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.
Btw what was the point you were trying to make by asking me those two questions?
Not really - children don't need fathers - fathers are over rated.
I respectfully disagree with my entire being Angela. Fathers are just as important to the development of healthy children. NUMEROUS studies have shown this. I am 100% in favor of father's right, father involvement, father support, father empowerment, and father to step up and be men. If more men were fathers, fewer men would grow up to be dead beat dads. Studies also back that up. If only my own son's father were a good father...he's not all bad, but I see the effect on my son not having his father. It's not pretty. It's not ideal. It's not healthy. It could be better if he would just step up and be a man. It's easy for women to get down on men and say they don't matter. But a step back from the emotional side of it would reveal that men serve an irreplaceable purpose. This is exactly why I think men need to be held responsible for their actions. The more ways out they have from accepting responsibility the easier it becomes for them to walk away. We have enough of them walk away as it is. We need more of them to be real strong men.
"I respectfully disagree with my entire being Angela. Fathers are just as important to the development of healthy children. NUMEROUS studies have shown this."
Good fathers are really important Belle. I have no doubt about that.
Thing is, there aren't many of them around and most kids, with a good mother, will still thrive without him.
Most kids would be better off without the fathers they're living with right now.
Good fathers are really important Belle. I have no doubt about that. Thing is, there aren't many of them around
Perhaps only in your mind. But in reality there are more than you think of.
I can see where you're coming from more now Angela...thanks for clarifying. No father vs Bad father is a like being stuck between a rock and a hard place. Damned if you do, damned if you don't...I get it...
So, not having the child in the first place turns out to be the best approach, given that the single-mom home increases so many risks.
I always hear the "It's POSSIBLE to bring other positive role models into the home" and "It's POSSIBLE to raise children on one's own and have them turn out well."
Well, POSSIBLE and two bucks will get you a small latte. One shouldn't bet a child's welfare on what might be POSSIBLE when there are alternatives.
If a woman finds herself pregnant and facing single parenthood, it would seem that the responsible thing to do would be to terminate the pregnancy and try again once she's found a satisfactory partner.
No. If I spill some paint on a canvas, I may have made a painting but I have not created one. Creation isn't a chance event. It's intentional.
I take it this is the core of your argument:
Regardless of her actions concerning her body, he is responsible for the existence of that child and is automatically (according to our laws) held liable for that child's well being.
"Responsible" is a word with several meanings. I breathe, and in some absurd sense am "responsible" for putting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Let's say I even intend to breathe, though, once again, in a rather absurd sense of intention.
I walk to the store and I'm aware that I might step on a few bugs along the way. How responsible am I for that? for killing some bacteria as well?
I recognize that the legislators have complicated things by injecting themselves into the pregnancy and birth situation, but in a philosophical sense is one responsible in a moral or ethical way for unintended consequences? No. Even the law recognizes this in other situations. For example, if I find myself on the highway behind a truck and it kicks up a stone the cracks my windshield, the law tells me that that is a risk I took by driving. The driver or owner of the truck bears no responsibility because kicking up that particular stone at that time was unforeseeable even if kicking up stones from time to time is inevitable. Unless there were some bizarre way the driver could kick up stones intentionally,
I was thinking of throwing out the idea that since the male rightfully has no real say if the woman decides to keep the child or not, it is then only fair that the male can then decide that the child should be put up for adoption once it is born. If the female contends hes desicion and decides she still desires raising the child she can "adopt" the child whereupon the father relinquishes all rights and responsiblities to the child as in a normal adoption.
This of course led me to think about what currently happens if a female wanted to put the child up for adoption and the male wanted to keep it. This seemed like a no brainer to me. If the guy wants the child and the female is willing to give it up for adoption he should of course get it. This is what i would expect a fair law to say. Instead i found this on a lawyers site and it seems a father has an uphill struggle with trying to block an adoption. Not to mention legal fees and lawyers.Oh and take every reasonable measure to accept his responsibilities towards not only the child but the mother too.
Whether or not a father's consent is needed for an adoption to go forward can depend on the state, the relationship between the father and the child, and the relationship between the two parents.
If the biological father of a child wishes to stop that child from being adopted, he must file a court action to establish his parental rights. In most states, an unmarried father will not be allowed to block an adoption unless he has taken every reasonable measure to accept his responsibilities toward the child and mother. "
A biological father in these situations is, basically, to quote David Lyndley "a quarter of a man." His rights are very limited and he can have unwanted obligations foisted on him merely based on decisions of the biological mother. We live in times when a pregnancy does not have to be brought to term, and if women knew that because the choice to carry to term was theirs (as it is), but that it carried with it the sole obligation for caring for the child (financially and otherwise) if that is her choice, it would be a fairer system and fewer children would be exposed to the risks of single parenthood, and especially absentee fatherhood. The statistics demonstrate that the absence of a father in the home is very deleterious.
this makes the whole law fair as he has no say over her decision to keep it to brith or not. But at birth it is no longer part of her body so he should have a similiar right then .
But she does not need hes consent to abort the child. Why can't woman just take responsibility for their actions?