I was recently reading an article in a London paper (for the life of me I cannot find the link again to it) about a man who was taking his ex-girlfriend to court since she wanted to have an abortion, but he wanted the child. As of the article, the judged ordered that she can continue with the abortion since he technically has no rights in concern to the option of an abortion.
I myself am pro-choice, but I believe that a man should have some rights to the life of his unborn child and should be able to have a say into keeping the child if the mother does not want the child.
So why should a man have no right in the birth of his own child if he wants it?
Oh, come on minty that’s a little simplistic, don’t you think?
It also has something to do with the fact that neither the woman nor the child is the man’s property (anymore).
Turn the situation around - she wants the baby, he doesn’t. Should he then have the right to force her to have an abortion, because he doesn’t want the child, regardless of her feelings on the subject?
It may not be fair to have a man pay for a child he may or may not want, without giving him the option of an abortion.
However, I think it is less fair to force a woman to bear a child she does not want. That is one rough experiance. It takes strength of mind, body and soul as well as dedication. The only way to truly expect someone to go through that is by thier own choice. Hopefully by an educated choice. It can be a very scary time when your body and emotions betray you in unbelievable ways. Its not an easy experiance when it is welcomed…it could be the death march from hell if it is forced on you.
A major factor bearing on this discussion is that going through with a pregnancy and giving birth is far more dangerous to the mother than having an abortion, despite all the misinformation that’s been spread on the issue.
One hopes the judges weighing in on such decisions recognize that it is only the mother that bears the physical consequences for the decision.
Mars, Actually, I think to be fair that if the woman is keeping a child explicitly against the father’s wishes, that he should not be held monitarily responsible for the child’s care. Interestingly, however, I also feel that if he’s willing to take that step (through the courts or some other means) that he should also acknowledge that he’s not willing to take emotional responsiblilty for them, either, and can’t contest the mother’s custody of them - unless she proves incapable of caring for them.
As far as 14th amendment rights, I wouldn’t know; IANAL, and I’m afraid my knowledge of the BOR is sketchy at best.
Sorry, I should have been more selective with my quoting. It seems that equal protection has been used to justify so many things, I figured that it would be easy to justify equal protection of both biological parents (to decide not to have the baby).
Not that I agree with that logic. It just seems to agree with past interpretations.
I have always believed that men should be able to “abort” their children. I agree that it should be entirely up to the woman whether or not the child lives or dies, but the man should be able to legally disown the child. The equivalent of male abortion. He would have no responsibilty for the child and also no right to it, as though he were never involved in its creation. As it is, women get this option, but men do not. A woman can have an abortion or give the child up for adoption, both of which remove all responsibility for the child, but men are completely at the woman’s mercy. I am just looking for a little equality here. Both parties are equally at fault for the initial creation of the zygote but only the woman is at fault for its continued survival. Men should have a say. This would give them a say without violating the woman’s right to do with her body as she sees fit.
Actually, it doesn’t. Gender is only afforded mid-level scrutiny under the equal protection clause. That means if there is a good, legitimate reason to treat men and women differently in a matter, there is no violation of equal protection. Women are the ones who get pregnant and would have to bear the kid to term. Men do not. That’s a solid reason to treat them differently, so no equal protection problem.
All the points mentioned in this debater are rather sound and I do agree w/ most of them. I do believe that it is entirely up to the woman to determine if she wants the abortion or not, and I can easily see that it is the woman who of course is going to have to do all the work.
The reason I started this debate was to see how other women feel on the issue (since my GF is pro-choice and every other female I know personally is pro-life) since there is not much input I can receive outside. I can see how a man has no rights in such a decision, but even with the outcome inevitably being w/ an abortion, I can still see how a man would at least try.
As to the situation w/ a man not wanting anything to do w/ the child, but having to still have responsibility over the child, I feel that this is wrong and unfair. This should be as close to an equal position as possible. I do think that if the man did want to give up the child, then it should be in a signed legal agreement that the father will give up ALL parental rights for the rest of the childs life w/ no chance for appeal. Ever. Let it be known that if the man does not want the child, and agrees to the conditions, then he will NEVER have the child.
“Equal” between the mother and father, you mean? I think you’re kind of forgetting somebody here. About seven pounds, looks a bit like Winston Churchill, cries a lot … ring any bells?
Woman gets pregnant, and for whatever reason, wants to abort (the case study I read in medical ethics class had to do with a woman on teratogenic [birth-defect-causing] medications without which she would lapse into active bipolar disorder and become psychotic, but that’s only one possible scenario.). Man doesn’t want her to, and takes steps to force her not to.
Yeah, there’s a baby, but there’s a good chance the baby could be born with birth defects, or possibly stillborn, because of medication use. However, let’s assume that the woman just doesn’t want to have the baby. She neglects it by not getting proper pre-natal care, possibly smoking and drinking, and maintaining a poor diet. Who’s the ultimate victim here? It’s not the woman for being forced to bear a child; it’s not the man, who gets what he wants when the baby is born; it’s the baby itself, who may not have as good a start at life as it could’ve.
[finger-shaking]Of course, this whole mess could’ve been solved by making contraception and family planning services more accessible in the first place![/finger-shaking]
