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.
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.
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
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?
My own personal rationale is the devastating effects it has on the body, both physical, psychological and emotional of the woman. Nothing more. It's like going after a runaway criminal with a nuclear bomb...overkill...Maybe a bad example but it proves my point. Why not go for the sniper?....OK REALLY bad example but it's the only thing that comes to mind right now...told you my mind is sort of out of it today...
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 woman should always be in full control of her body, if she doesn't want the baby
he has no rights either way
For women already living in poverty or close to it, by the man opting out of financial responsibility from the get go seems like yet another way women could possibly be abused. Let me give you an example...Let's say 18 year old Harry and Mary get pregnant. Mary doesn't want to abort, Harry does. She is then forced between 3 options that are undesireable: 1. abortion, (which she doesn't want) 2. adoption, (which she doesn't want,) or 3. single parenthood...(which is no walk in the park, especially with a lack of a college education.)
So by giving the man his "rights" he gets to walk away and make a life of his choosing without bearing any responsibility, and she....suffers no matter which way you slice it...I don't know....this subject is a really tough one.
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.