Author:** ![Paleface](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/f19dbf/32.png) [@Paleface](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paleface)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2009, 12:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-and-mens-rights/489376/58 "2009-03-16T12:47:56Z")
> [@Lamia](#): > > Safe Haven laws vary from state to state (some have no such laws at all), but to the best of my knowledge all such laws allow the mother OR the father to drop off the baby at a designated location. This notion that only the mother has that right seems to pop up in these kinds of debates a lot, but I don’t think there’s any basis for it. > > \ > > Emphasis mine in all cases. And that’s just the first few I could pull up that could be linked to easily. I’ve been unable to find a single Safe Haven law anywhere in the US that permits only the baby’s mother to legally abandon it in a designated location. If any state does have such a law it’s the exception rather than the norm. > > In reality it usually _would_ be the mother dropping off the baby, because the realities of pregnancy and childbirth mean that the mother is far more likely to be the one stuck with an unwanted infant. The mother is the only parent who, by definition, had to have been there when the baby was born. By that time the father has had nine months to remove himself from the picture. But if the father _does_ happen to be the one stuck with an unwanted infant, the law gives him has every bit as much right to drop the baby off at a designated Safe Haven location. I did NOT say that ONLY mothers could legally abandon newborns at Safe-Haven facilities. You have taken my response to **Kimstu’s** assertion, that mother’s can’t put up a child for adoption without the father’s consent, completely out of context. I was only making the point that mothers do have the option to, de-facto, put up a child for adoption without the father’s consent. A couple of years ago a Michigan man, Matt Dubay, cited Michigan’s Safe Haven law as an example of an “equal protection” violation. (The gist of Mr. Dubay’s equal protection violation was that mother’s have options to relieve themselves of a parental obligation, while a fathers can only relieve themselves of a parental obligation at the consent of the mother. The judge’s dismissal of Mr. Dubay’s claim was about as disingenuous as your rebuttal to the point I was making. > [@](#): > > “The plaintiff makes a similar argument with respect to the “Safe Haven” legislation that allows a parent to surrender a child who may be a newborn to an emergency service provider, thereby effectuating a placement for adoption, and grants both parents the right to petition for custody within twenty-eight days. Mich. Comp. Laws §712.3. This statute likewise is gender-neutral on its face.)” > Judge David M. Lawson In Judge Lawson’s opinion, Matt Dubay does not have a case in citing the “Safe Haven” laws because the law is “gender neutral” as written. I wonder how the judge would react to a business owner who enacted a company policy of terminating the employment of any employee who made the choice to become pregnant? Afterall, the policy would be “gender neutral”. It would apply equally to both male and female employees who are pregnant. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2009, 1:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-and-mens-rights/489376/59 "2009-03-16T13:05:48Z")
> [@Annie-Xmas](#): > > In the first Baby M surrogacy trial, the judge upheld the contract in every provision but one: the father could force te surrogate mother to have an abortion; if she didn’t not, he would not be responsible for the child. > > Judge completely struck it down, saying “She has the final say iwhether to have an abortion and if she doesn’t, the child is entitled to paternal suppport.” Of course, surrogate mother Mary Beth’s whoo-hoo spin on it was “The Sterns forced me to have ammiocentesis and if it showed that one finger was missing, they could force me to abort or walk away.” What is a “whoo-hoo spin”? It sounds derogatory, but the sentence you describe as her “whoo-hoo spin” accurately states what they were allowed to do under the contract you describe. Under the contract, the father would not be responsible for support if he told her to have an abortion and she didn’t. According to her summary, the father would not be responsible for support if he told her to have an abortion and she didn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Annie-Xmas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecc23a/32.png) [@Annie-Xmas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Annie-Xmas)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2009, 1:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-and-mens-rights/489376/60 "2009-03-16T13:07:55Z")
“if it showed that one finger was missing.” Do you really think the Sterns would have forced an abortion if one finger was missing? Mary Beth’s biggest bitch with the Sterns was that, when she decided to keep the baby, they didn’t just walk away. That’s what made her threaten to kill the child and to falsely accused Mr. Stern of sexually abusing her daughter. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-and-mens-rights/489376.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-and-mens-rights/489376.md?page=4)