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 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?
Hi Rocky j.
"Why can't woman just take responsibility for their actions?"
How many single teenage fathers with sole responsibility for the child do you know of?
About the same amount of single teenage mothers with sole responsibility you see of.
In these situations, the court gives the parental rights to mother's parents until the mother is of legal age.
"How many single teenage fathers with sole responsibility for the child do you know of?" Maybe it in some part due to how virtually impossible it is for the father to win a custody battle for a child.
Why are you concentrating so much on the first part of my post. It was just an idle thought that lead me to the second part. That even if he wants to take responsibility but the mother wants to put it up for adoption he will have an uphill legal battle to get responsibility of the child and prove he is ready to take responsibility for not only the child but the mother too.