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.
I think the answer is yes.
But it must be done before the child is born (just like an abortion), that way the woman can realize that she will have to raise the child by herself, and possibly abort it if she is unable to.
I try to think of it in a categorical fashion; making a square containing all the possibilities. It is of course, much more complicated than this, but it might be a good framework from which to begin. The best answer is to practice safe sex and be open with your partner about the potential consequences.
My observation on how we currently set up the system:
Man Wants | Man doesn't
Woman wants: No problem | Man pays
Woman doesn't: Abort | Abort
I have trouble claiming that this is how it should be, doesn't seem very equal. As women gain more and more financial independence, the problem of forcing responsibility on men will likely decrease.
The box where the male wants and woman doesn't is a bit more tricky. I suppose the problem may be solvable with artificial wombs or surrogates, but that is probably really expensive and not a viable option for most individuals.
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?
This has been tested in UK courts and apparently he cannot force her to carry an unwanted pregnancy. According to the UK courts, it is only her decision that counts. That seems right to me, because it is her body that becomes distorted etc.
I do think you raise an interesting question as to whether the man can 'opt out' of being the father, in terms of financial support. My gut feeling suggests he should be allowed to do so. However, I am mindful of the fact that this situation could be open to abuse, so I think perhaps he should a) need to make that declaration during the 'safe' period of the pregnancy, ie within the first three months, and b) contribute to the financing of the abortion.
I'm not set in this opinion, though, and I'll be interested to see other responses, hopefully with reasoning, after which I could well change my mind....
I was also thinking in the lines of if a woman gets pregnant and she decides to keep the baby, then the guy has to man up and take responsibility. Now if the woman get pregnant and the guy decides he wants the baby, shouldn't see also woman up and take responsibility?
Here is the thing, it seems if the woman decides to abort her pregnancy based on financial reason, she has that option. However if the man wants the same thing as an abortion because of financial reasons, he doesn't have the same option, because obviously the woman has the right to choose. But as you can see there is clearly an one way street of equality here. Since sex is an action of two individual's shared action and as a consequence of that action, results in shared outcome, so does that mean there should be a shared decision?
Adam, I can see that there is a definite problem with the absence of equality. If it were possible for the man to actually carry the child to term, then it would be a lot easier to draw lines in the sand, so to speak, and define fairness to all. However, in the end I'm going with abortion being the right solution unless the baby is both wanted, and financed.
It was not such a big issue when I was growing up, as there was no obligation on behalf of the man to pay upkeep for a child, and most women were not averse to abortions.
A shared decision is always the best decision, but we are discussing the situation as it stands from a contested situation. And I really don't know the right answer, other than if a woman does not want to carry a child to term, she should not be obliged to do so. As a result, I think it would be reasonable for the guy to have an opt-out clause, but only in the first three months of the pregnancy. And honestly, I don't see how that could be enforced, particularly if he doesn't even know until it is too late to abort.
Can you give some rationale to that, Belle? For example, if a couple have first-time sex using a condom, and for some reason it slips, breaks or whatever and she ends up pregnant, it seems a little absolute to deny him a say in the process yet at the same time oblige him to finance a child if he objects.
No no we are talking about a situation prior to the birth of a child.
I think one important consideration should be whether preventitive measures were used. If preventitive measures were used and they failed then i think the male should be able to opt out if she decides to keep it. While if no preventitive measures are used then i think the guy should be responsible if she falls pregnant and decides to keep it.
It does not haveto be contested whether they were used in every case i am sure. And in some of the cases i think that being on the pill is the females medical records not to forget implants are most definitly easily provable. If the condom breaks then the male needs to make sure she gets and takes the morning after pill and if she refuses should make a legal affidavit to that effect within a few days. now i guess it will be more difficult if the condom leaks but from what i know if a condom is defective it tears 99% of the time. Maybe this wont be perfect but few things are.
The reason i brought up this point is because i thinkit is unfair if a male is held leagally responsible for a child that he not only does not want but which he made realistic measures to prevent. Though if no preventitive measures are used i think he should bear the responsibility.
But then, by that logic, so should she. Which would mean abortion would only be legal if they attempted to prevent the pregnancy in the first place.
That is a bit of a quantum leap, Steve. If neither of them attempted to use contraception, yet both are in favour of an abortion, your premise would falter.