I was reading this blog article in HuffyPost from about 2 years ago. The author brings up a point where she says:
"While pro-choice legislation makes the rights of the mother clear, at what point is a father able to say,'I do not want this child'? Whether pro-life or pro-choice, we should all be able to agree that the quality of life is just as important as life itself, and when faced with the pivotal decision of whether or not to continue a pregnancy, both parents must be included in the dialogue. If not, ultimately, it is the child who suffers."
She goes on and provides data of situations of children growing in fatherless homes
• 63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes
• 90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes
• 85% of all children who show behavior disorders come from fatherless homes
• 80% of rapists with anger problems come from fatherless homes
• 71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes
• 75% of all adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers come from fatherless homes
• 70% of youths in state-operated institutions come from fatherless homes.
• 85% of all youths in prison come from fatherless homes.
So undoubtedly the right for a woman to choose is obviously non negotiable. If a woman decides based on her situation that she does not want a child because of her reasoning, she has the right to abort her pregnancy without the approval of anyone other than herself. But the does the same rules apply for no one being able to endure a man to be financially responsible for a child that he did not want?
Another question to look at is if a man and woman have sex, they both know the consequences of a possible pregnancy. To which a woman can abort out of. But if a man and woman have sex, does the man have the right to have the woman to carry his child to term even the woman does not want to? (Talking about consensual sex, not rape or any of that stuff). Keep in mind that she knows the consequence of a possible pregnancy as well.
Keep in mind this is about a specific situation such as consensual sex not rape. Obviously matters of rape would nullify the discussion which I am aware of.
That would not actually bother me that much. We should all know that unprotected sex often leads to pregnancy and i disagree with people using abortion as the first line of birth control
This subject doesn't affect me directly, but can I ask what your (Rocky john & Belle Rose) rationale is for that statement?
So you are saying it's not advisable to use abortion as the first form of birth control, not that it is immoral. Is that correct?
Hi Adam, this is something we have talked about before on Think Atheist. My view is that society is striving towards equality between the sexes, and that this issue is one where inequality currently exists.
The woman should always be in full control of her body, if she doesn't want the baby, she can abort, the flip side of this is if the man doesn't want the baby, he has no rights either way. Since the womans rights cannot be changed, we can only attempt to give the man equal or equivalent rights. Obviously, he should not be able to force an abortion on the woman, but he should have the right to effectively abort the baby from his life (and responsibility). I believe that is the most "equal" we will be able to get: if both want the baby, they can have it, if both do not want the baby, they can abort it, if one wants and the other does not, the one that doesn't want the baby can "abort" the baby from their life (either by medical abortion or legal/financial abortion).
No doubt, there will be some strong opposition to my ideas here and I look forward to a healthy debate on this topic.
The problem with this is that if one insists that a man pay for a child he doesn't want, one is asserting a "right" on the woman's part to enslave the man for 18 years just because she wants a child. How do her wants and desires impose a claim on someone else? That is bullshit.
Now of course you could say that if the man doesn't want a child he shouldn't be going around having sex, but if I made that same argument regarding abortion (by women), I'd be crucified and rightly so.
Assuming they took precautions against pregnancy and were not trying to get pregnant, how do you justify taking away the man's life based solely on the wishes of the woman?
I don't see a problem with a woman having 3 undesirable options. It's better than what men have at the moment: look after the child by choice or look after the child by force of law.
Quite frankly, if she wants a baby, she should find a partner who also wants a baby. Other than that, single parenthood is a viable option. My mother managed and I'm only slightly mentally damaged by the experience.
Matt, I think you phrased it better than I did. I'm on the same page as you.
Hi Strega, As I said in my post, I have talking about this before... if you go digging through the TA archives, you could probably see some less eloquent posts from before I really got my thoughts organised.
I might go as far as to say it is immoral. Being sexually active and using abortion as the first line of birth control is most likely psychologically harmful to the woman and likely any family/friend support she has. If nothing else having her pop in a dozen times a year will give the medical staff a bleaker outlook on humanity.And if causing harm to herself and others when it is so easy to avoid doing so is not immoral i dont know what is.
If nothing else doing so is damn stupid and i sometimes think that being a bloody idiot should be immoral
Consider this: A man and a woman hook up for a one night stand. The man is not irresponsible, and uses a condom (establishing dis-intent for having a child). For whatever reason, that condom fails to prevent a pregnancy.
You are saying that he is irresponsible because he doesn't want that child to ruin is life (and probably the womans life too, but that's her choice).
it will affect the single mother's career for getting passes up for promotions for having to stay home with a sick child every time they come home with a daycare bug which with small children happens ALL the time...she'll need the extra income
She has a choice... have the baby and do it tough or abort the baby and find a real father for the next one.
Being able to forgo this responsibility in my opinion with give men more of a right to be dead beat dads.
No, being able to forgo this responsibility gives men the right to not be a father at all.
I AGREE with you that using abortion as first line defense against an unwanted pregnancy is immoral.
Stupid perhaps, because ANY surgery carries a risk with it.
What makes it immoral? That sounds like a religious view. An attitude rather than a fact.
If causing harm to yourself and others ,when it is so easy to avoid , is not somewhat immoral what is? Now forcing them to have an unwanted child would likely be far more immoral but that only makes the other choice the lesser of two evils.