Abortion Question: Consent

[Darwin333]

When it comes to pregnancy and childbirth, women bear the brunt of that burden. Relatedly, the fetus is biologically a part of her, hence the greater weight allotted her decision when it comes to abortions.

I agree but I would wager that in 99% of the abortions it isn't the burden of giving birth to the child it is the burden of raising and supporting the child that is the deciding factor.

Even afterward, if she chooses to have a child despite the father wishing to abort, she can attempt to collect child support, but there's no guarantee she'll be able to find him or that he'll actually pay.

If a woman can absolve all of her responsibilities for a child before it is born shouldn't the male have the same ability by signing away his rights as a father forever absolving him from any responsibilities to that child?

I would never argue that a man has the right, or should, to force a woman to give birth to a child or abort it but I do think that they should both have an equal right to absolve themselves of responsibility if they desire.

 

[Darwin333]

It takes two to Tango.

You don't say...

 

[nageov3t]

troll thread aside... I wouldn't support a man being able to force a woman to carry a baby that she doesn't want for 9 months. but I think that if a guy wants the child aborted, he should have all parental rights/responsibilities stripped away (both good and bad... no financial obligation, but no custody either)

 

[Whisper]

I agree but I would wager that in 99% of the abortions it isn't the burden of giving birth to the child it is the burden of raising and supporting the child that is the deciding factor.



If a woman can absolve all of her responsibilities for a child before it is born shouldn't the male have the same ability by signing away his rights as a father forever absolving him from any responsibilities to that child?

I would never argue that a man has the right, or should, to force a woman to give birth to a child or abort it but I do think that they should both have an equal right to absolve themselves of responsibility if they desire.

I can definitely see your point. Personally, I might be ok with (or I at least wouldn't actively resist) a law that stated something akin to what you and Loki have said (i.e., the father, if he wished for an abortion that was essentially denied by the mother, can then absolve all parental rights to the child).

However, the problem I have with that is that it unfairly punishes the child. In the end, with an abortion, there's no child (obviously). However, regardless of what the father wanted, if the mother gives birth, a child has entered the world and needs caretaking. I just don't feel that the father should be able to absolve himself of that burden, and thereby deprive the child of his support, despite his not wanting to have the child in the first place. Once the baby is born, it becomes about much more than what either the mother or father wanted beforehand.

Ideally, of course, if someone is not at all ok with having a kid, then he/she just wouldn't have sex. Realistically, people make bad decisions and thus that's often not the case. In the end, then, the child ends up paying for something with which they had absolutely nothing to do.

 

[LiuKangBakinPie]

Could you please explain how, other than carrying the child for 9 months, I do not have equal responsibilities for both of my daughters? One is in school and the other is about to start but since my wife stays at home I have the responsibility of providing for them and being their father but my wife still has more "further responsibilities" concerning our children than I do?

Please do elaborate.

Responsibilities are one of the things when your part of a family. As a man one always feel your responsible for their well being and take a role as the head. But thats common family values, traditions and the way one was brought up. It differ from person to person. But that has nothing to do with the law. The law was written not towards a certain type value nor up bringing but to cover the reasonable man and reasonable woman in todays society.

Theres no law stating that you have to go look after a child when its born. A man can walk away. A woman will get arrested. So its not hard to see why woman have more say when it comes to legal aspects in making choices in a childs life.

 

[LiuKangBakinPie]

You don't say...

When I say two I mean two conscience parties. Dead or passed out doesnt count as one

 

[Whisper]

Responsibilities are one of the things when your part of a family. As a man one always feel your responsible for their well being and take a role as the head. But thats common family values, traditions and the way one was brought up. It differ from person to person. But that has nothing to do with the law. The law was written not towards a certain type value nor up bringing but to cover the reasonable man and reasonable woman in todays society.

Theres no law stating that you have to go look after a child when its born. A man can walk away. A woman will get arrested. So its not hard to see why woman have more say when it comes to legal aspects in making choices in a childs life.

Just to play slight devil's advocate--that latter portion isn't necessarily true, particularly in states/cities with baby safe have-type laws and centers.

In the end, though, I agree with you that the greater burden of childcare more often than not falls on the mother in situations of unwanted/unplanned pregnancy. After all, she is the one person who must physically be present when the baby's born. Even with safe haven drop-off locations, I'd imagine it's likely more difficult for all but the most antisocial amongst us to drop a baby off that you've just birthed than it is to choose to absolve yourself of parental responsibility while never having seen the child.

 

[gorcorps]

No, it the fetus is part of the mother so she gets to decide. The sperm donor has no rights... especially if they aren't husband and wife.

Don't like it? Then don't stick your dick in someone you don't know/trust.

true story

 

[LiuKangBakinPie]

Just to play slight devil's advocate--that latter portion isn't necessarily true, particularly in states/cities with baby safe have-type laws and centers.

In the end, though, I agree with you that the greater burden of childcare more often than not falls on the mother in situations of unwanted/unplanned pregnancy. After all, she is the one person who must physically be present when the baby's born. Even with safe haven drop-off locations, I'd imagine it's likely more difficult for all but the most antisocial amongst us to drop a baby off that you've just birthed than it is to choose to absolve yourself of parental responsibility while never having seen the child.

the reasonable man and reasonable woman in todays society
That means its a man made law and will differ from country to country/state.

Number of states have specifically enacted laws that remove the presumption that a mother rather than a father should automatically be awarded custody. Joint custody agreements are quite common. More common is a legal order that says "joint custody" and thus minimizes the father's child support payments, accompanied by a "weekend dad" who has chosen to actually take responsibility of the kids for about 20% of the time, rather than the 50% that his support payment order assumes to be true.

But again its a agreement and not a common thing. Common means its a law that one know is right and what is wrong since you first had the ability to reason or make decisions in life. Example of A common law is murder. We all know its wrong doesnt matter where on earth you are and they didnt had to create laws to cover it.

Basically the main thing is that a woman has say from the get go as a man has to go through several legal hoops to increase his rights. But family laws are there to protect the children in the end

 

[LiuKangBakinPie]

No, it the fetus is part of the mother so she gets to decide. The sperm donor has no rights... especially if they aren't husband and wife.

Don't like it? Then don't stick your dick in someone you don't know/trust.

We are not talking about the rights you have/ do not have with abortions relating to someone you boned but a males rights when he's daughter want to have one.

 

[Darwin333]

Theres no law stating that you have to go look after a child when its born. A man can walk away. A woman will get arrested. So its not hard to see why woman have more say when it comes to legal aspects in making choices in a childs life.

Not sure about where you live but a woman can leave her baby inside of a police station and walk away here, no questions asked.

 

[Darwin333]

Just to play slight devil's advocate--that latter portion isn't necessarily true, particularly in states/cities with baby safe have-type laws and centers.

In the end, though, I agree with you that the greater burden of childcare more often than not falls on the mother in situations of unwanted/unplanned pregnancy. After all, she is the one person who must physically be present when the baby's born. Even with safe haven drop-off locations, I'd imagine it's likely more difficult for all but the most antisocial amongst us to drop a baby off that you've just birthed than it is to choose to absolve yourself of parental responsibility while never having seen the child.

Not really a good comparison.

A more accurate comparison would be the woman has the right to, without input from the father, to absolve herself of all responsibility without ever seeing the child (abortion).

The man, within the same time period the mother has to abort the child, has the same ability. After the child is born (or whatever time period the mother is bound by) then you incur all responsibility.

 

[Darwin333]

Ideally, of course, if someone is not at all ok with having a kid, then he/she just wouldn't have sex. Realistically, people make bad decisions and thus that's often not the case. In the end, then, the child ends up paying for something with which they had absolutely nothing to do.

I agree completely I am simply pointing out a very lopsided system.

The woman has the ability to absolve herself of responsibility from said bad decision, the father has absolutely no input whatsoever.

 

[zokudu]

I dunno. I think if the man is willing to take on all the responsibilities of raising the child just like a single mother would then its his choice. I think its unfair how much pull mothers have in the courts of child custody.

 

[LiuKangBakinPie]

Not sure about where you live but a woman can leave her baby inside of a police station and walk away here, no questions asked.

Do you mean abandon or giving up custody of the child due to several certain reasons?

Theres a difference between the two.

 

[LiuKangBakinPie]

Not really a good comparison.

A more accurate comparison would be the woman has the right to, without input from the father, to absolve herself of all responsibility without ever seeing the child (abortion).

The man, within the same time period the mother has to abort the child, has the same ability. After the child is born (or whatever time period the mother is bound by) then you incur all responsibility.

Should both would-be parents have to give consent for an abortion to be performed, rather than just the mother?

Your thinking about a different aspect

Edit: Apology my mistake thinking about teenage abortions and the parents role

 

[CZroe]

The justification for abortion is often that it is the woman's body and she can do what she wants to with it, but this justification falls apart when you stop considering the fetus anything less than a protected life/body all its own. Even then, requiring dual-consent would only make sense if the one objecting was forced to take custody or put the child up for adoption.

 

[LiuKangBakinPie]

The justification for abortion is often that it is the woman's body and she can do what she wants to with it, but this justification falls apart when you stop considering the fetus anything less than a protected life/body all its own. Even then, requiring dual-consent would only make sense if the one objecting was forced to take custody or put the child up for adoption.

Up to a certain stage in the pregnancy its not classified a living human being but more as tumor that can be removed

 

[randomrogue]

I think that if a woman gets an abortion without the man's consent she is a murderer. Punishable by a horrible and cruel death. Both parties should agree to abort or keep. If both choose to abort then no foul.

But what if the man wants an abortion and the woman doesn't? Well since it's the woman's body she can't be forced to do it. That would be pretty draconian.

 

[CZroe]

Up to a certain stage in the pregnancy its not classified a living human being but more as tumor that can be removed

The whole point is that the classification is disputed.

 

[randomrogue]

Yes it's disputed by people who think that people lived with Dinosaurs and the Earth is 6000 years old.

 

[CZroe]

Yes it's disputed by people who think that people lived with Dinosaurs and the Earth is 6000 years old.

You are obviously one of those people who doesn't realize that it has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with it being an arbitrary point where the distinction was made that is legitimate to dispute based on anyone's opinion. This argument is getting old and it's more ignorant than the people you are trying to call out.

If I disagree that the position in relation to one side of the mother's vagina or the other distinguishes whether or not it is a protected human life, it has NOTHING WHAT-SO-EVER to do with religion. Where does The Bible or whatever religious doctrine tell us that? Your assumptions belay your bias.

 

[randomrogue]

I counter your drivel with the fact that a fetus cannot live outside the body.

 

[CZroe]

Yes it's disputed by people who think that people lived with Dinosaurs and the Earth is 6000 years old.

I counter your drivel with the fact that a fetus cannot live outside the body.

I counter your drivel with the fact that it can after a certain point where it is still legal to kill it.

THAT'S THE ARGUMENT. The point is too vague to define specifically and "at birth" is a controversially late and arbitrary distinction unrelated to the life being protected.

Also, it can't survive outside the body without a caretaker well after it becomes a protected and born life.

Your position is so blatantly fixed and inarguable to you because you have blinders on.

 

[randomrogue]

Are you trying to compare care by a parent to intensive care in an incubator and living off a feeding tube and respirator?

What side of the debate did you end up on with Terri Schiavo?