Father's Rights in Matters of Abortion

[theleftone]

While I personally detest abortion, I thought this might be an interesting question to discuss.

Should the father have a say in whether to abort a pregnancy or not?

[theleftone]

Should the father have a say in whether to abort a pregnancy or not?

Could we then address this as two questions:

1. Should the father be allowed to prevent or otherwise delay an abortion?
2. Should the father's wish that an abortion be pursued, have any legal or ethical weight in the decision?

I don't see why not. I thought your original question was a good question as well.

[BeHereNow]

Should the father be allowed to prevent or otherwise delay an abortion?

I do not see how any father has the right to any decisional vote on abortion.
Rapist fathers who have parental rights is one of the greatest legal travesties I am aware of.

Should the father's wish that an abortion be pursued, have any legal or ethical weight in the decision?

This is the tough question.
In my work I see many young mothers living off child support and social services.
I have no doubt that many of them who are pregnant are looking forward to the financial support the absent parent will be providing. Not only is there the direct money they get for child support, but the young child is a ticket to many social services not available to childless women. Multiple children means multiple tickets. They would object to an abortion on financial grounds more than moral or ethical. With this in mind it might seem fair for a father-to-be to have the option of forsaking all rights and responsibilities for his offspring. It seems to me the quagmire this presents is overwhelming.

Ethically, some fathers should be entitled to “opt out” of a pregnancy and resulting child, but I can see no legal solution to this. There are women who will lie and say they have adequate birth control, “trapping” the foolish man who is thinking with the wrong part of his body.

Legally, a man who was foolish enough to get into the position of being a potential father should have to pay the price and be financially responsible for any child he helped create. That’s the way the cookie crumbles.

[Cephus]

Legally, a man who was foolish enough to get into the position of being a potential father should have to pay the price and be financially responsible for any child he helped create. That’s the way the cookie crumbles.

Just playing the devil's advocate though, why doesn't that apply equally to women? She was foolish enough to get into the position of being a potential mother, why shouldn't she be stuck with it, just like a man is?

Women want equality, yet the second real equality is suggested, they complain about it. I don't buy it, sorry.

[BeHereNow]

cephus Just playing the devil's advocate though, why doesn't that apply equally to women? She was foolish enough to get into the position of being a potential mother, why shouldn't she be stuck with it, just like a man is?

Women want equality, yet the second real equality is suggested, they complain about it. I don't buy it, sorry.

I’m not sure what your point is.
From the moment a woman finds out she is pregnant, she is “stuck with it”.
If you are referring to my mention of women who rely on others for all of the financial support, financial support is only part of the package. There is more to having a baby than paying the bills. I assume you realize that, which is why I don’t get your point.
The man is only stuck with the financial responsibility (and then often does not meet his financial responsibility).
I do see cases where the man has custody of the child(ren), and the woman is obligated to pay child support.
Is that what you mean?
More men should have full custody of the children (with ocassional visitation for the mother)?

[Cephus]

From the moment a woman finds out she is pregnant, she is “stuck with it”.

That's untrue. If she wants to abort the child, the father has no say whatsoever. If she wants to keep the child, the father has no say whatsoever. She holds all the cards. She's only "stuck with it" if she chooses to be.

If you are referring to my mention of women who rely on others for all of the financial support, financial support is only part of the package. There is more to having a baby than paying the bills.

Of course, but that doesn't change the fact that she's the one with all the power and control. The father has none whatsoever and trying to exercise any brings down the full force of law on his head.

I do see cases where the man has custody of the child(ren), and the woman is obligated to pay child support.

And you do know that's extremely rare and only happens in cases where the woman has proven herself to be incompetent to the courts. I have a friend where that was the case, the mother was a drunk and drug addict and abused the children to the point where the courts finally had to take them away from her and give them to the father. And you know something? She hid her assets and refused to pay and only worked under the table and went on welfare rather than pay anything.

[BeHereNow]

Cephus

Your position is not without merit, but is clearly one sided.

BHN: From the moment a woman finds out she is pregnant, she is “stuck with it”.

Cephus: That's untrue. If she wants to abort the child, the father has no say whatsoever. If she wants to keep the child, the father has no say whatsoever. She holds all the cards. She's only "stuck with it" if she chooses to be.

From the moment of conception, two people are given much responsibility concerning the welfare of an offspring.
Within minutes of learning about this responsibility the man can walk away from all of his responsibilities.

If he is pursued for child support, he can dodge any responsibility. If he is willing to work for cash under the table, or relocate to another state, or relocate frequently for 18 years, he can get away paying very little or no support. He can father 5 or 6 children with the same results. He is does not have to provide any emotional support to his child or the child’s mother.
After the first child, he is already in the mode, and escaping responsibility for five children is seldom harder than for one child.
Once the children become of age, and his financial responsibility has ended, he can find them and make up for lost time, if HE chooses (and they agree).

The woman, on the other hand, faces her responsibilities from the moment she finds out she is pregnant.

Her first decision is whether or not to carry to term. That is not a decision any woman makes lightly, as it may follow her the rest of her life. Many women never overcome the sadness and despair that accompanies this.

You say “If she wants to abort the child, the father has no say whatsoever.”, but how much say can he have?
Do you suggest that each side presents their case to an impartial judge, and the judge decides whether or not she carries to term?
Should the judge have the final say, against her wishes?
Is she to be imprisoned so she doesn’t induce a miscarriage?

If we are to do this, surely we are obligated to let a judge decide in other circumstances.
If the mother wants to carry to term, and the father wants an abortion, are we to let a judge decide, even against the mother’s wishes, to force the woman to have an abortion?
The only way the man can “have a say” is to present his case before an impartial judge, who then decides. Otherwise it is either her decision, or his. There is no middle ground in this.

She may choose to put the child up for adoption. This is a not a decision any woman make lightly, as it may follow her the rest of her life. Many women never overcome the sadness and despair that accompanies this.

Or she may decide to raise the child, possibly little help from her parents, and no help from the father.
She has no control over how much responsibility the father will accept. She can file for child support, but if the man is intent, the law will never touch him.
And the law never can force him to provide the emotional support his child should be getting.

If the father stays in the area, he may make promises to the child to spend time on birthdays and holidays, and if he decides he has something better to do, the woman has no control over the disappointments he may cause their child.
The woman has no control over the actions of the man, but always has responsibilities of her child or the decisions she makes concerning it. I am told the women experience these responsibilities and decisions differently (more intensely) than men.

BHN: If you are referring to my mention of women who rely on others for all of the financial support, financial support is only part of the package. There is more to having a baby than paying the bills.
Cephus: Of course, but that doesn't change the fact that she's the one with all the power and control. The father has none whatsoever and trying to exercise any brings down the full force of law on his head.

Vindictive mothers can definitely separate the father from his child, and the law will allow and sometimes help her, intended or not. When the mother does not have the best interests of the child, and the father does, the woman does hold the power and control.
We should be able to agree this is a minority of the situations.
Mothers who are not vindictive will want the child to have a relationship with their father. She will share power and control, even when the man abuses this by not living up to his promises to mother and child.
Fathers who want nothing to do with the child gain power and control, they do not lose it.

Ideally both parents will share and be honest to all parties, and this does happen.

BHN: I do see cases where the man has custody of the child(ren), and the woman is obligated to pay child support.

Cephus: And you do know that's extremely rare and only happens in cases where the woman has proven herself to be incompetent to the courts. I have a friend where that was the case, the mother was a drunk and drug addict and abused the children to the point where the courts finally had to take them away from her and give them to the father. And you know something? She hid her assets and refused to pay and only worked under the table and went on welfare rather than pay anything.

Yes it is rare, I only mentioned it because you mentioned equality.

Even most men who want to be in the child’s life, do not want responsibility 24/7. Many young mothers would be glad if the father took full custody for a few years while she started a career or went to college. If she had the power or control to force the man to take full time custody, or get out of the child’s life completely, she would. She can not do that. The man can restrict the time he spends with his child as much as he wants.

In some situation the woman has all of the control, as you say.
In most cases either there is a good relationship for the sake of the child, or it is the man who has all of the control.
Two of my close friends are fathers who paid max child support, and wanted to be in the lives of their children but were denied by vindictive ex-wives. They would strongly agree with you.
But there is another side.

[Cephus]

Within minutes of learning about this responsibility the man can walk away from all of his responsibilities.

Not legally he can't. In fact, a woman can lie to a man, tell him that she's on birth control, tell him that she's infertile, and when she becomes pregnant, he's still responsible for it, even though he was lied to.

Her first decision is whether or not to carry to term. That is not a decision any woman makes lightly, as it may follow her the rest of her life. Many women never overcome the sadness and despair that accompanies this.

And most overcome it just fine. Come on, stay rational, let's not sink into silly emotionalism here.

You say “If she wants to abort the child, the father has no say whatsoever.”, but how much say can he have?

He *CAN* have plenty, he probably *SHOULD* have plenty, how much does he functionally have? Zero. How much say does he have about paying for the child for 18 years? Zero.

Do you suggest that each side presents their case to an impartial judge, and the judge decides whether or not she carries to term?

No, I suggest that both sides have their ability to opt out if that's what they choose to do. If the mother wants to abort, it's up to her, it's her body. If the father wants to abrogate financial responsibility in exchange for removing all parental rights, that should be up to him.

Of course, the real problem here is that we're dealing with two people who really have no business being parents to begin with. In a mature, responsible relationship, none of this is even an issue, both parents are in a long-term, mutually monogamous, committed relationship and the child is wanted to begin with. In the overwhelming majority of cases we're talking about, it's likely that the child is better off never being born to begin with.

[BeHereNow]

In fact, a woman can lie to a man, tell him that she's on birth control, tell him that she's infertile, and when she becomes pregnant, he's still responsible for it, even though he was lied to.

Not legally she can’t.
The man can act illegally and shirk his responsibility just as the woman can act illegally.

Of course, the real problem here is that we're dealing with two people who really have no business being parents to begin with. In a mature, responsible relationship, none of this is even an issue, both parents are in a long-term, mutually monogamous, committed relationship and the child is wanted to begin with. In the overwhelming majority of cases we're talking about, it's likely that the child is better off never being born to begin with.

That is often true, but not always.
Custody and support issues often occur between very mature people, who, in this one aspect, do not have the best interests of the child as their concern.

He is where we agree:
If the woman is determined to cause problems, the man will have little recourse.

The courts and law enforcement favor the parent who has the child, and since it is normally the woman who has the child, she gets the upper hand.
And the fathers often are helpless.
But I still say that is only half of the story.

[micatala]

Her first decision is whether or not to carry to term. That is not a decision any woman makes lightly, as it may follow her the rest of her life. Many women never overcome the sadness and despair that accompanies this.

And most overcome it just fine. Come on, stay rational, let's not sink into silly emotionalism here.

It is true that many women do not have any emotional trauma concerning such a decision, but many also do. To characterize this as 'silly emotionalism' is trivializing what for some is a very difficult and traumatic decision. The fact that you and others might feel differently does not mean there is not value to these emotional considerations.

Is it 'silly emotionalism' to feel concern about corporate pillaging of the environment? Is it silly emotionalism to be concerned about people dieing in Darfur? After all, we are not responsible in any but the most tangential way for what is happening, for example, in Darfur. We can easily ignore it. We could also respons 'non-emotionally' by providing some type of assistance. But most people, even when responding in as pragmatic a way as possible, are going to have some level of emotional involvement in or feeling about the situation. These emotions are arguably the primary motivational factor in making a response, for many people.

[BeHereNow]

I have known women who never got over having an abortion, and women who never got over putting up for adpotption