Hoping he doesn't mind, I'm quoting Aldeth's reference to Pennsylvania's Supreme Court's abortion verdict:

Just last year there was a case in Pennsylvania where a man wanted to prevent a woman who he got pregnant from having an abortion. It went to the State Supreme Court where the judges ruled unanimously that the decision to have an abortion was entirely up to the woman, and that the man had no claim on the fetus.Basically, the father has no claim on the foetus. According to the verdict, it has nothing to do with him. However, when the foetus is carried properly and child is born, the man suddenly starts to have much to do with it and has to pay for the child.

What's more, the father has to pay for the child even if he had wanted it to be aborted.

When he doesn't want to have his child killed, however, he can't do anything to prevent abortion.

This logic is astonishing.

Helpful lecture:

Roe vs Wade (http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article?eu=402385&query=privacy&ct=)

Planned Parenthood of S.E. Pennsylvania vs Casey (http://www.apa.org/psyclaw/pp.html)

The latter link is to the US Supreme Court ruling that deemed the requirement of spousal notification unconstitutional.

Chev,

I totally agree with you on this one. I am a happily married dad so I don't have these problem. I know of some single dads and the courts have made their lives living hells. One day someone will take up the cause of father's rights.

For once I am agreement with you as well chev. Abortion is the decision of both parents. Sadly the final choice must rest with the mother but the father has every right to know and consensus should be reach as far as possible. I do think however that any decent chap would support his lady whatever choice she makes. Someone has to make the choice and too often two people cant agree.

Actually leaving it with the woman probably leads to less abortions than say if the man had final say. Too often a callous man who only wanted sex from a woman has no inclination to paying childsupport and thus wants to remove the featus.

It figures that this happened in my state :p The man should have a say in the matter, but it is ultimatley up to the woman.

Actually leaving it with the woman probably leads to less abortions than say if the man had final say. Absolutely - and believe it or not, this also often holds true in cases where they're married to each other!

IMO, the woman should always have the final say. She is the one who would carry the baby to term, with all the consequences that entails, not the male. If these single "fathers" want their babies so badly, they should have first married the woman in question!!!!

Well, what if they are married and she wants to abort a pregnancy, be it for economic reasons, or simply a lack of will to raise a child? Does your viewpoint change any in that case, Sojourner?

I'm sort of divided on the subject. On the one hand, I have to respect a woman's legal (and, in my mind, moral) right to have the final decision on what happens with her body. On the other hand, the father very well should have a say in the fate of his offspring. Fathers seem to have so few rights with regards to children nowadays that it really hurts those capable, loving fathers who actually want to be a part of their child's lives. I understand that the mothers should be protected from deadbeat fathers impregnating and abandoning them, but if a father wants to actually have a child, then he should have as much a say in cases of abortion as she should. If she wanted to have it, and he didn't, then not only would she be able to have it, but he'd be responsible for chid support payments as well, and yet when the roles are reversed, he has no say whatsoever. That doesn't seem right to me.

And yet the situation inherently lacks equality. It is the woman that has to go through nine months of pregnancy and a painflul labour in order for the child to be born. I cannot help but think that this does give her the right to decide on the fate of the foetus. I can think of no way you could force someone to go through this without their consent.

Once the baby is actually born, however, the inherent inequality of the situation essentially disappears, and I am surprised by how little rights the father has...

I cannot help but think that this does give her the right to decide on the fate of the foetus.I fear we'll soon fall into a discussion of abortion in general, but.. the foetus is not a part of the body of the mother. It is a separate body and a separate entity that required alien element (spermatozoon) for creation. Therefore, it is no way to be treated the same way as liver or lungs or kidneys or whatever internal organ.

If these single "fathers" want their babies so badly, they should have first married the woman in question!!!!I find your lack of logic disturbing...

Marriage is a willing union, it requires consent. It's not like you want to marry someone and it happens. You have to convince the other person and some such.

Also, so far as it isn't a rape, non-marital intercourse still requires two consenting unmarried individuals, so the female is equally to blame for the situation.

She is the one who would carry the baby to term, with all the consequences that entails, not the maleAs I said in the beginning, the baby isn't part of the mother's body. First, it's a separate entity. Second, it comes from both the mother and the father.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually leaving it with the woman probably leads to less abortions than say if the man had final say.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Absolutely - and believe it or not, this also often holds true in cases where they're married to each other!I would prefer to see some polls before making my mind on this one.

Next, no one advocates the father's right to request the mother to have abortion. We only speak about situations in which the mother wants to abort the baby and the father wants it to live.

The practice of denying the father any right to decide here is especially outrageous in a legally recognised marriage with all tax and other benefits that are granted for the sake of the family and children whose upbringing incurs heavy expenses and not just two people who have chosen to live together and have sex on exclusive terms.

First, I have no problem with Chev using my post - it is a topic worthy of discussion. However, I do have to point out one thing. My quote evidently was somewhat wrong. I wrote that the the decision of the State Supreme Court in PA, was unanimous. However, the article clearly states it was a plurality. It doesn't change the fact that the father's right to know is excluded from the decision, but I did wish to point out that my original quote wasn't entirely accurate.

I fear we'll soon fall into a discussion of abortion in general, but.. the foetus is not a part of the body of the mother. It is a separate body and a separate entity that required alien element (spermatozoon) for creation. Therefore, it is no way to be treated the same way as liver or lungs or kidneys or whatever internal organ. But it also depends completely on the body of the mother for its suvival - so cannot really be considered 'separate'. If you agree that the mother could not be forced to have an abortion then surely by that same logic she could not be forced to carry the baby until birth. In both cases it would ask the woman to do something rather drastic to her body without her consent?

Pregnancy is a natural state. Abortion requires human ingerence. Therefore, there is no analogy between letting the man demand abortion and letting the man demand non-abortion.

Well, gangrene is a natural state as well and all medicine requires intervention of humans.

I am not saying it's fair that fathers should have no say in the fate of the foetus, but 'demanding non-abortion' means demanding a woman to make her body available for a purpose she does not want for nine months, not to mention the permanent changes a pregnancy would bring about.

Since the start of this thread my sympathy is with the father (probably because I am male and thus easier to imagine myself in similar circumstances), but I cannot think of any practical solution in this situation other than letting the mother's decision be final (unless it is directly opposed to medical advice).

There is a difference between disease and natural functions of the body and you well know it. As I said in the previous post, pregnancy is related to reproduction, which is a function of organism and not disease, contrary to what some people might insist.

Pregnancy being a natural result of having sex, the woman can abstain from sex if she doesn't want to lend her body to that purpose for nine months. It's a matter of having a cake and eating it.

Pregnancy being a natural result of having sex, the woman can abstain from sex if she doesn't want to lend her body to that purpose for nine months. Oh quite, and more to the point she could have(and should have) used some form of contraception. However the comment is not terribly helpful - 'you should have thought of that sooner' isn't a viable court ruling. The question here was whether the father should be able to stop the woman having an abortion. Well, I certainly feel that his opinion should be heard but I cannot even imagine what set of circumstances would have to occur for the woman to not be let to decide what to do with her body?

(and while I agree that pregnancy isn't a disease it can have some similar effects: nausea, pain, discomfort even death in some cases. The man has to go through none of those - talk about having cake and eating it too...)

And even in purely pragmatic terms, what is the alternative?? Keeping her under guard for nine months???

This just like the other abortion thread all boils down to a persons thought about abortion in general. All Chevalier is doing is bringing up problems which occurs when abortion is legal.

If abortion is legal, which it is in most of the enlightened world then the mother must have final say in whether to have one or not. That is not ideal but there is no other way to have it. Hopefully a woman who considers one will talk with the father and her family and listen to their opinions. However if the mother and the father strongly disagrees then final say has to lie with the mother. Where else could it lie? It sure would suck majorly for the father if he wanted to keep the child but it works both ways you know, all too often the father tries to pressure (and too often he succeeds, just because someone thinks that abortion should be a legal option doesnt mean one thinks it should be used at leisure) the mother into having an abortion often simply because he doesnt feel like taking neither parental nor financial responsibility.

If abortion is legal, which it is in most of the enlightened world then the mother must have final say in whether to have one or not.Well, yes, and I agree with that statement. But I really disagree that it is an OK means of birth control to abort an unborn baby. There is something really wrong with the whole idea of "abortion on demand."

Also, in a situation where the father is willing to take the child and raise it himself, then I think a case can be made that he should have a say in the matter. If the guy wants the mother the carry the child and then to raise the child, then he's really nothing more than a sexist pig, IMO.

Just a little side-note; but aren't there plenty of court rulings out there that legally prevent women from drinking alcohol while pregnant; either at the legal pressuring of the father or whatever?

If that's the case, then I don't see why courts shouldn't be allowed to deny women the "privilege" of an abortion.

If that's not the case though; then this entire post is pointless...and please everyone disregard it.

While I am not entirely set on my opinion for this, I do have a few ideas.

Firstly, if a woman needs or wants to get an abortion, she better have a damn good reason. Like applying to have your animal put down. (Pardon the bad comparison)

Secondly, if the father-to-be is willing to sign papers and everything, and pass certain criteria (salary, time available, criminal record check, ect.) saying that he will take full responsibility of the child when it is born, then the mother should not be allowed to get an abortion, after my first point of course.

The mother did consent to fornication, in my opinion agreeing to accept responsiblity of the outcome.

In short, if she didn't want kids, she shouldn't have had sex.

Chandos, if the guy would be able to do that it should be able to work both ways ie that if the father dont want the baby he would be able to foreswear all responsibility and let the mother raise the child herself without any sort of support from the father, and I think we would agree to that it shouldnt. It is a two edged sword. As I am someone who thinks abortion should be legal I see a world of difference between a born baby and a three week featus and for me giving away a born baby is more traumatic than aborting the possibility of a baby.

Again and again we just come back to whether we consider abortion murder or not. If you consider it murder then we really dont have a problem cause then we should just ban abortion and all problems would disapear right? But if we allow abortion then we will encounter this kind of problem. Even if the father would be willing to take and raise the child on his own the mother still have to carry it for nine months until it truly is a child and bear it into this world. To give it up then is a whole other issue for many people than an abortion. Again we are back to ones basic opinion of the legality of abortion though.

Mmmmm... rather a lot of people here seem to equate sex and pregnancy. While I agree that you need the former in order to have the latter, it is actually possible to (and this might be quite a concept) have sex and NOT get pregnant. In fact, I hear that a sort of rubber-thingies called condoms are quite freely available...

Seriously folks, that's my problem with abortion - because it is relatively easy to obtain, people might be tempted to forgo contraception.

But, back on topic - is anyone here seriously advocating forcing women to remain pregnant against their will? Look, the process is inherently asymmetrical biologically and requires rather more from the female than the male. So it is asymmetrical legally as well. As long as abortion is legal it has to be the decision of the woman.

Chandos, if the guy would be able to do that it should be able to work both ways ie that if the father dont want the baby he would be able to foreswear all responsibility and let the mother raise the child herself without any sort of support from the fatherYes, but a lot of the time this is what happens anyway. I know more than one girl that this has happened to. Having the baby and then go and make the father pay afterwards - good luck.

If the mother feels so strongly that she wants to abort the baby, but the father feels that the baby should be given the chance at a life, then both the baby and the father should be given that chance. The mother can have visitation if she is willing to help pay support. This is role-reversal, but I am arguing equality here for all three in this situation, including the baby.

If these single "fathers" want their babies so badly, they should have first married the woman in question!!!! Don't judge a man untill you've been there. Even then....think before you speak. There are plenty of single fathers out there who care deeply for thier children. I'm one of them.

The other problem I see with the woman carrying the baby and then giving it to the father, what happens if something happens to the father? Legally, the biological parents are responsible. So what happens if the father dies? Does the child then go back to the mother who never wanted to have it?

The other reason why the decision has to rely solely with the mother is the risk component. Pregnancy is one of the biggest risks to a healthy woman's life. Regardless of whether or not the father is willing to take the child or not, the main risk is with the woman. Statistics plainly show that regardless of the age group you are looking at, the number of deaths of pregnant women is higher than with non-pregnant women. Because of this component of risk alone, it has to be the woman who has the final decision.

Aldeth - You would be surprised by the transformaton that happens when a baby is born. Once the mother has a chance to spend any time at all with her baby, there is a good chance that she will want to care for the baby if the father should pass on. Love is a potent force and its transforming power should not be so easily disregarded.

Have to say that the thought behind this is quite "wrong" (like 'morally'). If the father does not want a child, and asks the mother to remove it while she still has a chance, she either has to do it or forget all her later, possible claims (read: money). Sometimes it really feels like justice and law have nothing in common, when law was created to be just (and secure the rights of all sides). :nolike:

All Chevalier is doing is bringing up problems which occurs when abortion is legal.Ergo: all chevalier is doing is discussing the topic. How could he :rolleyes:

If abortion is legal, which it is in most of the enlightened worldStop. You're basically telling that englightened = pro-abortion and dim = anti-abortion, which is not true.

Some people who oppose abortion have degrees, speak tongues, win science awards etc, you know...

just because someone thinks that abortion should be a legal option doesnt mean one thinks it should be used at leisureExplain to me: if abortion isn't wrong, why not have it at leisure?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Chevalier is doing is bringing up problems which occurs when abortion is legal.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ergo: all chevalier is doing is discussing the topic. How could he
No, all Chevalier is doing is arguing against abortion in a very roundabout way. Which is all nice and dandy I just find it a bit unnescessary trying to camoflage it as something slightly different.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If abortion is legal, which it is in most of the enlightened world
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Stop. You're basically telling that englightened = pro-abortion and dim = anti-abortion, which is not true.

Some people who oppose abortion have degrees, speak tongues, win science awards etc, you know...
There is no correlation about enlightenment and intelligence. There are muslim imans who advocates a holy jihad against all unbelievers who have doctors degrees and whatnots from prestigious universities. I still wouldnt call them enlightened.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
just because someone thinks that abortion should be a legal option doesnt mean one thinks it should be used at leisure
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Explain to me: if abortion isn't wrong, why not have it at leisure? Abortion isnt a matter of right and wrong, especially seeing since I doubt people will ever see eye to eye with another. It is a matter of legality. Thus each individual can decide for themselves if it is a tiny clot of cells or a tiny little person they have in their uteros and act thereafter.

I think that abortion is more or less never the answer but I dont believe it is for me to decide whether it should be legal or not. This stance has nothing to do with the faetus but with the mother, judging from the women I know who have had an abortion I think it would have been better for them to have child and wreck their future and any chance for an independent life in a foreseeable future than to forever wonder what might have been. But that is their decision, not mine and not the legislative branch. There is no one who is forcing you or those who feel like you to have an abortion but you seem to want to force people do as you want.

Contrary to what most of you who are against abortion believes it is not a callous choice by the women in question and being called a murderess aint helping. Anyone who does make a decision like that callously and at leisure sure as hell shouldnt ever have a child.

Explain to me: if abortion isn't wrong, why not have it at leisure? Because it's a lot more inconvenient, risky and invasive than using a different method of birth-control - oooh, I don't know, condoms, diaphragms, coils, spermicides, the pill, the morning after pill or even your own apparent favourite - abstinence.

Why are people arguing that Chevalier is just using this topic to thinly-veil his anti-abortion stance? That's ridiculous. Everyone knows already that Chev is anti-abortion, so it would be pointless for him to try to secretly twist this topic into an anti-abortion platform. In fact, it's downright impossible for him to do this, as it is already a well-known fact that he is anti-abortion. It is no secret, so you can't secretly do something that isn't a secret to begin with.

If nothing else, Chev is a logical person, and if he was doing what several people here claim, it would be a completely illogical course of action. He'd also have to think the average IQ on this site was about 50 if he thought people would actually fall for such a tactic.

But to stay on topic, I don't think there is a perfect solution to this problem. There has to be one person who has the final decision if there is a disagreement between the two prospective parents, and the woman is the best option from an admitedly poor list of choices.

Contrary to what most of you who are against abortion believes it is not a callous choice by the women in question and being called a murderess aint helping. Anyone who does make a decision like that callously and at leisure sure as hell shouldnt ever have a child.This only shows the weakness of the logic behind pro-abortion programme.

One on hand, it's perfectly all right and legal, so we can do it.

On the other hand, we still have a need to stress that to have an abortion is an important decision that should be weighed carefully and is not to be taken at leisure. So, obviously, we're having a bad feeling here, aren't we?

Perhaps it's not so all right.

Legal? It's politics. There countries who have nearly the same law rules and yet the judges interpret them differently. When there's a ready conclusion and a potential premise, people tend to malnourish the inference part.

There is no correlation about enlightenment and intelligence. There are muslim imans who advocates a holy jihad against all unbelievers who have doctors degrees and whatnots from prestigious universities. I still wouldnt call them enlightened.It's your perspective - neither would they call you englightened, I suppose. That they have a different system of values than your one, doesn't make them less wise or less aware. No correlation.

Abortion isnt a matter of right and wrong,That only works if we put morality aside, which is not really what I would do.

Thus each individual can decide for themselves if it is a tiny clot of cells or a tiny little person they have in their uteros and act thereafter.An individual can foresee natural consequences of his actions (sex => pregnancy) and needs to take responsibility for his actions without using the excuse that having him (or her) face the consequences of what he (or she) has done would be too cruel. It's quite naive and doesn't work unless we assume that pleasure is the highest value and that the right of stronger individuals is better than that of the weak.

But that is their decision, not mine and not the legislative branch.I could see the same logic justifying the law and government staying totally away from family relations, work relations, private contracts and so on - leaving it to individuals to decide.

Putting old people to old age houses, young people to death, what should we do with the disabled people, the weak people, the ugly people etc etc? Let's build ourselves a new world of only young, healthy and rich folks :rolleyes:

There is no one who is forcing you or those who feel like you to have an abortion but you seem to want to force people do as you want.People who want to beat their children don't force the rest to beat their own ones. So why would we ban the beating of children and force those folks to act as we want?

The funnier parts have been dealt with by Aldeth ;)

sex => pregnancy No. Unprotected sex => pregnancy

This only shows the weakness of the logic behind pro-abortion programme.

One on hand, it's perfectly all right and legal, so we can do it.

On the other hand, we still have a need to stress that to have an abortion is an important decision that should be weighed carefully and is not to be taken at leisure. So, obviously, we're having a bad feeling here, aren't we?

Perhaps it's not so all right. Erm, what? Many things are 'all right and legal' but still need to be considered carefully. Whether to marry someone or not, whether to undergo chemotherapy if diagnosed with cancer, whether to go to university or not... just to mention three wildly different examples. As far as I understand, thinking something through and not taking a decision likely does not imply your doubt in the morality of one of the choices.

Aldeth, that is the point, we know Chev's stance on abortion and I have nothing against him arguing his thoughts on it. I just pointed out that I in my opinion found it a bit unnescessary to try to pass it off as something different. Especially twice in a short time. Neither this topic nor the other topic is really about fathers rights or about informing parents when their child have an abortion, they are both about, surprise surprise: Abortion. Because these two things are really non-issues, if you think that abortion should be legal there is no other way to do things than how they are done however unsavory it might be at times and if you are against abortion it just serves to further illustrates how horrible it is with abortion.

Furthermore abortion is a pretty futile thing to discuss, especially between reasonable intelligent people cause they are set in their opinion and both sides have merit to their arguments. It all boils down to the definition of the faetus and whether abortion is murder or not. No argument can never bite on someone who thinks that a person is murdered at every abortion nor will someone who sees it as a removal of a collection of cells with the possiblity to be become a person be swayed to think it is murder. Even among the people who do think it is murder however there are those who is pro-abortion due to the simple fact that a ban on abortion wouldnt stop abortions by a longshot but would only lead to procedures which might abort the life of both the faetus and the mother not to mention making it happen later into the pregnancy.

It is this very disparity which makes it into not a question about morals and right and wrong because as Chev pointed out about my iman there are issues where people dont agree on right and wrong and thus the law must be allowing. The people who advocate abortion isnt a few deviants as is the case with the aforementioned imam or people who thinks it should be perfectly OK to beat their wife or somesuch.

No. Unprotected sex => pregnancyNo. The basic category here is sex. Sex leads to pregnancy.

Sex + protection => 99% chance of no pregnancy

Erm, what? Many things are 'all right and legal' but still need to be considered carefully. Whether to marry someone or not, whether to undergo chemotherapy if diagnosed with cancer, whether to go to university or not... just to mention three wildly different examples. As far as I understand, thinking something through and not taking a decision likely does not imply your doubt in the morality of one of the choices.No, no, no. Abortion is construed by pro-abortionists as morally neutral.

However, the careful deliberation etc in the shape that they advocate resumbles a classic process of making an informed moral decision.

That is where the inconsistency lies: it's either moral/immoral OR morally neutral. There's no other way.

I just pointed out that I in my opinion found it a bit unnescessary to try to pass it off as something different. Especially twice in a short time. Neither this topic nor the other topic is really about fathers rights or about informing parents when their child have an abortion, they are both about, surprise surprise: Abortion.People come and say that the topic WILL turn into an abortion yes/no debate and that it is what I intended when making the topic. Next, people come and say the whole problem we are discussing comes down to whether abortion is right or wrong in general. Ultimately, despite calls in vain to discuss the topic actually, people make less and less vague references to abortion in general.... and in the very end surprise, chev has managed to disguise an abortion debate as something else.

Wonderful logic.

if you are against abortion it just serves to further illustrates how horrible it is with abortionAgreed. Allowing abortion leads to such problems as in the two threads: about the fathers having nothing to say and about the parents of underaged mothers (and fathers) being unable to do anything while their (grand-)child is being killed.

It is this very disparity which makes it into not a question about morals and right and wrong because as Chev pointed out about my iman there are issues where people dont agree on right and wrong and thus the law must be allowing.There are many things that some people consider morally right and some consider morally wrong. Majority vote isn't really the way to decide moral matters. Not like it actually is a majority, anyway.