Abortion Rights

[villa]

*Originally posted by Mars Horizon *
It is unfair that a man has no rights if the woman wants to abort the baby, yet bears financial responsibility if she wants to keep the baby.

In truth, this is only unfair if the terms become jumbled.

There are three sets of rights to be considered here. thos of the pregnant woman (later mother), those of the man who got her pregnant (later father) and those of the child. In one situation there are only the first 2 sets to consider. In the second, there are all three.

In the first situation, the we are looking at balancing the rights of the pregnant woman against those of the male who got her pregnant. It is clear to me that the rights of the woman are paramount here.

In the second situation we have the rights of the extant child to be financially supported against the right of the father to have nothing to do with the child. It is no longer a clash beween the rights of the woman & those of the man. Again I feel it is clear that the rights of the child are paramount here.

The two situations are in no way parallels. If a child is created, the father has responsibility for his share of the upkeep, and the rights that go with it. However he does not have any rights of ownership over the woman involved. His rights begin when and if the child exists.

As to his responsibilities, I’m not sure. I don’t know if I think he should be legally liable for a share of the costs of a termination or not.

[BlackKnight]

The woman, having the choice of whether or not to abort the child, is thereby responsible for the child if she chooses to have it.

The man, not responsible for the creation of the child, is not responsible for the child.

(Waits patiently for the cries of “Think of the children!”)

[cmkeller]

villa:

In the first situation, the we are looking at balancing the rights of the pregnant woman against those of the male who got her pregnant.

Excuse me? What did he do, shoot her with a sperm bullet from a grassy knoll? Both of them “got her pregnant.” Unless we’re talking about rape, the woman isn’t some sort of accident victim.

[minty_green]

*Originally posted by BlackKnight *
The man, not responsible for the creation of the child, is not responsible for the child.

Incorrect as both a matter of law and biology.

[villa]

*Originally posted by cmkeller *
**villa:

In the first situation, the we are looking at balancing the rights of the pregnant woman against those of the male who got her pregnant.

Excuse me? What did he do, shoot her with a sperm bullet from a grassy knoll? Both of them “got her pregnant.” Unless we’re talking about rape, the woman isn’t some sort of accident victim. **

I agree. The reason I used the term ‘got her pregnant’ was because I didn’t want to use the term ‘father’. To me, fatherhood assumes the existence of a child. Perhaps a better phrase would have been ‘the man who provided the sperm’.

[sojourn26]

*Originally posted by minty green *
**

*Originally posted by sojourn26 *
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.

“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? **

Oh yes, it rings a bell. But since this is a debate about mother and father rights, the term “equal responsibility” applies. If you want to debate the rights of the child, then maybe you should not be debating about the rights of a mother aborting that child. Take that elsewhere.

As to the financial resposibilities, then answer me this: A woman becomes pregnant from a man who she soon stops seeing. Now taking into account that creation of the child is equal (it takes 2 to the horizontal mambo) then it should be assumed that both parents take responsibility equally.

Now let’s say that the woman marries another man, and they are financially set, but the father of the child, which does not want the child, is still forced to give some support financially. Not really fair for a person who does not want the child.

Now, let’s reverse it. A woman gives up her child to others. She gives over all parental responsibilities to another couple, this even applies to giving the child to the father if he marries another. What about if someone adopts the child? She gave up all parental rights, but why does she not have to pay, when the father would still if he gave up his rights? So then why does she not have to pay for child support? I have never heard of any law against “Dead beat moms”. So what is fair about that?

[SuaSponte]

*Originally posted by Procacious *
**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. **

An internally consistent argument, but wrong. Others have already pointed out that there is the interests of the child involved.
Here’s a second argument against your position - allowing “male abortion” will lead to an increase in real abortions. One of the primary reasons why people have abortions is economic; the mother cannot or doesn’t think she can afford to raise a child. If the father has the legal right to renounce any financial responsibility for the child, it increases the likelihood that the mother will not be able to afford raising the child. Hence, abortions will increase.

This is bad public policy - nobody wants the number of abortions to increase, and installing a policy that would tend to increase the number of abortions would be wrong.

As for your latest post:

Now, let’s reverse it. A woman gives up her child to others. She gives over all parental responsibilities to another couple, this even applies to giving the child to the father if he marries another. What about if someone adopts the child? She gave up all parental rights, but why does she not have to pay, when the father would still if he gave up his rights? So then why does she not have to pay for child support? I have never heard of any law against “Dead beat moms”. So what is fair about that?

Two points:

1. A father paying child support has not given up his rights to the child. He may not exercise them, or a court may decide the mother gets custody, but he still has them. Further, if a child is put up for adoption, neither the birth father nor the birth mother are responsible for child support;
2. There are laws against “deadbeat moms”. They are the same ones that apply to “deadbeat dads”, i.e., they are gender-neutral. If dad has the kid, and mom refuses to pay child support, damn skippy the dad can go after her.
   It’s just that the mother is more likely to have custody of the child, and the father the one more likely to be paying child support. The reasons for that and whether that is a good or bad thing is a whole other debate.
3. Hi, Opal!

Sua

[sojourn26]

All right, enough playing Devil’s advocate. Just for the sake of arguemtent ladies and answer me this one little question: How would you feel about paying for a child you never want?

And before you argue, this is very possible, otherwise adoption would never have been created (other then for orphans, which is something else too). Adoptions occur for the following reasons: parents gave up child, mother gave up child w/ out every telling the father he even had a child, mother and father die, mother abandons the child. Some women also cannot have abortions for one reason or another, so it can rule out that. So what about those women who are forced to have the child for some reason or another (economics, health, religion…etc)? So are they going to find it fair to have to pay for a child they could not get rid of before birth, could not afford after birth, or just did not want after birth? Are they going to just be happy w/ paying, or are they going to feel the same way?

[doreen]

originally posted by sojourn26
Now, let’s reverse it. A woman gives up her child to others. She gives over all parental responsibilities to another couple, this even applies to giving the child to the father if he marries another. What about if someone adopts the child? She gave up all parental rights, but why does she not have to pay, when the father would still if he gave up his rights? So then why does she not have to pay for child support? I have never heard of any law against “Dead beat moms”. So what is fair about that?

Sua beat me to most of it, but the situation where either parent surrenders his/her rights and gives the child (and the responsibility} to the other parent and spouse only applies when the stepparent adopts the child.

[minty_green]

How did I know this was going to turn into an argument about deadbeat dads? Jeez, I love it when people try to justify abandoning children to the elements.

*Originally posted by sojourn26 *
[S]ince this is a debate about mother and father rights, the term “equal responsibility” applies.

But if you can’t even distinguish between rights and responsibilities, we’re off to a bad start here, sojourn.

If you want to debate the rights of the child, then maybe you should not be debating about the rights of a mother aborting that child. Take that elsewhere.

Yeah, how silly and off-topic of me to find a logical connection between sex and childbirth. :rolleyes:

As to the financial resposibilities, then answer me this: A woman becomes pregnant from a man who she soon stops seeing. Now taking into account that creation of the child is equal (it takes 2 to the horizontal mambo) then it should be assumed that both parents take responsibility equally.

Whoa! Maybe I’ve read you wrong! Maybe you really do think that both parents must share responsibility for the child after it’s born! Oh, wait a second . . .

Now let’s say that the woman marries another man, and they are financially set, but the father of the child, which does not want the child, is still forced to give some support financially. Not really fair for a person who does not want the child.

Tough noogies. You create a child, you are financially responsible for it. You. Individually and personally, to the exclusion of all other people except the mother, who shares, but does not supplant, your responsibility. The new SO is under no legal obligation whatsoever to support your child (unless you surrender parental rights and the new hubby adopts the kid). Until somebody else assumes the biological father’s legal position as father, the kid is entitled to daddy’s monetary support.

Now, let’s reverse it. A woman gives up her child to others. She gives over all parental responsibilities to another couple, this even applies to giving the child to the father if he marries another. What about if someone adopts the child?

Then the father has already either constructively or formally relinquished parental rights and, because of the adoption, has no further legal obligations to the child.

She gave up all parental rights, but why does she not have to pay, when the father would still if he gave up his rights?

Your assumptions are incorrect. “Relinquishing parental rights” means that the parent gives up all of his or her rights in the child–visitation, custody, and the right to inherit through the child are examples of such rights. Relinquishing parental rights does NOT relieve the parent of the obligations of parenthood. That only happens when somebody else steps in to formally and legally assume the obligations of parenthood–monetary and otherwise–through adoption.

So then why does she not have to pay for child support?

Because she relinquished her rights and somebody else stepped into her legal position by formally adopting the child. Simple, huh? And at that point, daddy’s off the hook too.

I have never heard of any law against “Dead beat moms”.

Perhaps because they are the exact same laws?

[doreen]

originally posted by sojourn26

And before you argue, this is very possible, otherwise adoption would never have been created (other then for orphans, which is something else too). Adoptions occur for the following reasons: parents gave up child, mother gave up child w/ out every telling the father he even had a child, mother and father die, mother abandons the child. Some women also cannot have abortions for one reason or another, so it can rule out that. So what about those women who are forced to have the child for some reason or another (economics, health, religion…etc)? So are they going to find it fair to have to pay for a child they could not get rid of before birth, could not afford after birth, or just did not want after birth? Are they going to just be happy w/ paying, or are they going to feel the same way?

I think this is a pretty good analogy.No, I wouldn’t be too happy about paying child support for a child I didn’t want but I never thought “responsibility” and “what would make me happy” were the same thing. If I totaled someone’s car, I wouldn’t be happy about paying for the damages, but that doesn’t mean I’m not responsible to pay for them.

[sojourn26]

I am glad that you pointed out to everyone exactly how the laws would work and that the mother would be just as responsible financially if she gave up the child. So the question remains: Would you then consider it fair to have to pay for a child you never wanted, but could not abort, and still do not want after birth?

[emarkp]

*Originally posted by SuaSponte *
An internally consistent argument, but wrong. Others have already pointed out that there is the interests of the child involved.
Here’s a second argument against your position - allowing “male abortion” will lead to an increase in real abortions. One of the primary reasons why people have abortions is economic; the mother cannot or doesn’t think she can afford to raise a child. If the father has the legal right to renounce any financial responsibility for the child, it increases the likelihood that the mother will not be able to afford raising the child. Hence, abortions will increase.

This is bad public policy - nobody wants the number of abortions to increase, and installing a policy that would tend to increase the number of abortions would be wrong.

Arguing for the interests of the child have failed to stop legal abortions.

Arguing that increasing the number of abortions is bad didn’t stop them either.

Hey, I don’t like the slippery slope. I wish we hadn’t started down it. But I can’t see any legal way to stop it once someone brings the issue to court. It will happen eventually (male right to abandon the child if the mother wants to keep him or her). It will probably require some sort of legal document during the same time period in which legal abortions are allowed. It will certainly increase the number of abortions in the US. It will be a tragedy, but it will happen.

[sojourn26]

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by doreen *
**

I think this is a pretty good analogy.No, I wouldn’t be too happy about paying child support for a child I didn’t want but I never thought “responsibility” and “what would make me happy” were the same thing. If I totaled someone’s car, I wouldn’t be happy about paying for the damages, but that doesn’t mean I’m not responsible to pay for them. **

I agree w/ you there,now, that you would be responsible. But let’s change the analogy a bit

Say that you are the father of a child that you love and care about. Now, the mother of the child hates you w/ a passion and wants nothing to do w/ you. She manages to get full custody of the child w/ bare minimum visitation rights for the father (for the record, let’s say that the father is not very well set financially, and the mother is, and the judge was a prick).

So the father is going to only be able to that child 2x a year. Yet, he still has to pay child support, it damn near breaks him to do it, and he never really gets to see the child? Is that fair?

Reverse the roll for women if needed. Women gives up child to father because she cannot financially support the child, but she is financially responsible to support the child. Is that fair?

[BlackKnight]

*Originally posted by minty green *
**

*Originally posted by BlackKnight *
The man, not responsible for the creation of the child, is not responsible for the child.

Incorrect as both a matter of law and biology. **

Whoops! I was arguing this from a philosophical/ethical/justice perspective, not a legal one. I should have made that clear.

(Also, biologically speaking, the woman is “responsible” for the child. If a man is “responsible”, why not follow the chain farther and say that the man’s parents are responsible in the biological sense as well? After all, if not for them, he wouldn’t have been around.)

[SuaSponte]

*Originally posted by sojourn26 *
**I am glad that you pointed out to everyone exactly how the laws would work and that the mother would be just as responsible financially if she gave up the child. So the question remains: Would you then consider it fair to have to pay for a child you never wanted, but could not abort, and still do not want after birth?
**

To answer your question, no, it is not fair. That doesn’t change the analysis - the child’s rights supercede the father’s. What is fair for the child is more important than what is fair to the father. This is a societal choice - those who can’t protect themselves get more protection.

emarkp:

Arguing for the interests of the child have failed to stop legal abortions.

Arguing that increasing the number of abortions is bad didn’t stop them either.

Hey, I don’t like the slippery slope. I wish we hadn’t started down it. But I can’t see any legal way to stop it once someone brings the issue to court. It will happen eventually (male right to abandon the child if the mother wants to keep him or her). It will probably require some sort of legal document during the same time period in which legal abortions are allowed. It will certainly increase the number of abortions in the US. It will be a tragedy, but it will happen.

1. I wasn’t talking about arguing for the interests of the child or about abortion being bad. What I’m saying is that no law (to my knowledge) exists anywhere in the U.S. that directly causes the number of abortions to increase, and no such law, including the “male abortion” law, IMO, will even be enacted.
2. Actually, the issue has been brought before courts already, in a slightly different context (father discovers he’s not the child’s real father; wants his support responsibilities terminated). In those cases, the father lost. And that is the trend in the law over the past 50-odd years - the child’s rights supercede those of his/her parents.
3. There can be no legally binding document created allowing the father to renounce responsibility for the fetus, for a simple reason - the right to child support belongs to the child, not the mother. Mom can’t sign it away. (A more technical reason is that the fetus isn’t legally a person during the period the mother can abort, and I do not think a contract can be drawn up concerning the rights of a person who doesn’t “exist” yet.)

Unless there is a radical change in the law, it ain’t gonna happen.

Sua

[villa]

*Originally posted by sojourn26 *
**I am glad that you pointed out to everyone exactly how the laws would work and that the mother would be just as responsible financially if she gave up the child. So the question remains: Would you then consider it fair to have to pay for a child you never wanted, but could not abort, and still do not want after birth?
**

Yes I would. The child has the right to be supported. It doesn’t matter whether the father wants the kid or not, the kid exists. Child support laws exist to protect children’s rights.

[emarkp]

*Originally posted by SuaSponte *

1. I wasn’t talking about arguing for the interests of the child or about abortion being bad. What I’m saying is that no law (to my knowledge) exists anywhere in the U.S. that directly causes the number of abortions to increase, and no such law, including the “male abortion” law, IMO, will even be enacted.
2. Actually, the issue has been brought before courts already, in a slightly different context (father discovers he’s not the child’s real father; wants his support responsibilities terminated). In those cases, the father lost. And that is the trend in the law over the past 50-odd years - the child’s rights supercede those of his/her parents.
3. There can be no legally binding document created allowing the father to renounce responsibility for the fetus, for a simple reason - the right to child support belongs to the child, not the mother. Mom can’t sign it away. (A more technical reason is that the fetus isn’t legally a person during the period the mother can abort, and I do not think a contract can be drawn up concerning the rights of a person who doesn’t “exist” yet.)

Unless there is a radical change in the law, it ain’t gonna happen.

Sua

1. No law, perhaps, but by judicial fiat (a.k.a. Roe vs. Wade in 1973). Abortions rose from 52 per 1000 live births in 1970 to 242 in 1974 and are now hovering in the 300-350 range (see CDC for details).

Is that clear? There are 1/3 as many abortions as live births. Agh.

2. That was an entirely different issue. The child was already born and had been receiving report for several years (and I believe it is unfair and the decision must be overturned).

3. A mom can’t sign away child support because the fetus isn’t “legally a human” yet (boy there’s a can of worms), but the man can be constrained to care for the baby even if he separates from the mother before the fetus is “legally human”?

The fundamental argument which will be used calling on the 14th amendment will be: the mother can decide not to be financially responsible for the child (by killing him before he is born, or giving him up for adoption afterward), but the man cannot decide anything after conception. Sounds like a violation of equal protection to me.

(The sad thing is, I hope I’m wrong.

[SisterCoyote]

emarkp, I’m sure you meant to say that after Roe vs. Wade reported abortions went up.

[emarkp]

No, I meant nothing of the sort. It would, however, be more correct to say legal abortions. I would assume that there were illegal abortions performed, as well as methods used outside of a hospital.