Choice goes both ways?

[IrishEyes]

Nemo and I are in the middle of a discussion, and I want you guys to weigh in. This discussion was prompted by the "Abortion:Murder" thread. While this is not strictly about whether abortion is right or wrong, it is about the laws, and how they are (or are not) biased.

 

Nemo contends that when abortion is discussed, most people are concerned with either the woman's right to terminate the pregnancy, or the right to live of the unborn. However, there are no laws (of which we are aware) that deal in any way with the rights of the man/father. This, to nemo, seems biased.

 

Currently, if a man and woman engage in consensual sex and a pregnancy occurs, the woman has the legal right to decide to terminate the pregnancy, regardless of the feelings of the man. The woman also has the right to carry the pregnancy to term, and demand child support for at least 18 years.

 

The man has no rights in this scenario. If he does not want a child, he is still required to pay child support, as he engaged in a consensual act. If he does want the child, but the woman does not, he has no legal recourse if the woman chooses to terminate.

 

Would you support a man's right to choose whether or not a woman can abort his offspring? If the man wanted the child, but the woman did not, is it fair to require her to complete the pregnancy and hand over the child to the man? Why is the issue only about a woman's right to choose, and not a man's? Is it because the child is in her body?

 

I have my own feelings on this issue, and will share them after I get a few responses. I am expecting an interesting discussion, as I know the one that nemo and I had was very spirited. B)

 

Enjoy!!

[HydrogenBond]

Excellent thread with a fresh twist. I think the bio-father should have some say in the outcome and not just have to accept the will of the female, but things get complicated. If the male wants the child and the woman doesn't, the woman's right to chose could be violated because of the existing abortion laws. If the man does not want the child and the woman does, it could be used as a loop hole used to avoid the responsibility of child support. It would open up two legal can's of worms.

 

Maybe the compromise could be a appeal system where the man can make his personal choice a social discussion, where the man and woman could reach a level of mutual accountability. For example, the woman should at the very least have some linger guilt for aborting the child against the will of the father. And the man should be make to share the burden of guilt that the female might feel if she was forced to lose her child because of the father.

[pgrmdave]

I have thought about this a lot, and I have yet to come to a good solution, ignoring my own personal feelings against abortion. There are two basic scenarios:

 

Woman wants to keep the child, man wants to abort - I think that in this situation, the best solution is to keep the child, because the woman's choice to keep the life outweighs the man's desire to not have a child.

 

Woman wants to abort the child, the man wants to keep it - This is the tough one. On the one hand, it is the man's child as well, and not even the mother should be able to kill his child. On the other hand, to keep the child forces the woman into nine months of pregnancy that she doesn't want. While part of me wants to say that any woman who is willing to put herself into a position where she could become pregnant should be willing to deal with the possible consequences, I also have to acknowledge the fact that a pregnancy affects the mother a lot more than it affects the father. I suppose the question eventually comes down to which is less desirable, a fetus's death or an undesired pregnancy. Being male, I don't know that I'm fully capable of answering that question.

[rockytriton]

I once read of a court case where a woman use the sperm from a used condom to get pregnant without telling the man, she then later sued him for child support and the court made him pay up.

[CraigD]

Would you support a man's right to choose whether or not a woman can abort his offspring?

I do not.

 

My reasons for this opinion are complicated and not entirely rational, but can be summarized as: because the father is not biologically involved in the pregnancy. If, though such unusual manipulations as an extracted egg being fertilized by and implanted in the man’s body, the pregnancy roles could be reversed, I would hold that the father is now entitled to decide the early gestational fate of the fetus, and the mother should have no right to decide the matter.

 

As previous posters have noted, the relevant issues where the mother and father disagree about aborting the fetus vary significantly between the case where the mother wants the abortion, and the father does. To my thinking, this amounts to a matter of contract common law – in either case one or both parties is claiming that the other is breaking an explicit or implicit contract between the two. A mother choosing abortion may believe that they had agreed that no offspring should result from their sexual intercourse. If the intercourse was non-consensual or coerced, she may believe that no valid contract between them exists. A father choosing abortion may believe that he made no representation that he would financially support any offspring of their intercourse. Even if the mother agrees to not hold him responsible, this situation can be complicated by current child support laws that do not permit a woman to forgive this responsibility. Issues around one or both partners use or failure to use birth control, intentionally or accidentally, also seem relevant.

 

To avoid awful disagreements of this nature, people should endeavor to have a good understanding of their obligations toward one another, privately and legally, before entering into sexual relationships. If this fails, and they become adversaries, I believe the role of government should be to protect either party from any form of involuntary service, be it a woman carrying an unwanted child to term, or a man being compelled to support a child conceived in bad faith.

[jkellmd]

Scientists are hopeful that one of the many male contraceptive drugs currently under development will FINALLY pass FDA approval. For men, this is wonderful news; their reproductive rights will no longer be bound to the whims of women. This should radically change the American social landscape, just as the female oral contraceptive did in the sixties; although, all of the changes may not be good. Unwanted pregnancies and abortions should plummet, as young men assert their rights. HIV may rise, due to less condom use. Marriage and birth rates will fall below those in europe. The educational system should then shrink, local and federal taxes should fall, GNP should rise, the dollar should soar, the economy should boom.

Darwinian effects of gradual depopulation and further skewing of reproductive rates toward those who cannot afford contraception are only beginning to be discussed. Some postulate that women will see their current social and economic power erode; others disagree. An interesting topic of discussion in itself.

[rockytriton]

I don't think that you realize the poor are the ones who won't be using the drugs, so the rates of poor people will still rise, while the middle to upper classes will be using these drugs and their rates will lower. AIDS will soar in the middle/upper classes, getting rid of even more of them. America will be left with only poor and undermotivated people. B)

[Boerseun]

Sheesh... difficult question, and I'm not exactly sure if there ever will be a clear-cut black-and-white answer for this.

 

However, I'm of the opinion that facing the situation where the father wants the child, and the mother wants to abort, is where the crunch lies. And as it is currently, I think it's unfair to have the mother hold 100% sway. I'd hate to lose a kid that I would've wanted just because the mother's got full rights over it. Then again, biologically, I can't see any way of cutting this specific Gordian knot.

[GAHD]

I'm thinking I'm in what appears to be Nemo's camp on this.

 

If the man does not want a child, and he is required to pay support, then the exact same thing should be required of the woman with the roles reversed.

 

I also say that the biological fater should be brough in on any termination decisions.

 

My own rational on why the decision should be mutual; there is no health risk from a pregnancy that is not atleast equaled by the risks of sex itself.

[Tormod]

Horribly difficult question. I have tried to ask myself what I would do if I managed to get a woman pregnant and I do not want the child (for the record...we're talking hypothetical here...I have enough kids... :confused: ).

 

To me, it would be a complete nightmare. First of all, I would worry myself to death with the concern that I have responsibility for the child. Second, I probably would not be in a steady relationship with this woman (otherwise the problem would be slightly different), which means my role as a father would be greatly diminished, even though I'd have to pay for it for a great part of my life (moneywise, obviously. Fatherhood in itself is for life).

 

So to take a single sided view, I think it would be fair that the man has a say in this. It - to me - feels almost like a life prison sentence would be put upon me.

 

I realize that there are many aspects to this - for example, how well did I try to avoid the pregnancy, how well do I know the woman, how would I feel about explaining this to my families etc. But still I do not think it's right that the decision lies with the woman alone.

 

Ack. Very difficult topic to discuss for me. I have a friend who managed to get twins with someone he was only in an on/off relationship with and that story did not have a happy ending for any of the parties involved. But AFAIK he really wanted these children to be born so he was of a different opinion than I would be.

[sanctus]

Well, if we suppose that both the man and the woman are perfectly healthy (so the fact that the woman got pregnant is not almost unique), then the decision is the woman's.

I have to go now, btut I develop further later.

[BEAKER]

I think the unborn child should also have a choice in the matter, after all - by this time we would have certainly come to grips with the fact that he/she is a viable human entity, not merely some cancerous tumor or other growth.

 

And if that were a factor in the decision making process, we should assume that the unborn child wants to live, since we can say for a certainty that virtually every one reading this thread, and everyone not reading this thread (with the possible exception of a very few nutcases), would rather be given the chance to live rather than die, if given the "choice".

 

So if we assume one vote for life among the three, it only requires one more to make a majority. eather one - doesn't matter.:confused:

[BEAKER]

of course if we also assume a vote for life from God who allowed the conception in the frst place, then we are already outvoted.

[sanctus]

Well, if we suppose that both the man and the woman are perfectly healthy (so the fact that the woman got pregnant is not almost unique), then the decision is the woman's.

I have to go now, btut I develop further later.

So here I continue.

Discussing with somebody just know we figured out that actually nowadays with our laws the big issue isn't the case where the man wants and the woman not (because if the man really wants a child and he is healthy(= no sperm etc. problems) than he can easily conceive one with another woman).

Now the case where the man doesn't want and the woman yes is the difficult question, because in our "juridic system" if he is the father he has to sustain the child, so there the man should have a say (even if he has already done all his part). A solution would be that thw woman officially states that she doesn't want any aid from him, a better solution would be to be clear about everything beforehand.

 

So in conclusion in one case the man has to say something (when he doesn't want and she does) and in the other (when he does and she doesn't) not. Conclusion: ... ?????

 

Hope I was comprehensible

[IrishEyes]

Thanks for the discussion, guys...

 

Nemo and I finally came to an agreement that both of us could live with on this one.

 

Basically, if two adults engage in consensual sex and a pregnancy occurs, the most fair thing would be the following choices:

a) They both agree to raise the child together, contributing equally in the upbringing.

B) They both agree to terminate the pregnancy.

c) The woman wants the child, the man does not. Since both engaged in consensual sex, aware of the possible consequences, the woman gives birth. The woman raises the child, the man is responsible for child support, just as in a case of divorce. (This is currently how it is in most states)

d) The man wants the child, the woman does not. Since both engaged in consensual sex, aware of the possible consequences, the woman gives birth. The man is responsible for all medical expenses related to childbirth, and any lost wages the woman suffers as a result of the pregnancy or childbirth. After delivery, the man raises the child, and the woman is responsible for child support, as in divorce cases.

 

It took me a while to see how this was fair to the woman, being forced to carry a child that she didn't want. Then I realized that it happens to men all the time - they are forced to support children that they didn't want. It's only fair that both parties are equally liable and responsible for their actions. If a man is willing to raise his child, why should a woman be allowed to terminate the pregnancy? Yes, the pregancy is happening in her body, but the child is just as much a part of the man as it is a part of the woman.

 

Anyhow, again, thanks for giving me your feedback. It was a very interesting discussion around here for a few days. :confused:

[lindagarrette]

Thanks for the discussion, guys...

 

Nemo and I finally came to an agreement that both of us could live with on this one.

 

Basically, if two adults engage in consensual sex and a pregnancy occurs, the most fair thing would be the following choices:

a) They both agree to raise the child together, contributing equally in the upbringing.

B) They both agree to terminate the pregnancy.

c) The woman wants the child, the man does not. Since both engaged in consensual sex, aware of the possible consequences, the woman gives birth. The woman raises the child, the man is responsible for child support, just as in a case of divorce. (This is currently how it is in most states)

d) The man wants the child, the woman does not. Since both engaged in consensual sex, aware of the possible consequences, the woman gives birth. The man is responsible for all medical expenses related to childbirth, and any lost wages the woman suffers as a result of the pregnancy or childbirth. After delivery, the man raises the child, and the woman is responsible for child support, as in divorce cases.

 

It took me a while to see how this was fair to the woman, being forced to carry a child that she didn't want. Then I realized that it happens to men all the time - they are forced to support children that they didn't want. It's only fair that both parties are equally liable and responsible for their actions. If a man is willing to raise his child, why should a woman be allowed to terminate the pregnancy? Yes, the pregancy is happening in her body, but the child is just as much a part of the man as it is a part of the woman.

 

Anyhow, again, thanks for giving me your feedback. It was a very interesting discussion around here for a few days. :confused:

Irish, I don't often take a stand on these matters but I have to disagree with you on option d. It is never up to the man for the woman to carry a child if she doesn't want to. It's always her choice. Whoever is responsible before or after, is of no consequence. The decision to terminate a pregnancy is always a woman's right. The man has a substantial input, but is not part of the process from that time on other than how our society deem him so. There is no connection between the man and the child once the fertilization has occurred. The man could be vanish but the woman remains the mother.

[cwes99_03]

Linda assumes a world where no man is capable of wanting to have that child in his body. Unfortunately her romanticised version of the macho man is incorrect. A man can have a profound emotional attachment to the child. Look at all the doting fathers who constantly feel the stomach of the mother waiting for movement. Think of all the men who constantly run to the store to buy one thing or another for a hormonal, craved mother to be.

 

While your solution Irish seems novel why don't we let higher powers weigh in. The ultimate solution to this question is, make sure that in order for a man and woman to have a child that they be married and incapable of being separated. They then have to share the financial, emotional, physical burdens of the pregnancy and raising of the child.

Living according to these rules gives the following results.

1) Being forced to remain together if one or the other chooses life for the child, each and every horny person in the world will be forced to look much further than the moment.

2) Men and women will enter into contract agreements before having sex that if the woman should become pregnant the fetus would be aborted. Again this would require a cooling off period because it could be argued that in the heat of the moment the contract was invalid as neither party was capable of thinking clearly, thus leading back to point number one.

3) Any other form of legal contract where a cooling off period was observed, could be argued to be some sort of prostitution (though not for money.) I think this to be a very weak point, but none-the-less I include it in the realm of possibilities.

 

Why doesn't anyone argue here that the ultimate solution would be to ban sex (where a child could be conceived) between anyone but a man and his wife? Also one would have to stipulate that in this solution that should a man and woman marry, they agree to remain married until such time that all of their children are fully grown.

 

Stipulate into all the above that neither the man nor the woman may make life miserable for the other partner in the marriage without repercussion of arrest and sentencing of both parties until such time that the youngest child becomes 18.

 

Why does everyone think that marriage/raising a child should be so easy to get into or out of? Marriage/sex/raising a child is not an easy choice to make, but that is exactly what society wants to make it. To this I say, grow up, get real.