What rights should the father have re: an abortion decision?

Great Debates
81

Well cute, but it ignores the point that JThunder (and I) raised.

Stoid says that the “law” has defined “personhood” by the birth event. (The “law” being Roe v Wade).

So let’s pretend it’s 1966. A woman is pregnant at the 4 month gestation point. The “law” has not spoken universally (in the U.S.) as to the “personhood” of the fetus…so what is it?

Like I responded earlier, it’s a ridiculous argument that I’m guessing a fair number of pro choicers would not use in other instances. One example I raised earlier in this thread was homosexual unions in this country. The other was the “personhood” status of blacks pre emancipation events.

The kind of answer Stoid gave, complete with rolleyes, seems to suggest that “why of course the ‘law’ is the final and definitive answer to such a question.” When of course, it’s not.

82

beagledave has summarized that fallacy quite well.

Moreover, such thinking exhibits circular reasoning. Pro-choicers routinely defend abortion laws by saying that the fetus is not a separate human being. Stoid now says that it’s not separate because it is “not legally a person under the law until it has been born” (to use her exact words).

As I said, circular reasoning.

83

Brutus -

The rest of the thread not withstanding, I would like to bring up the brief hijack that the woman may be in a polyamourous relationship of longstanding with two men, and still not be sure which of the men is the father of her child based on conception dates and so forth.

She doesn’t have to be an irresponsible trollop for that to happen.

84

SisterCoyote: I get the sneaking suspicion that Brutus would consider such a woman to be, inherently, an irresponsible trollop, given that he believes that marital infidelity rises to the level of criminal fraud.

If we took away the children of every woman who had been unfaithful to her husband, or especially of every man who had been unfaithful to his wife, we’d have a whole hell of a lot of kids in state custody. Including those of probably 90% of Congress.

85

1% of all abortions occur because of rape; 6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child, and 93% of all abortions occur for social reasons (i.e. the child is unwanted or inconvenient).

Source: The Alan Guttmacher Institute. (www.agi-usa.org)

86

I guess it takes a village, huh, Brutus?

87

WV_Woman, how far do you think a father’s rights should extend? For example, when I found out I was my pregnant, the baby’s father was adamant that I should have an abortion. He said that he wouldn’t have any problem having an abortion. Of course he would, what with not having a womb and all. That’s the point: men who have grown up knowing that they will never be pregnant, never carry a baby, cannot possibly understand what pregnancy and abortion are like. They have input as the father, they have a point of view as the father, but they can never put themselves in the mother’s place.

So, in your argument, he should have had the right to take me to court and ask the judge to force abortion on me. Because if he can enforce continuation of pregnancy, he can enforce termination of it.

I do agree with you on one point: everyone knows that with all acts of penetrative sex, there is a risk of pregnancy. Even with contraception. However, this extends to the man as well as the woman. With your comments on women ‘slutting around,’ you seem to be acting as if only the mother is responsible for the pregnancy. This is at odds with your opinion that fathers should have a right of veto - are they responsible or not, in your opinion?

You have had children, you must know that it would not be as simple as you’ve stated - ‘she could just hand the child over and he would raise it.’ That is a bizarre statement from someone who has gone through pregnancy and childbirth and knows the connection you can make early on. A woman who wants an abortion is not a coldhearted murderous bitch immune to all motherly feelings, especially if she had to carry the pregnancy to term.

As for the man paying support for a child not biologically his - that is a different subject for a different thread, I’m not even sure why you brought it up here.

MHO on this subject: no, the man should not have any legal say. He should have input and he should have support, but no legal say. As to whether the foetus is a separate being, I’ve stated elsewhere my view that abortion should have a legal time-limit, like in England where the limit is 24 weeks. Previous to this stage, the foetus really is not a separate being and cannot support life by itself. It is part of the woman’s body. It is her choice.

88

Walloon, where did you get those statistics? I’ve looked all through that site, and found nothing like the numbers you quoted.

I do, however, have some reports on cases where the father has tried to prevent the pregnant woman having an abortion. One example is very similar to the one your teenage friend is going through, WV_Woman.

Is this what you would have wished for your friend’s teenage girlfriend? The scenario is horrific to me. Btw, in the end she had the baby, and she and her parents are suing the state.

89

Walloon, where did you get those statistics? I’ve looked all through that site, and found nothing like the numbers you quoted.

I do, however, have some reports on cases where the father has tried to prevent the pregnant woman having an abortion.

http://www.prochoiceforum.org.uk/comm68.asp

(This is from a pro-choice website, and I would have preferred a more neutral news site, but couldn’t find one tonight. However, in this article at least, there’s no political badgering).

One example in this article is very similar to the one your teenage friend is going through, WV_Woman.

Is this what you would have wished for your friend’s teenage girlfriend? The scenario is horrific to me. Btw, in the end she had the baby, and she and her parents are suing the state.

90

The most impotant question will be in the future, when you ask the child of Mary Smith, do you wish you were dead or alive? Do you regret that your mother did not abort you?

91

The abortion reason percentages come from a 1988 article put out by the Alan Guttmacher Institute (the research wing of Planned Parenthood btw).

I couldn’t find it at the agi website (probably because of the date).

I did find it here. (yes the web site is a pro life site…the data is from agi however)

I’m not aware if there is more recent data. And of course this kind of data is “self reporting” data, which is the case of an event which carries some social stigma for some folks, may include a reporting bias.

Long story short, the hard cases make up a relatively small percentage of abortions in the U.S. (I use the term “hard case” in the political sense. For example, politicians are often asked if they are opposed to abortion “even in the hard cases of rape, incest or women’s health” )

92

Well, first of all, Roe v. Wade isn’t a “law”, it’s a Supreme Court Decision which affects other laws.

Secondly, that is NOT the legal decision I was thinking of or referring to (which, incidentally, in no way refers to the personhood or lack of same as regards fetuses, to my knowledge. It refers to our implied right to privacy) . I was and always am thinking of the Constitution when I make that reference. Under our Constitution , rights are granted to “citizens” which are defined as ** persons ** * ** born ** * or naturalized. Fetuses are neither born or naturalized. They ain’t citizens. They don’t gots no rights. Deal.

93

I believe his point was that we shouldn’t use instances of rape – which are unrepresentative of unwanted pregnancies – to justify abortion in general. It’s a common pro-choice approach to invoke extreme cases (rape, incest and fetal deformity), and to say that abortion in general should be allowed due to such unusual and unrepresentative circumstances.

94

Uh, I wasn’t addressing the abortion question at all with my comment to Brutus, so I have no idea whatsoever has to do with my comment. I was referring to his rabid desire to remove children from parents who have committed infidelity.

95

JThunder: the reason that rape, incest, and fetal deformity cases are raised is that when the law decides to make abortion illegal except in those cases, the law has to be capable of establishing a process to determine whether any particular case is such a case, quickly enough to avoid having that decision reduced to meaninglessness.

96

To be fair to Brutus, he only advocated removing children from women who commit adultery. He has not said anything at all so far about whether men who commit adultery are fit to be parents.

97

Non-citizens have no rights? The Constitution says that?

Hoo boy. Since I’m not a U.S. citizen, I guess I need to watch my back.

I think you’re over-reaching here, Stoid. Can you please cite the specific constitutional clause which says that only citizens have rights? While you’re at it, can you cite some authoritative definition of “citizenship” which necessitates being born?

Besides, as beagledave and I pointed out, even if your claims were accurate, they would only reflect the current state of law. The law is not always just, as you presumably know.

98

So the only solution is to allow abortion in general? That simply doesn’t follow.

Systems of checks and balances exist throughout the law. The mere need for such a system does not constitute an argument for abortion in general.

99

I’m firmly on the pro-choice fathers-have-no-say side of this one, and I’ll elaborate on that if anyone wants, but your statement here is obviously baloney. If you’ll read the Bill of Rights, you will kindly note that the definition you’ve provided appears nowhere in it, and in fact most rights are not “Granted” to anyone at all, but are a product of prohibitions against certain government behaviour. In fact I cannot find that definition anywhere in the Constitution of the United States.

100

Of course I didn’t say that Roe v Wade was legislated law. That’s one reason why I used the quote marks around the word “law”.

**

OK…you had said " In the sense that the baby is not legally a person under the law until it has been born and therefore has no rights because non-persons cannot have rights. "…

I don’t see a direct reference to the constitution in your post, do you? Most “legal” references to abortion in debates usually stem from Roe v Wade and subsequent rulings…so its not a big stretch to make that assumption here. (I’m well aware that Roe v Wade does not specifically mention the notion of “personhood” in its decision…that doesn’t seem to stop a whole lot of pro choice folks from using the notion of “personhood” as a benchmark in discussing abortion)

**

  1. Sigh. Not all rights are enumerated in the constitution.

  2. As JThunder pointed out, I’m sure our resident alien friends will be interested to know that they have absolutely no rights whatsoever. Will you be breaking the news to them yourself? :rolleyes:

  3. “Deal” huh?

Cool.

Numerous states only recognize heterosexual couples in marital unions. Deal. (course I dont see the right to a civilly recognized marriage in the constitution for anyone…so guess we’re all shit outta luck)

You’re black and enslaved in the 1850s? You ain’t a full person. Deal.