Abortion babies and a fathers rights

The "ring on her finger" doesn't grant you any legal say as to whether or not she chooses to abort the child you conceived together.

All you gain in the legal arena as a man is the "right" to be listed on the birth certificate.

"The ring" also obligates your name to be listed on the birth certificate if your wife delivers another mans child while you are married.

There are lots of social and legal issues intertwined when we discuss fathers rights relevant to the unborn and just because an issue is right or moral socially doesn't mean it has a legal footing.

Maybe so

But by fully vetting and getting to know your partner, you reduce the risk of someone aborting your baby to almost nothing. If you honestly seek out someone with moral character, and plan properly for the huge decision that baby-making is, then united as one, you go together and have a baby.

If you can't accept the responsibility of moral living and wise life choices, you run the risk of having bad stuff happen to you. I understand crap happens, but ultimately, YOU choose your outcomes by choosing what moral standard you live your life. And YOU control who you perform baby-making techniques on.
 
Maybe so

But by fully vetting and getting to know your partner, you reduce the risk of someone aborting your baby to almost nothing. If you honestly seek out someone with moral character, and plan properly for the huge decision that baby-making is, then united as one, you go together and have a baby.

If you can't accept the responsibility of moral living and wise life choices, you run the risk of having bad stuff happen to you. I understand crap happens, but ultimately, YOU choose your outcomes by choosing what moral standard you live your life. And YOU control who you perform baby-making techniques on.

You're absolutely correct and if everyone behaved as you suggest there would be less trouble in the world.

Unfortunately everyone doesn't and lots of people end up in court fighting for their childs or their own rights.

So can you think of a way to balance the scales legally for fathers and fetuses without passing new laws or should their "rights" continue to be superseded by the mothers?
 
I have not read the other 9 pages of posts because I don't have time :) But I have a personal story that shows how this type of issue affected one person. My ex husband was involved with a german woman for a few years before he and I met. He was young, only 17 to 20 years old during that time period, but the woman he was with (almost 10 years his senior) became pregnant twice during their time together. The first time, she was 8.5 months pregnant when he was sent off on a 3 week training course (military). When he returned, he rushed to her home to see if she had their baby yet and she opened the door with no baby tummy. she told him that the baby was still born. He believed her. It wasn't until he met me that he started to wonder what had really happened. There was no funeral, no death certificate, etc... why not? She was from a catholic family and they had no service for a full term infant? I highly doubt that.... I think she gave the child up for adoption, as she did do with a previous child she bore with a different father. That child was adopted by her distant cousin and she still saw the child (9 yrs old at that time).... he had no say in any of this and was very upset when he realized that he had been duped.

But it happened again when they had been together longer - she became pregnant and even though he was young, he was excited at the prospect of having another chance to be a father again (remember, he thought his first child was still born in the 9th month).... but she had an abortion. She just flippantly told him one evening that she had arranged for an abortion. He was devastated and they split up. He could not believe that his flesh and blood was once, perhaps twice, taken away from him with no input from him. We spoke at length about this several times during our marriage and it still affects him to this day, more than 20 years later. I told him that perhaps having a woman carry your child that obviously does not want to be a mother would be a bad idea anyway - perhaps she would not look after herself and the growing fetus properly and end up causing problems for the child, who knows. He understood that but still felt at a major loss over how this could happen.

Because of all this, he did not want to have another child until he was positive everyone was ready and we were married for 5 years before we had our son. He was with his next girlfriend for almost 10 years before he finally had a child with her almost 2 years ago. I will always wonder if there is a big brother or sister out there for our boys - a child adopted in Germany. Or if they were both aborted instead of just one... I have no idea. No one does, and no one can find out unless his ex tells what REALLY happened. It's very hard that in the end, only one of the parents has the final say in what happens. Unfortunately men cannot carry the child so they cannot control any of that part of things - but I do feel bad that a woman who does not want a child to raise herself will choose abortion over giving that child to the father. She could relinquish her parental rights at the moment of birth and never have to pay child support or have visitation - but some choose not to do that and deny the other parent the chance to raise the child by terminating without needing consent. It's a tough road but one I don't know how we could navigate.

As I said, I dont think that a woman should be forced because any number of things could happen. I am technically pro-choice, I just deep down wish that abortion didnt end up on the table as a choice because I believe that life begins at conception, but I am not going to tell someone else what to do with their lives. It is a personal issue and I do not think the govt should get involved in legislation at all - but even on a personal level men would have to be very careful if they wanted a woman to carry their child and she did not. that is treading on dangerous waters and something could go wrong. She could even try doing something about it herself and that is dangerous too. It's a very sad tough topic but I think it is important to keep the government out of it first and foremost. So it would have to be up to each mother and father to discuss what would happen. A decision has to be made and only one will come out on top, most often the woman I am sure.
 
You're absolutely correct and if everyone behaved as you suggest there would be less trouble in the world.

Unfortunately everyone doesn't and lots of people end up in court fighting for their childs or their own rights.

So can you think of a way to balance the scales legally for fathers and fetuses without passing new laws or should their "rights" continue to be superseded by the mothers?

I honestly can't think of a way... case law I think would help. Someone would have to successfully sue the partner for aborting against his will. Then the precedent would be set. Getting a law to require the father's signature as well as the mothers would be difficult, and easy to circumvent (bring a friend instead of daddy). And what about rape cases.

There really is no easy answer. My point is this is the crap that happens in an immoral nation. Its a great topic of discussion, because it explores the very important question of a fathers role in deciding to abort or not.
 
The man does have rights. He has the right to choose not to sleep with a dumb whore who isnt on the same moral page as he is.

Once a guy gets intimate with another woman you open a can that is full of worms and bad possible outcomes. Sure, 19/20 times you might have an ok sex then move on - but you never know.

Here's my advise to men, start acting like real men and make the decision to abstain from intimate physical relationships until you get that ring on her finger, and the commitment.

Or you can stick your junk into anything that moves, because.... its your right to.... right?

Wow how ignorant and naive you are. I feel sorry for you.
 
Wow how ignorant and naive you are. I feel sorry for you.

Go ahead and feel sorry for me. Im happily married and have a beautiful 8 month girl. And I don't have to worry for a second about anyone aborting the next, or any other headache that stems from being morally bankrupt.

Life is tough enough without looking for trouble.

Feel sorry all you want my friend.
 
This debate could go on forever, but at the end of the day it boils down to one thing. No matter how you look at it, abortion is murder. If you want to legally murder, that's on your conscious. Don't pretend you believe in any form of God (or you wouldn't be playing the role of it) and don't act as if you're a responsible person.

It's sad how often women get abortions, yet if they're spouse is rich... hmm.. suddenly having a child is such a precious thing. After all, they'll get you more money when you peace out with 1/2 the guy's assets. Men get screwed over so much in America; feminism has completely taken over. I hate feminists with a passion because they're huge hypocrites. They want equal rights with both men and women, yet somehow fail to realize they have a ton more rights than men already.. still pushing to greatly pass our rights which means they are nowhere equal anymore. All the collectivism and rights of specific groups has become a major headache. So much for equality for all :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
I'm pro-life, yes, the man should have a say. I like the below as a way to frame the argument.

Size: True, embryos are smaller than newborns and adults, but why is that relevant? Do we really want to say that large people are more valuable than small ones? Men are generally larger than women, but that doesn’t mean they deserve more rights. Size doesn’t equal value.

Level of development: True, embryos and fetuses are less developed than you and I. But again, why is this relevant? Four year-old girls are less developed than 14 year-old ones. Should older children have more rights than their younger siblings? Some people say that the immediate capacity for self-awareness and a desire to go on living makes one valuable. But if that is true, newborns do not qualify as valuable human beings. Infants do not acquire distinct self-awareness and memory until several months after birth. (Best case scenario, infants acquire limited self-awareness three months after birth, when the synapse connections increase from 56 trillion to 1,000 trillion.) As abortion advocate and philosopher Dean Stretton writes, “Any plausible pro-choice theory will have to deny newborns a full right to life. That's counterintuitive.”

Environment: Where you are has no bearing on who you are. Does your value change when you cross the street or roll over in bed? If not, how can a journey of eight inches down the birth-canal suddenly change the essential nature of the unborn from non-human to human? If the unborn are not already valuable human beings, merely changing their location can’t make them so.

Degree of Dependency: If viability bestows human value, then all those who depend on insulin or kidney medication are not valuable and we may kill them. Conjoined twins who share blood type and bodily systems also have no right to life.

In short, although humans differ immensely with respect to talents, accomplishments, and degrees of development, they are nonetheless equal (and valuable) because they all have the same human nature.
 
The people who claim a woman should have a right to have an abortion without the fathers consent should also agree that men should not have to be forced by law to pay child support for a child they did not want.

I've used that arguement a few times. Nearly makes a Libs head explode. ;)
 
The people who claim a woman should have a right to have an abortion without the fathers consent should also agree that men should not have to be forced by law to pay child support for a child they did not want.

I've used that arguement a few times. Nearly makes a Libs head explode. ;)
CS is a joke. Just think about this. How many women would go and have a kid if they couldn't get CS? Unintended consequences of CS screw the non-custodial parent (84% of them are male) and in fact have a huge rate of suicide. Now how is that good for the kids?

CS is run by the mob (aka the state) and they are horrible. They'll ruin your credit, put a lien on your property, revoke your right to travel by taking away your passport, and throw you in jail. You can't get rid of the debt ever. Can't file for bankruptcy and get rid of it. You have to pay and if you don't the government (aka the mob) will destroy your life and your family.

It's called debtors prison. Totally unconstitutional, but no one cares and no one talks about it. It's a shame that people don't say or do anything about it. Especially for all those awesome non-custodial parents (usually men) who just want to be treated fairly and are getting f'n screwed.
 
There are threads galore about a womans right to abort a fetus.

There's discussion aplenty about the morality of abortion.

I thought I'd start a thread about fathers rights.

Currently a father has no say in whether or not a fetus is brought to term.

I believe a father should have an equal say with the mother, except of course in rape.

To give a woman sole decision rights because of a 9 month intrusion ignores the 18 year liability incurred by the father.

It takes two to create a fetus and in my opinion neither parent should have the right to abort or carry to term without the other parents consent.

I believe my position on this matter places equal responsibility on both parents and would assure personal responsibility for either a baby or an abortion.

How do ya'll feel about joint responsibility?

Fathers have no rights.

Thread over.

Thank you for playing.
 
For me personally, I will NEVER marry a woman who is pro-choice. Won't happen.

Tell us that after some witch puts the clamp on your dick (assuming you're a guy) and does things to you that have you coming back, on your hands and knees drooling for more to make Pavlov's dogs seem like pinnacles of free will. In other words, be REALLY careful in how you use the "N" word (never). I've seen it bite the most unlikely recipients in the arse.
 
Men should not have sex with women who wouldn't see the issue as the OP does.

Certainly not if they would like their rights respected per the spirit of this thread. Unfortunately, most guys under 30 are more or less completely ruled by their littler heads, there being a downside to this mad drive to perpetuate the species.

Individual liberty/responsibility, right?

Most want the former but are willing to forgo it if the latter is required in the deal. "Something for nothing" to the greatest extent possible is the true mantra of most people, all contrariwise talk notwithstanding. We want to fuck as often as possible with as many different people as possible whilst avoiding and evading any responsibility for our actions. This is creed of the "modern" human.

And my friends shouldn't let me have sex with any woman who would consider abortion in the first place.

And no doubt your friends will get a few teeth sent to the carpet when they attempt to draw you away from the leggy young slut who is promising to give your semen the ride of its life.

Let us not lose sight of what human beings are in reality, all lofty seeming ideals aside.
 
Back
Top