Abortion babies and a fathers rights

[JebSanderson]

Sovereignty over what? Killing her child?

You have sovereignty over a guy's dick going into your hoohah. If you consent to that, you accept all the responsibilities that go along with it.

Don't you get it, we're waging a war against women because we don't condone them killing their children! It's their right!

 

[No Free Beer]

I'm so sick of this abortion talk.

Murder is murder.

End of story.

 

[tod evans]

Don't you get it, we're waging a war against women because we don't condone them killing their children! It's their right!

Who's waging war on women?

I'm trying my best to argue that a father should have equal say.

My argument holds true whether or not abortion is legal.

Without a father there would be no fetus, so why can't the father have an equal say?

Instead of derailing the discussion to abortion or who's body has a womb......What about a fathers legal right to speak for his progeny?

 

[No Free Beer]

Who's waging war on women?

I'm trying my best to argue that a father should have equal say.

My argument holds true whether or not abortion is legal.

Without a father there would be no fetus, so why can't the father have an equal say?

Instead of derailing the discussion to abortion or who's body has a womb......What about a fathers legal right to speak for his progeny?

I think he was being sarcastic.

 

[Danke]

I think he was being sarcastic.

Ya, I believe that was a recent Obama claim that Republicans are "waging a war on women."

 

[tod evans]

:oWhoops..........sorry.

 

[No Free Beer]

Ya, I believe that was a recent Obama claim that Republicans are "waging a war on women."

Typical politician.

I am so sick of the pettiness

 

[MelissaWV]

Who's waging war on women?

I'm trying my best to argue that a father should have equal say.

My argument holds true whether or not abortion is legal.

Without a father there would be no fetus, so why can't the father have an equal say?

Instead of derailing the discussion to abortion or who's body has a womb......What about a fathers legal right to speak for his progeny?

I do think that person was being sarcastic, but as for me... I do think men should have a right to input, to be free from being forced to pay for something they do not want, to have equal consideration (gender-blind) with regards to custody. It just comes back to the pesky problem I keep mentioning. Just like Kluge, the only solution I can think of is for the guy to pay for the pregnancy and somehow compensate the woman for the risk she's undertaking. That might be incentive for her to go through with it. It's an inelegant solution, though. I had wanted to hear if someone had anything else in mind. What I got is "don't have sex."

 

[JebSanderson]

:oWhoops..........sorry.

Yes, I was being sarcastic. That other poster keeps talking about so called "women's sovereignty" but refuses to acknowledge that the child also has the exact same rights, included the right to LIFE.

Personally I think there is only one legal solution to the abortion debate that is consistent with liberterian principles and that is the pro-life position. I think that the government has the responsibility to protect the life of all under its jurisdiction and that includes the unborn. I would charge the "doctor" with premeditated murder and the mother with manslaughter at the least and perhaps even the father for accessory to murder if he pressured the woman to have an abortion.

The legal system currently is a disgrace. The man has no say over whether he will be stuck with the responsibilities of a child for 18+ years and the woman has the "right" to kill that child. I think both those things are horrible. I think neither should able to decide whether the child dies, they should take responsibility for their actions.

We all know what the possible outcome of sex is, we know that even with contraception there is still that risk. If you aren't willing to accept that risk, don't have sex. If you do have sex, take precautions and know that even "safe sex" isn't 100% "safe". Just like we take precautions and understand the risk of STD's we have to know and understand the risk of pregnancy and accept the outcome like mature, responsible adults.

 

[presence]

1. Kidnap her and keep her locked away and restrained for about 8 months.
2. Bribe her--pay her lots of money and if she's poor enough, she may go along with it.
3. Try to get the state to force her to have your child by law.

I agree with the OP's proposition...

The father should have a say.

But I don't agree with your "three options".

Why not civil / criminal penalties after the fact? This isn't a statutuory offense we're talking about...

its fetus in a bucket in the corner of the room; MURDER.

Why not a requirement for abortion doctors to have both parents signatures or a signed affidavit from the mother stating she is has made an attempt to, but is unable to contact the father (or was raped).

I agree with the premise of abortion, but only to week 10-12 (fetus/embryo transition, organ development, brain activity) not until week 28 as under Roe v Wade (viability).

88% of abortions currently occur before week 12. In my opinion anything after that is murder, and any abortion without the fathers permission is murder.

How dare you kill my unborn child?

My anti-feminist-abortion-rights position:

It ceases to be YOUR UTEROUS when there is a fetus in it.... it's the fetus' uterous.

Fetuses deserve LIFE, LIBERTY, and THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS and a father's embryo deserves state protection unless he ALSO concedes to its destruction.

presence

 

[MelissaWV]

I agree with the OP's proposition...

The father should have a say.

But I don't agree with your "three options".

Why not civil / criminal penalties after the fact? This isn't a statutuory offense we're talking about...

its fetus in a bucket in the corner of the room; MURDER.

Why not a requirement for abortion doctors to have both parents signatures or a signed affidavit from the mother stating she is has made an attempt to, but is unable to contact the father (or was raped).

I agree with the premise of abortion, but only to week 10-12 (fetus/embryo transition, organ development, brain activity) not until week 28 as under Roe v Wade (viability).

88% of abortions currently occur before week 12. In my opinion anything after that is murder, and any abortion without the fathers permission is murder.

How dare you kill my unborn child?

My anti-feminist-abortion-rights position:

It ceases to be YOUR UTEROUS when there is a fetus in it.... it's the fetus' uterous.

Fetuses deserve LIFE, LIBERTY, and THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS and a father's embryo deserves state protection unless he ALSO concedes to its destruction.

presence

Penalties after the fact would be an option, for sure, but this is a different situation as you say. This is not akin to "someone wrecked my car; I want to be compensated." This is something that cannot be replaced. In the scenario we are discussing, the father has property (for lack of a better term) inside of the mother. The father cannot actually keep that property alive and safe without the mother. The mother is, again in this scenario, keeping the property hostage. You cannot just double-dog-dare her to kill the baby and face penalties. There are a number of things that make a woman miscarry, and it would be rather difficult to prove beyond all doubt that she didn't naturally miscarry. There are also ways she could "get even" by poisoning the child little by little, but that people are not putting forth as things which should be illegal.

So the three options are the ones that you can attempt in order to keep the woman from killing the fetus, but all of them involve some degree of inelegance.

 

[tod evans]

There's lot's of issues that interact when we get to discussing "babies"....

Determining when an embryo turns to a fetus is a good starting point...And if I understood Dr. Paul correctly he considers using hormones to flush an embryo birth control? I could be wrong but that's what I remember...

Anyway...I drew that line in the sand so as to give a starting point for further discussion.


Casual sex (sex for pleasure) is going to happen, so accepting that moving forward is logical.

Let's move to the woman, after-all she's the first to suspect pregnancy, modern medicine offers her the ability to assure she's not pregnant long before the embryo transitions to a fetus leaving her the option of retroactive birth control.

Once an embryo has become a fetus the only way I'm aware of to end the pregnancy voluntarily is a scrape-n-suck traditional abortion.

At the point when a traditional abortion is required to end a pregnancy is when I believe a fathers rights should kick in. Not only the fathers right to equally represent the fetus but the right of the fetus itself to be recognized if not as an individual than as a "potential life" that both parents are responsible for.

I'm intentionally avoiding the legality of abortion because right now it's still legal.......So if the mother hasn't ended her pregnancy before the embryo reaches the "fetus" stage I purpose that she has consented by default that the father has equal legal standing regarding the life of the fetus.

At any point during the 8 weeks after sex the potential mother and father have the opportunity to discuss moral/ethical/financial responsibility without granting the embryo status of "potential life"......This is when decisions by the woman need to be made, her "sovereignty" over her body would remain only until the fetus was established.

We can go back-n-forth all day debating morals and ethics at this point but law is about money and punishment...

If both parents agree on how they're going to proceed relevant to the fetus then some type of contract needs to be entered into....Marriage is one such contract, so would be mutual consent for an abortion.

If the parents disagree once the fetus is established a contract should again be entered into only in this contract the "potential life" of the fetus must be represented and acknowledged.

There are only two ways there can be disagreement at this point;
1) Mother wants baby/Father doesn't
2) Father wants baby/Mother doesn't

To me it's common sense that the parent who wants the child should agree to be financially responsible for the child and if the other parent forcibly terminates the pregnancy punishment should ensue.


........I'd really like to hear some type of logical rebuttal against these suggestions either way........

 

[MelissaWV]

There are only two ways there can be disagreement at this point;
1) Mother wants baby/Father doesn't
2) Father wants baby/Mother doesn't

To me it's common sense that the parent who wants the child should agree to be financially responsible for the child and if the other parent forcibly terminates the pregnancy punishment should ensue.

Right, but I am playing devil's advocate here.

In option 1, the father does not suffer any additional physical harm, and he can terminate his rights. We are also arguing in this thread that he should not be automatically forced to be financially responsible for the child. I can think of some scenarios where the mother might sue for some sort of compensation, but those are going to be the exception and can be handled in civil courts as a contract matter.

In option 2, however, the mother does suffer additional physical harm. She terminates her rights after birth. She should not be automatically forced to be financially responsible for the child, either. How do you force someone to continue a pregnancy, alter their body, put their life in danger, disrupt their life and work habits, etc., for a child they do not even want? How do you force them to be healthy? How do you safeguard a child who is held hostage for months and months by someone who does not really want them to live? It can all be handled privately, but I keep seeing courts and force batted around. The issue of physical changes and risks does not seem to be addressed, and like it or not it is gender-dependent. The only real way around it is putting a price on pregnancy and labor and delivery, and I'm not sure that does anyone any favors, either.

Option 2 relies entirely on using someone's body against their own consent, with significant risk. Option 1 relies entirely on using someone's own body with their own consent, with the risk only assumed by the person who wants the baby. That's why it's relevant who is carrying the baby.

This could go even further, by the way. Babies benefit greatly from breast milk from a healthy mother. Is there a right, then, to extract milk from the mother before the father takes custody? Must she be available for that? Don't be too quick to dismiss this.

Ideally it should be handled by knowing your partner up front, but after the fact, I don't think we benefit from bringing the law into it. All the questions above have to be answered by the parties involved, not by government. It used to be that a family might gather together to raise a little "accident," or perhaps the gal in question was shunned a bit. I think we are approaching the time when the guy is also frowned upon for his Johnny Appleseed ways. That should be enough, without the overpowered hand of the State getting involved in something so personal and intimate.

 

[tod evans]

Melissa,

Skipping right to the "one parent wants the kid-other doesn't" neglects the whole premise I set forth concerning the 8 weeks when she had the sole option of retroactive birth control...

If the pregnancy is permitted to reach 8 weeks by the woman then and only then could the fathers rights be asserted.

Even then if the woman chose to have a mid-late term abortion the fetus and the father would both have grounds to sue for loss of the "potential life".

Remember the woman has two months to decide all by herself if she wants the pregnancy to escalate to the point of possessing a fetus.

So in my (decidedly male opinion) if she "changes her mind" at 12-24 weeks and the father objects, not only should she have to deal with stretch marks and saggy boobs, she should be held liable for any action she takes to harm the fetus and also liable to the father for depriving him of the baby.

In all fairness if the father terminates a pregnancy by force without the mothers consent it is murder....

 

[MelissaWV]

If you think it would just be about stretch marks and saggy boobs, this conversation's kind of pointless. It also ignores people who do not find out they are pregnant right away which is, ironically enough, the same group that would be the most likely to have complications from carrying a baby to term.

 

[tod evans]

Ideally it should be handled by knowing your partner up front, but after the fact, I don't think we benefit from bringing the law into it. All the questions above have to be answered by the parties involved, not by government. It used to be that a family might gather together to raise a little "accident," or perhaps the gal in question was shunned a bit. I think we are approaching the time when the guy is also frowned upon for his Johnny Appleseed ways. That should be enough, without the overpowered hand of the State getting involved in something so personal and intimate.

I agree with this whole paragraph! (sorry for spouting off without acknowledging it)

Getting the law out of it would help/hurt both men and women with no thought for the baby.

Eliminating current law would keep fathers from having to pay support to a mother they don't agree with.....it would also keep women from having the option of a surgical abortion...

What we have legally doesn't seem to be working for anyone but the lawyers.....keeping with the spirit of "no new legislation" is there a way to protect Pa-Ma and Jr's. well-being by repealing some laws?

 

[Kluge]

I agree with the OP's proposition...

The father should have a say.

But I don't agree with your "three options".

Why not civil / criminal penalties after the fact? This isn't a statutuory offense we're talking about...

its fetus in a bucket in the corner of the room; MURDER.

Why not a requirement for abortion doctors to have both parents signatures or a signed affidavit from the mother stating she is has made an attempt to, but is unable to contact the father (or was raped).

I agree with the premise of abortion, but only to week 10-12 (fetus/embryo transition, organ development, brain activity) not until week 28 as under Roe v Wade (viability).

88% of abortions currently occur before week 12. In my opinion anything after that is murder, and any abortion without the fathers permission is murder.

How dare you kill my unborn child?

My anti-feminist-abortion-rights position:

It ceases to be YOUR UTEROUS when there is a fetus in it.... it's the fetus' uterous.

Fetuses deserve LIFE, LIBERTY, and THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS and a father's embryo deserves state protection unless he ALSO concedes to its destruction.

presence

Quite simple: It's not illegal and won't be at any foreseeable time in the future. I'm not debating the ethics of it, that's been done ad nauseum here. Yes it's wrong in almost all circumstances, but it's not illegal.

So those are your options. Sounds like you'd take option #1.

 

[JK/SEA]

Easy. You don't have sex, you wear a condom, or you get fixed. Any will work.

or...you find someone who loves you and you love them, and either 'get married or sign contracts, live happily ever after.

 

[Kluge]

If you think it would just be about stretch marks and saggy boobs, this conversation's kind of pointless. It also ignores people who do not find out they are pregnant right away which is, ironically enough, the same group that would be the most likely to have complications from carrying a baby to term.

Yep. It was the most frightening experience I've ever gone through--and I'm not just talking about the delivery. I was scared shitless almost the entire time. And many of the physical changes are permanent.

 

[tod evans]

If you think it would just be about stretch marks and saggy boobs, this conversation's kind of pointless. It also ignores people who do not find out they are pregnant right away which is, ironically enough, the same group that would be the most likely to have complications from carrying a baby to term.

In the legal realm a person has to deal with known entities, and these are two known physical markers of a pregnancy.....Of course there are potential issues with the fetus in-utero both to the mother and the fetus, then the psych issues, hormonal imbalances etc.

All I'm doing is putting ideas out there that could possibly move us as a society somewhat closer to respecting everyones rights..

We both know kids and parents are going to be going to court long past the time they kick dirt in on us.....It'd be kind of cool to come up with ideas the vast majority could agree were fair.

Then again cyber ink is free..