Should a man be allowed to stop a woman from having an abortion?

[Reaver]

Then let me gather up all the raw materials to make a car, heap them up in a pile and sell it to you as a car....

A car is not a car until it's put together... just like a sperm added to an egg isn't a baby...

THANK YOU

 

[NightWarrior]

And neither can women, it just is the way it is. And while (for the sake of this discussion) a man may have a right to the baby's life, he doesn't have right to the women's life.


Personally I think people should make this choice before they decide to have sex. If they don't that is their own stupidity imo.


I can understand people not wanting to be a parent and that doesn't bother me. What I can't understand is why people sleep around and then act surprised when someone comes up pregnant.

Who said anything about the women's life? They are not terminating hers. Are you thinking of back in the day when they went into dark alleys to get this done?

 

[groundpounder]

The man is the father of the baby. Does he have the right to stop a woman from having the child if he offers to parent the child without further help from the woman?

To answer the original question, I think that if a woman wants an abortion and the biological father wants to raise the child, then I think the father of the child should have that right.
The mother would sign a waiver to her parental rights and responsibilities in this scenario, since she didn't want anything to do with the child regardless. She should be monitored so as to not have an abortion anyway, and if she did, she would face criminal charges. The father would bear all expenses related to the pregnancy/birth, both prenatal and postpartum. At birth, the baby should be immediately taken to the care of the father and the mother should not be allowed to hold it, see it or spend time with it. The mother should be forbidden to have an abortion or give birth out of wedlock for a period of two years. If she violates that, she should have her tubes tied by court order.

Conversely,

If the mother wants to bear the child and the father wants an abortion, she should be allowed to bear that child and the father sign away his parental rights/responsibilities since he didn't want to have anything to do with the child anyway. When he signs away his rights/responsibilities, he should be forbidden to father a child out of wedlock for at least two years. If he does in that time, he will have a court ordered vasectomy.

The moral of the story here is that if a child is wanted, it should not be aborted.

 

[GraceAbounds]

And neither can women, it just is the way it is. And while (for the sake of this discussion) a man may have a right to the baby's life, he doesn't have right to the women's life.

ALLVENOM:

Who said anything about the women's life? They are not terminating hers. Are you thinking of back in the day when they went into dark alleys to get this done?

Let me restate that:
And while (for the sake of this discussion) a man may have a right to the baby's body, he doesn't have right to the women's body.

 

[Tim]

To answer the original question, I think that if a woman wants an abortion and the biological father wants to raise the child, then I think the father of the child should have that right.
The mother would sign a waiver to her parental rights and responsibilities in this scenario, since she didn't want anything to do with the child regardless. She should be monitored so as to not have an abortion anyway, and if she did, she would face criminal charges. The father would bear all expenses related to the pregnancy/birth, both prenatal and postpartum. At birth, the baby should be immediately taken to the care of the father and the mother should not be allowed to hold it, see it or spend time with it. The mother should be forbidden to have an abortion or give birth out of wedlock for a period of two years. If she violates that, she should have her tubes tied by court order.

Conversely,

If the mother wants to bear the child and the father wants an abortion, she should be allowed to bear that child and the father sign away his parental rights/responsibilities since he didn't want to have anything to do with the child anyway. When he signs away his rights/responsibilities, he should be forbidden to father a child out of wedlock for at least two years. If he does in that time, he will have a court ordered vasectomy.

The moral of the story here is that if a child is wanted, it should not be aborted.

Holy crap batman!!! that sounds like communism to me...

State official, "You'll have to come with me, you're getting your tubes tied"
Young lady, "No way! You'll never take me alive!"
State official, "Have it your way... BLAM, BLAM, BAM!!!" *shoots her dead on the spot*

 

[groundpounder]

seig hiel!!!

 

[All Else Failed]

Turn it around. What if the father doesn't want the baby and the mother does? If he has rights to make her have the baby, should he also have rights to make her kill the baby?

Depending in what stage it is in, a group of cells isn't a human. We don't give rights to inanimate objects.

 

[groundpounder]

Holy crap batman!!! that sounds like communism to me...

State official, "You'll have to come with me, you're getting your tubes tied"
Young lady, "No way! You'll never take me alive!"
State official, "Have it your way... BLAM, BLAM, BAM!!!" *shoots her dead on the spot*

Considering the circumstances, I think it would work. :cool

 

[GraceAbounds]

AEF:

Please read the whole thread. What you quoted has already been discussed.

:horse

 

[All Else Failed]

I'm in a lazy mood. I'll do it later.

 

[TheOriginalJames]

I've pondered this question before... it's a tough one to answer and I really haven't come to a good answer for myself yet... I need to hear more debate about the topic.

What does bother me is how the laws are completely one sided in favor of the woman. Once she is pregnant, the father has no say in if she keeps the baby or not under the law. Yet if she keeps the baby, under the law, you must support the child as a father.

Now both make sense in their own rights... but there are too many cases of women lying about their fertility (ie they say they are taking the pill) and trapping the man in supporting a child for 18 years. I understand that it is ultimately the mans problem (should always use a condom) but it isn't fair if he is lied to.....

Isn't there a way around that? If you don't sign the birth certificate, wouldn't a court ordered paternity test be the only way he could be 'sucked into' (assuming he wants no part of the kid) paying child support?

 

[groundpounder]

Yeah, that sounds like communism to me...

State official, "You'll have to come with me, and you're signing the birth certificate"
Young man, "No way! You'll never take me alive! I'LL NEVER SIGN"
State official, "Have it your way... BLAM, BLAM, BAM!!!" *shoots him dead on the spot*

For real, yo. :cool

 

[All Else Failed]

No see thats Fascism, GP.

 

[UncleBacon]

I think the woman should respect the man enough to listen to him and then come to a conclusion together but in the end its still her body and her decision

 

[NightWarrior]

I think the woman should respect the man enough to listen to him and then come to a conclusion together but in the end its still her body and her decision

This is probably the single time in a woman's life where she actually holds the power in decision making.

 

[Homer]

you know the sad thing is it almost always comes down to money.

 

[UncleBacon]

This is probably the single time in a woman's life where she actually holds the power in decision making.

I know thats why I started it with I think

 

[GraceAbounds]

This is probably the single time in a woman's life where she actually holds the power in decision making.

Maybe I am reading this wrong but that sounds extremely sexist or narrow minded or both. Please tell me I am reading that statement wrong. Elaborate if you don't mind.

 

[AUDRAA]

Maybe I am reading this wrong but that sounds extremely sexist or narrow minded or both. Please tell me I am reading that statement wrong. Elaborate if you don't mind.

why is that sexist? its true :confused

 

[groundpounder]

No see thats Fascism, GP.

poTAYto, poTAHto.

And +1, Grace. I'm looking forward to hearing this. :confused