Unless the father was the murderer, and felt no remorse. We’re talking about feelings here, not ethics, and feelings never have to be justified.
Huh??? 
What on earth miscarried, if no conception occurred?
AIUI, the term “miscarriage” only properly applies to a situation where a zygote (or embryo, if that term is more correct) successfully attaches to the uterine wall, THEN fails to cpomplete gestation.
Somebody come educate one of us, please?
Then what does that comparison have to do with your OP?
I misspoke. There was conception of course, just not completion of the first period of pregnancy.
Apologies.
A miscarriage 4-5 weeks after the last period, 2-3 weeks after conception, 1-2 weeks after implantation is what we’re talking about here.
There was an early failure of the feto-placental unit- whether that was foetal demise or placental failure is a moot point. There is very little that can be done to prevent such losses. As many of these very ealry miscarriage occur at that stage because of a fundamental problem with the foetus (such as a chromasomal abnormality) or the placenta (such that it could not support a foetus beyond this stage), there is a question about whether we would even wish to prevent them.
I think a rather more interesting question is whether anyone feels that man in that situation has a right to know about an early pregnancy failure that supercedes the woman’s right to privacy and confidentiality?
If he does, would you force the doctor to break their confidentiality to their patient to inform him? Would you compel her to inform him? If so, why?
According to some anti-abortionists, not only was he a father, he should have the right to have the woman investigated for potentially murdering his child. Maybe she took an asprin, drank a beer or had “bad thoughts” when she missed her period (I hope I’m not pregnant). He should be able to sue for the pain and suffering she caused him by “murdering his child.”
Yeah, some of those anti-abortionists want to tar and feather her, even if she did nothing, just because. If a woman even lives in a state where another woman spontaneously miscarried, they think that woman should be water-boarded. Probably all anti-choicers, I’d speculate. And they hate puppies, too. They’re real jerks.
I’ve never heard this one before. Who exactly advocates this sort of mindset?
After our first three children (who are all still living) were born, my wife had a miscarriage and then a stillborn child (at about 20 weeks of pregnancy, when it starts to qualify as stillborn). There wasn’t much grief at the miscarriage – just concern about health implications – but we did grieve over the stillborn child, especially my daughter years later having regrets over the younger sister that she lost that way. (She has three brothers, so she’s lacking in the direction of sisterhood). However, it wasn’t as much as it would have been if the child had been born normally and died after birth.
Pro-choicers.
Pro-choicers suggest that a man should be able to sue a woman for having a miscarriage? Really?
Whoosh. What Arizona Teach is saying is that it’s a strawman position, attributed by pro-choicers to anti-choicers.
It is more than a bit extreme in its construction. That said, there was a front-page story in the Los Angeles Times a few weeks ago, that touched on the somewhat recent phenomenon of anti-choice men actively (some might say ostentatiously; others might say disingenuously) grieving the “loss of a child” after their partners have terminated the pregnancies.
Miscarriage grief wise its not only about things like ‘how much of a person it was’, its also about what it meant to the person , eg whether it was the closest they’ll ever get to being a parent, how many hopes or fears they had about the conception etc.
It cant really be evaluated in isolation very usefully.
Otara