A
male
age
36-40,
*AINORFIRE
writes:Sometimes the mother wants an abortion and the father wants her to have the baby. Is an abortion ever morally wrong because it transgresses the father's rights?A Post in here made me think of this question. Would like to hear peoples opinions on it. Keep in mind in most countries a a father has no legal say in whether or not a mother has an abortion or not but hes fully responsible for the child after its born even if he wanted an abortion.
View related questions:
abortion Reply to this Question
Share |
Fancy yourself as an agony aunt? Add your answer to this question! A
female
reader, anonymous, writes (23 December 2011): If I the woman should be granted overall CHOICE to what happens to my life and my body....then shouldn't this be extended to the baby? I believe in my own CHOICE but not sure about making choices for another and that includes making a choice for the father and the baby. The woman does not create life on her own........the life force running through her is not ONLY HER...it's HIM too.I am not against abortion and will openly say i had an abortion at a young age, it was the choice I made at that time in my life. I question did having 'choice' make that final decision for me really... of course it did ! i had an escape from my responsibility ,I ran away. In my case CHOICE was not always good choice, it gave me too much power over choosing between life and death and at a young age. I did not know how to boil an egg but I could CHOOSE if my baby lived or Not. We interfere with nature too much.spunky monkey
A
male
reader, anonymous, writes (22 December 2011): The man had his opportunities to control the his fertility but he didn't take them.
Why should he then get a say in the woman's opportunities to control her fertility?
I mean it would be nice for the woman to include the man, but I don't see that it would be immoral for her to exclude him. Especially since the bulk of the responsibility for the child will fall upon her, and the man has already demonstrated his irresponsibility by his lack of control of his fertility.
...............................
A
female
reader, anonymous, writes (22 December 2011): I think the woman's right trumps the man's because it's her body and her health that is at stake. She is the one who has to bear the pain and discomfort of pregnancy and childbirth. And women can't biologically have as many children as men can. A man can go out an impregnate as many women as he has time for, and thereby biologically create as many children as he wants. Women can only biologically create children a few times in their lives. The personal cost to a woman of being pregnant and having children is far higher than to the man. Therefore her say on what to do with her body should be the final word not his.
...............................
A
female
reader, Miamine  +, writes (22 December 2011):
 In short, he has very little power to determine when and how he becomes a father.I'm a self styled pro-choice person..Who is forcing a man to have sex and get a woman pregnant.... you also list a lot of contraceptive choices... fine for some women, but many women can't take the pill or injections (I can't), the digram is not recommended because it moves around to much, and the coil is not recommended for women who haven't had children because it can cause infertility..Women have all the power.. yep, like men, they can pray that the contraception works or they can not have sex, or both men and women can get sterilized and pray and hope that works. Only celibacy has 100% chance of not making women pregnant."oh well she shouldn't have got pregnant" doesn't solve the problem.... woman is still pregnant, and either she has to carry the baby, have sore nipples, possible vaginal/anal tears, high blood pressure, possible miscarage.. AND POSSIBLE DEATH... (women and children still die in childbirth everywhere in the world) whereas a man.. "oh well he shouldn't have had sex".. he may have a financial responsibilty, but no damage to his health, and the woman not only has finacial responsiblity but 24hour care until the child can survive alone outside the womb. A man may have sadness about an abortion.. well a woman has sadness, guilt and possible infertility problems, as well as feeling like a murder...."tough noggies"... and what... the woman has the child, hates it and uses it for baseball practice... in the UK we have tons of cases of maternal abuse.... especially if you factor in something like postnatal depression. Infanticide again happens throughout history, woman has baby, and it brings on mental imbalances which causes them to kill the child or kill themselves.Yea, great lot of power we women have... morally forced to have children which may injure or kill us or drive us mad.. Pro-life people want us to live with a child who we will always hate and resent... Or we can give it to the government, where it can sit and wait for adoption, or no adoption, it just rots away and is at danger from so many problems like sex abuse, rejection, poor school attendance (they move you around in care) psychological problems and issues with forming and maintaining relationships.Tell the 16year old teenagers on Dear Cupid, about how a guy is longing for fatherhood and responsibility. Yep, guy says lets have a baby, and the silly girl listens.. As soon as the baby starts crying, he's off and she's left alone to cope. Lots of men say they want kids, but then lots of men leave the woman to cope alone when they change their mind or they see something/someone else they want. Usually in 99% of the cases, it's the mother who is left with the children. A lot of men (widowers) when left with children alone, usually dump them on their mothers or hand them into the government. Not all I grant you, but the story you tell about how men want to be single fathers just isn't proving to be true in the real world.You don't think it's fair for a mother and the government to want the best for any child that exists.. do you want the government to force women to have abortions? Or maybe you think a man should be able to walk away and say "not my problem"..... fine, children can live in poverty, with one parent either neglecting them to work, or giving them to the state to bring up in care (children in care make up a large percentage of prisoners) or we could put up your taxes to look after these children... or better yet, we could copy India and Brazil and just leave them in the street to starve... That would be fair to both men and women, keep the children alive, and everyone would have power.Seen the statistics on abortions in the UK.. granted most are done by 20-30year old women.. but a large percentage are done by married women. When you talk about abortions and men's rights, many of the women I know (when they dared to speak) were forced to get an abortion by husbands/long term boyfriends who didn't want to be parents."I don't see how the *choice* to be pregnant and give birth grants any great primacy to the woman's choices over the man's."Frankly I don't see how you think you can control a woman's body, ask her to risk death or injury, or turn away and allow a child to live in poverty or grow up at a disadvantage from other kids who fathers care enough to give them a couple of pounds a week to make sure they don't stand out from the crowd.You mostly talk about finances... sigh.. yep.. children are expensive, and most of the time the child support payments that an absent father makes don't even cover the nappies and milk, let alone all the other things a child needs.Men don't want children.. stop sex or pray the contraception works.. if the woman gets pregnant, you have only yourself to blame, you had a choice.. and her choice.. to get pregnant maybe, to have a baby maybe or it's a mistake and she wants an abortion... But the choice is not equal, she takes ALL THE RISKS.. men take few and most of them are about his wallet or pocketbook.
...............................
A
male
reader, anonymous, writes (21 December 2011): I am pro-choice but I mostly agree with Odds. These days women have way more power & control over becoming a parent than men do.
I think women should always have 51% power in the decision to abort since it is still their body. But these days women realistically have most or all the power in that decision which is not fair to men at all.
...............................
A
reader, anonymous, writes (21 December 2011): "If abortion was illegal, and women actually did not have a choice" Actually Odds women have always and will always have the choice to abort regardless of the legality of it. It's illegal here in Ireland for example but women here just go elsewhere for one. If it was illegal everywhere then women would go to backstreet clinics.
Look you can argue the morality for and against it all day. The reality is women can choose to terminate regardless of what the guy thinks and we guys can't force a woman to make any choice in that regard. Given that this is the reality it is up to us guys to ensure that we don't let it happen if we don't want it, and that we find a girl who does want kids if we do want them. Simple, whether that's fair or not it's how it is, either take the precautions one of which you forgot (condom + pulling out, almost zero chance of conception).
It's not about the man being a deadbeat or the woman being pro choice. It's about the reality of the situation and the *fact* that the woman holds the power when it comes to being pregnant, we hold the power before that and in prevention or conception. I have yet to make a girl pregnant in all my years sexually active because I don't want them being pregnant. If it happens then I will support the woman and cede to whatever she wishes. It's not about fairness either, it's a simple matter of biology, we stick it in, blow our load and our job is done until birth. We have not nor should ever have power over another persons body, male or female.
...............................
A
male
reader, Odds +, writes (21 December 2011):
 Personally, I'm *very* strongly pro-life - I believe abortion is murder. But I'll skip right past that, because your question raises a contention I have with the self-styled "pro-choice" crowd. So, for the purposes of this answer, take for granted the idea that a mother has the absolute right to terminate a pregnancy because of her own right to bodily autonomy.
The mother has near-absolute control over her own fertility. There are a number of treatments and pills she can obtain before having sex to prevent pregnancy. She has a few things she can use during sex. She has the absolute right to insist on condom use, every time - and can easily verify that the man is using a condom. She has the morning-after pill. She has abortion. She has the legal right in most states in the US to leave the newborn in a safe haven, giving up all legal claim to the child. Or, for that matter, she can abstain from sex. In short, she has tremendous power to decide precisely when and how she becomes a mother.
The man has two non-permanent options: condoms (which are nowhere near as effective as, say, the pill or an IUD), and abstinence. He cannot truly give informed consent to her pregnancy, because the only way he can know if she's using most other birth-control options is by taking her word for it. Arguably, he does not have the right to know what regime she's on, either - pills are private. In short, he has very little power to determine when and how he becomes a father.
The pro-choice crowd would never accept "well, she shouldn't have had sex if she didn't want to get pregnant" as an argument against abortion. But pro-choice folks don't see any problem with, "well, he shouldn't have had sex if he didn't want to be a father" as an argument. Perhaps he wanted his firstborn to be within a relationship, or a marriage, or at least to have happened with his consent. After all, he consented to sex, not to becoming a father. Again, if she had sex but did not consent to being a mother, no pro-choice person would ever just tell her, "tough noogies." And that's just for accidents - while it's morally reprehensible, there is nothing illegal about a woman getting "accidentally" pregnant, against the father's will. I'm pretty sure there's a word for deliberately getting a woman pregnant against her will, though.
Even if we leave aside the devastating emotional impact of unwanted parenthood (if pro-choicers are going to let that emotional impact apply to women, there's no reason not to let it apply to men), there are the financial issues. There are also arguments like, "It's in the child's best interest to get support payments," or, "the mother needs the money." Well, it's in the child's best interest to be born to a loving married couple instead of a mom who gets checks in the mail, but we don't hold anyone to that. And if the mother can't afford to raise the kid on her own, she can abort it, or give it up at birth.
So the woman, who has all the power in this scenario, then gets to decide whether the man is going to be a father, and whether he is then obligated for child support. He can't just refuse - if he's the father, or the presumptive father (meaning he has legal responsibility regardless of any DNA connection), it's trivially simple to get the courts to order child support payments. Perhaps Bluebow is right about the UK, but here in the US, a father can't just walk away from that responsibility unless he can convince the mother not to seek enforcement. Basically, the mother and the law foists 18 years of responsibility onto someone who had little or no power to determine if he wanted to be a father. Where's the "choice" in that?
Frankly, I don't see how the *choice* to be pregnant and give birth grants any great primacy to the woman's choices over the man's. If abortion was illegal, and women actually did not have a choice, I'd fully support making the man take responsibility for the natural risks of having sex. But all women, even those who don't want an abortion, still have the choice - there is no moral reason why a man shouldn't have a choice.
A woman who gets pregnant and doesn't want a child is pro-choice. A man who gets a woman pregnant and doesn't want a child is a deadbeat.
There's also the separate issue of married couples, and the husband's lack of control over pregnancy and childbirth even within a supposed legal union, but I've gone on long enough, so I'll leave that to the reader to consider.
...............................
A
female
reader, Miamine +, writes (21 December 2011):
1. Man don't want baby, man shouldn't have sex, or should hope and pray that the contraception he is using works.
2. No country in the world can force someone to keep a baby inside them.. if abortion is illegal, women will still try to abort using needles and other such implements.... If abortion is illegal, women will kill newly born babies or leave them to die in the street.... This has always been the case, everywhere, throughout history.
3. Only way to FORCE a woman to carry an unwanted child, is to watch her for 24hours a day for the 9months it takes to give birth.... Even then you'll find some women who try to fall over and cause premature labour...
Stopping abortions doesn't solve the problem. Moral or not, it's the woman's body and if she doesn't want the baby, it won't live very long.
...............................
A
female
reader, So_Very_Confused +, writes (21 December 2011):
 TOUGH topic. I am very pro-choice and yet I don't feel that the FATHER'S choice should carry as MUCH weight as the MOTHER'S choice.
I think that a man has a right to know that he's going to be a father.... but if it is NOT a long term relationship (a drunken one night stand comes to mind)... then there's very little chance the couple can or will be able to work together positively to raise this child in a sane rational loving home.... decisions need to be made and since the woman is the one who grows more fat, has leaky breasts, heartburn, hemorrhoids and the need to push SEVEN POUNDS of weight out of an orifice that is expected to be tight and exciting AFTER this experience, I think her choice should carry more weight.
...............................
A
female
reader, bluecow +, writes (21 December 2011):
 is that with wings or without cerberus? :P
...............................
A
reader, anonymous, writes (21 December 2011): They way I view it is simple and it is the reality.
Once a woman is pregnant it is her body and she can do what she likes with it. Knowing this a guy can make his choice before conception because afterwards he has no choice. That is when we have the power to decide things and we have no recourse once the girl is pregnant unless she decides we have a say.
You see if a man wants a child then he needs to find a woman that also wants a child. If he doesn't want a child then he has make sure that he physically doesn't make one (wears condoms, pull out etc). In the situation you describe then the woman most likely didn't want a child in the first place and the guy shouldn't expect that being pregnant is going to change her mind.
So to me if a guy wants a child but the woman wants an abortion then tough shit, it's the woman's body and her choice is the one that will be carried through.
The father had to right to not make her pregnant he also had the right to find a girl who wanted a child. He can't piss and moan if he didn't ensure these conditions were met first.
This is kind of why I think male anti-choicers, the ones who vocally and actively protest against abortion are complete idiots. We can't get pregnant so us guys opinions on the matter are as relevant as our opinions on which sanitary towels offer the best absorption for a heavy flow. Personally I think Always Ultra are fantastic :P
...............................
A
male
reader, CaringGuy +, writes (21 December 2011):
Ah, that's interesting. Maybe it was two cases, who knows. Too many grey areas in this topic!
...............................
A
female
reader, bluecow +, writes (21 December 2011):
just been looking further into the case i mentioned. It seems that the overriding factor for not allowing the embryos to be used was the fact that if they had... other uses for peoples embryos could be done without consent.
The use of embryos for research is another can of worms, and in this case I change my stance. When a patient withdraws consent for their use, then that should be that. If the courts override this case, precedent would be set for scientists applying for the use of "spare" embryos for research, against the consent of the "parents".
...............................
A
female
reader, bluecow +, writes (21 December 2011):
Hi caringguy
I think we may be talking about different cases, as the one I am referring to was definatly about embryos already created, not sperm. However the reasons for the denial of the case may remain the same.
...............................
A
male
reader, CaringGuy +, writes (21 December 2011):
Yes, a can of worms indeed.
I'm a man, and I have to say that whilst I may not like abortion (I don't think anyone does), it's something that is necessary because of either medical or personal reasons. I also agree that ultimately, it's a woman's sole right to choose whether she goes ahead with a pregnancy or not. No one has the right to make it legally binding that a woman go through huge changes to her body, her mind, her life. That's far too much power in the hands of people who aren't able to ultimately make a decision based upon what is best for the woman. It's not a man's body that goes through pregnancy or life threatening changes. It's not a man who goes through labour. It's not a man who goes through potential post natal depression (though there is new evidence to suggest that men might suffer from it). And a man's life doesn't realistically change as much as a new mother's.
I think that ultimately, it's best for a woman to remain in charge of what she does in pregnancy. She has to be the one to make the choice about her own body. I say this knowing full well that if a girlfriend of mine ever had an abortion, there might be a chance that I'd be really against it. But, not matter how painful that might be for me, I don't have the right to make a woman do as I want to her to. No man does.
Interestingly, bluecow's post references the lady who had cancer and lost the case to use the embryos that were created with an ex. The reason that she lost the case (if I'm not mistaken), was precisely to avoid a man then insisting that a woman has his baby. The man in that case did not want his sperm (part of his body) to be used against his wishes to bring a child into this world. His wishes for that, no matter how painful, had to be correct because if she had won the case and had his child using his sperm against his wishes, then the question of forcing women to continue with pregnancies would have been raised again.
It's a painful subject, but I still remain convinced that a woman who is pregnant should have full control over what she does.
...............................
A
female
reader, anonymous, writes (21 December 2011): Very difficult subject and issue. However it is the woman who carries the baby, gives birth and in most cases takes the ongoing role - so at the last it has to be the woman's choice. Some will disagree, it is an issue fraught with emotion and I think it is best for each person to make their own individual choices weighing up what is right in their situation.
...............................
A
female
reader, bluecow +, writes (21 December 2011):
A very emotive subject and a proper can of worms youve opened Rainorfire!... I'll just grab some popcorn ;-)
I'm afraid I fully believe that a woman has a right to choose what happens to her body. This includes whether or not she chooses to grow a baby inside it. Pregnancy, childbirth and the post natal period are not without risks. Women (even in western societies) can and do still die during pregnancy and birth. Post natal illness can strike which could lead to further mental health problems and suicide.
I dont think ANYONE has a right to insist she take those risks.
If for example he could force her, could he also be prosecuted for murder if she died as a result of a complication in the pregnancy or birth?. He forced the pregnancy, therefore he is taking responsibility of ALL that happens during and after.
You also have to remember that a parent can relinquish all parental rights to the child. If he (as were talking fathers I will use the masculine) is so opposed to a pregnancy it can even be completed before the birth in some countries. This would mean he has NO further responsibility towards the child.
This would also be the case for an infant already born whos mother wanted to give it up for adoption. If the father is wanting the child, then she can waive all her parental rights.
However, due to modern science I am of a view that if frozen embryos are available, then they are available to either parent. I'm thinking of the case where a woman had embryos created and frozen with her husband before undergoing cancer treatment which would leave her sterile. They subsequently divorced and she was unable (courts ruled) to use those embryos as the ex husband did not wish it, even though he was offered the chance to waive all paternal rights. For me those embryos were created together, neither has the right to insist they are destroyed against the others wishes.
Soooo many grey areas, I'll watch this one with interest!
...............................
A
reader, anonymous, writes (21 December 2011): Well I think that as the woman is carrying the child, if she doesn not want to continue with the pregancy, it is her right as it is her body. I feel for the father who wants the baby, but morally no person should have to be pressured to have anything happen to their body they do not want to happen, so I have to say, a woman has a right to decide what happens to her own body. Just as I belive no woman should be pressured by the father to have an abortion, but I do feel for the father as they are mostly in a powerless position when it comes to this.
...............................
|
