Abortion; Father's "Rights"

[El_PAso]

Hi,

Have you ever seen the abortion issue presented this way.

Of course the anti-life lobby’s argument hinges on abortion be a woman’s issues, a rights issue. But what about the father?

Now it is stated that a woman should not be forced to have a child or be a mother. A woman can give up the child and be free of the responsibility but the father can not. At the “mothers” whim and with the support of the state a man/father can be held financially liable for 18 years with no say in the matter.

So a woman can abjure her rights but a man cannot…? In fact be forced with the graces of the state assume the responsibility that a woman is fighting so hard to ignore.

I saw recently a sperm donor was being sued for child support as a gay couple broke up and the single mother could not afford the child!

Can a “father” abort his rights to be a father as a mother aborts the child?

I think this line of thinking/argument points out directly the anti-life lobby is not interested in rights or justice and simply a ploy for political reasons.

You know more than half of the men I have had this debate with who are firmly anti-life were sure the father had some say.

Something to think about…

EL Paso

 

[styrgwillidar]

Hi,

Have you ever seen the abortion issue presented this way.

Of course the anti-life lobby’s argument hinges on abortion be a woman’s issues, a rights issue. But what about the father?

Now it is stated that a woman should not be forced to have a child or be a mother. A woman can give up the child and be free of the responsibility but the father can not. At the “mothers” whim and with the support of the state a man/father can be held financially liable for 18 years with no say in the matter.

So a woman can abjure her rights but a man cannot…? In fact be forced with the graces of the state assume the responsibility that a woman is fighting so hard to ignore.

I saw recently a sperm donor was being sued for child support as a gay couple broke up and the single mother could not afford the child!

Can a “father” abort his rights to be a father as a mother aborts the child?

I think this line of thinking/argument points out directly the anti-life lobby is not interested in rights or justice and simply a ploy for political reasons.

You know more than half of the men I have had this debate with who are firmly anti-life were sure the father had some say.

Something to think about…

EL Paso

Yes it’s been presented that way, even in court. The courts have consistently ruled that the father has the right to pay 18 years of child support if the mother decides to keep the child. Other than that, it varies with most giving him very limited visitation rights, if any. Of course, he has no say over whether or not his child is aborted.

In Utah, unwed fathers only recently acquired the right to be notified that the mother of their child intended to put the child up for adoption, if she’s been in Utah for less than 90 days. If she’s been there more than 90, she doesn’t have to notify him. Of course, the only evidence she has to provide is an affadivait, and if she lies the father still can’t get custody of his child as the adoption is still legally valid. Previously there was no requirement to notify or length of residency, and a woman could travel to Utah and put a child up for adoption without notifying the father.

foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/03/utah-governor-signs-bill-giving-fathers-new-rights-in-adoption-cases/

 

[ialsop]

This is just to show how dumb the “woman’s rights to abortion” argument really is…

 

[Ridgerunner]

One wonders whether abortion on demand has had a negative effect on marriages. If I were a more secular person, I would be very much put off by the possibility that my (equally secular) wife could kill my children just because she might want to. It would probably dissuade me from marrying at all.

It is a fact that marriage rates plummeted when abortion on demand became the law. I don’t know if that’s the reason, but it sure would be for some.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Hi,

Have you ever seen the abortion issue presented this way.

Of course the anti-life lobby’s argument hinges on abortion be a woman’s issues, a rights issue. But what about the father?

Now it is stated that a woman should not be forced to have a child or be a mother. A woman can give up the child and be free of the responsibility but the father can not. At the “mothers” whim and with the support of the state a man/father can be held financially liable for 18 years with no say in the matter.

So a woman can abjure her rights but a man cannot…? In fact be forced with the graces of the state assume the responsibility that a woman is fighting so hard to ignore.

I saw recently a sperm donor was being sued for child support as a gay couple broke up and the single mother could not afford the child!

Can a “father” abort his rights to be a father as a mother aborts the child?

I think this line of thinking/argument points out directly the anti-life lobby is not interested in rights or justice and simply a ploy for political reasons.

You know more than half of the men I have had this debate with who are firmly anti-life were sure the father had some say.

Something to think about…

EL Paso

It boils down to this- Our legal system in regards to having/raising children holds women to be legally incompetent/minors and men as legally competent.

 

[DanielJT]

I have thought about this before and I think that the bigger problem which this points to is that our Culture is repeatedly telling boys to just stay boys and not to grow up and step-up to manhood.

I would also point to television shows continually make the man the cartoonish baboon rather than the family leader.

I wish this problem would be addressed on a larger scale. I remember when it used to be “such a shame” that a father had left the family and the mother was left to raise the children on her own. Now it is just a normal and actually in some cases women believe they are somehow stronger and more of a mother when they raise their children on their own without a father.

The father is becoming more and more expendable and being a man (a true man and not the one I saw in the beer commercial) is becoming optional and, dare I say, unfavorable.

 

[TxGodfollower]

Hi,

Have you ever seen the abortion issue presented this way.

Of course the anti-life lobby’s argument hinges on abortion be a woman’s issues, a rights issue. But what about the father?

Now it is stated that a woman should not be forced to have a child or be a mother. A woman can give up the child and be free of the responsibility but the father can not. At the “mothers” whim and with the support of the state a man/father can be held financially liable for 18 years with no say in the matter.

So a woman can abjure her rights but a man cannot…? In fact be forced with the graces of the state assume the responsibility that a woman is fighting so hard to ignore.

I saw recently a sperm donor was being sued for child support as a gay couple broke up and the single mother could not afford the child!

Can a “father” abort his rights to be a father as a mother aborts the child?

I think this line of thinking/argument points out directly the anti-life lobby is not interested in rights or justice and simply a ploy for political reasons.

You know more than half of the men I have had this debate with who are firmly anti-life were sure the father had some say.

Something to think about…

EL Paso

Tried in US courts and failed. I think its interesting, like others have said; a man can be forced to pay child support and forced to pay for delivery costs; but has no rights until the child is born. After the child is born, it varies by state. In some, fathers have equal rights to mothers.

 

[Giggly_Giraffe]

But I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace …d. The father of that child, whoever he is, must also give until it hurts.

By abortion, the mother does not learn to love, but kills even her own child to solve her problems. And, by abortion, that father is told that he does not have to take any responsibility at all for the child he has brought into the world. The father is likely to put other women into the same trouble. So abortion just leads to more abortion. Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching its people to love, but to use any violence to get what they want. This is why the greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion.

St Teresa of Calcutta

Your view shows how this cycle of narcissism is spiraling creating a deeper culture of deaththat St Teresa was trying to bring us out of.

The old traditional ways put a heavy emphasis of having the man lead the family. Still today this is upheld as hope for the family. When men fail to take responsability they forfeit that respect from men and women. More embarrassing for the maniswhen theyneed someone who will call them on their immaturity and force them to do what is right and just. As more and more men are fleeting responsability for their seeds, more and more women are turning to abortion, and failed families.

Can a man sever his right to future children? I suppose he could get circumsizex; which again the Catholic faith teaches is a mortal sin for the same spiraling reason quoted by St. Teresa of Calcutta.

 

[WKW_69]

man/father can be held financially liable for 18 years with no say in the matter.

The man had his say in the matter when he decided to engage in sex with the woman.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

The man had his say in the matter when he decided to engage in sex with the woman.

As did the woman who is for some reason treated as a legal incompetent/child and not held to be responsible for her actions as the man is.

 

[seakelp]

The legal arguments are fundamentally different.

First, it’s important to understand that there is no right to an abortion. Abortion is permitted because the courts have held that substantive due process, in the 14th Amendment, creates a right of privacy - certain aspects of life are so personal the state must have a strong interest in regulating them. Because the courts have refused to address whether life begins at conception, they have instead found that generally the state may not regulate medical procedures that cause abortions until the second trimester.

So, the argument isn’t whether the mother has some “right” to decide whether to carry her pregnancy or not. The question is whether the state can tell a mother what to do with her body. Or so the argument goes.

Now, when seen this way, you understand why the father’s rights are non-existent. If the state only has a legal interest in protecting the fetus beginning at the second, the father can’t be reasonably expected to have any real interest at all.

Is it fair? Well, maybe not for we who believe life begins at conception. Or from our perspective, it seems backwards.

But think of it legally, this way: would it be okay for a wife to ask a court to order her husband to get a vasectomy? Or to take viagra? And so forth? Or to put it more precisely, imagine a woman asking the court to prevent the man from obtaining a vasectomy, or obtaining a prescription.

We reject that idea, because we recognize that the man in that situation is entitled to some degree of bodily autonomy. From a legal perspective, a court telling a mother she may not engage in some procedure is equally nonsensical.

 

[shockerfan]

The man had his say in the matter when he decided to engage in sex with the woman.

We should be teaching our sons to not even start a relationship with any woman who would consider abortion as a possibility. Seriously, any person, man or woman, who would consider abortion as an alternative is NOT someone worthy of a relationship

 

[HollyDolly]

St Teresa of Calcutta

Your view shows how this cycle of narcissism is spiraling creating a deeper culture of deaththat St Teresa was trying to bring us out of.

The old traditional ways put a heavy emphasis of having the man lead the family. Still today this is upheld as hope for the family. When men fail to take responsability they forfeit that respect from men and women. More embarrassing for the maniswhen theyneed someone who will call them on their immaturity and force them to do what is right and just. As more and more men are fleeting responsability for their seeds, more and more women are turning to abortion, and failed families.

Can a man sever his right to future children? I suppose he could get circumsizex; which again the Catholic faith teaches is a mortal sin for the same spiraling reason quoted by St. Teresa of Calcutta.

I think you mean a vasectomy,which means that a man has surgery so that he can’t produce any more children if he is already married and the couple don’t want more,or if a man doesn’t want any at all,whether married or not.

 

[masondoggy]

We should be teaching our sons to not even start a relationship with any woman who would consider abortion as a possibility. Seriously, any person, man or woman, who would consider abortion as an alternative is NOT someone worthy of a relationship

Yea well the problem with that is I have known several woman who stated they were against abortion until they wound up pregnant and wanted to get one for themselves.

Several.

 

[AnnArbor]

As did the woman who is for some reason treated as a legal incompetent/child and not held to be responsible for her actions as the man is.

How so?

 

[Giggly_Giraffe]

I think you mean a vasectomy,which means that a man has surgery so that he can’t produce any more children if he is already married and the couple don’t want more,or if a man doesn’t want any at all,whether married or not.

This is a form of male contraceptive; which again, the Chuch discourages as a mortal sin. There have been other oral contraceptives, and contraceptives like condoms avail for men (again, church discourages). However, men (male culture) seems to promote that sex is just a physical act without mental or spiritual connections; therefore, availing the female means we can pass all control to her. However, science shows how sexual encounters creates dopamine and serotonin in the brain. These chemical releases leads to a mental bonding. I can’t say how the spiritual bonding works, but I know it’s there.

Now, the female’s body chemically responds to additional bonding when a child is produced in the fillopean tubes. This child will send chemicals to override the woman’s brain to; stop menistrating and to start a serotonin bond with the new baby … Now, throughout history, those in bad relationships (adultry, bad marriages, incest, ect) will produce an unwanted child leaving the mother to apologize to the man for getting pregnant. Still today, with the unwed sexual activity going on, the woman is still searching the mans responses (verbal and non verbal) for que’s of acceptance of this family. When the chemical bond is greater to the child than the man we will see single parents. However, men often will bully the woman with words and actions to lead her to do his will. The original poster is pointing out how male’s loose control of this process after the baby is out of the womb; and probably leading other men in precarious situations to be more aggressive during the abortive phases.

Back to make contraception, men don’t understand how deleted sexual experiences will change a woman’s mind about babies. Men believe sexual experiences do not induce desire for commitment and parenthood. This is why the male mentality often says"She trapped me with a baby". If they would realize this, they probably would focus more on male contraceptive and the human population would die out.

 

[shockerfan]

How so?

Well, in California colleges, if a boyfriend and girlfriend get drunk voluntarily together, and end up having consensual sex, if the girl then has regrets and complains, the boy is liable and guilty of sexual assault. (because since she was drunk, she can’t give consent…even though there was equal culpability in getting drunk and having sex)

 

[Giggly_Giraffe]

Well, in California colleges, if a boyfriend and girlfriend get drunk voluntarily together, and end up having consensual sex, if the girl then has regrets and complains, the boy is liable and guilty of sexual assault. (because since she was drunk, she can’t give consent…even though there was equal culpability in getting drunk and having sex)

What is it called when people have sex with dead people: necrophillia? Seems to me that drunken sex is the begging baby steps to necrophillia because usually the super drunk are like corpses and cannot show enjoyment or lack of enjoyment. Additionally, most contracts are null and void if a person is under the influence of mind altering substances and sex a contract entered between two people. Should men wish to be me leaders in this culture again, they need to lead in good contracts.

 

[shockerfan]

What is it called when people have sex with dead people: necrophillia? Seems to me that drunken sex is the begging baby steps to necrophillia because usually the super drunk are like corpses and cannot show enjoyment or lack of enjoyment. Additionally, most contracts are null and void if a person is under the influence of mind altering substances and sex a contract entered between two people. Should men wish to be me leaders in this culture again, they need to lead in good contracts.

You are speaking in the realm of leadership and morality.

I am speaking in the realm of the constitution: specifically equal protection under the law. Oldcatholicguy made the statement, “As did the woman who is for some reason treated as a legal incompetent/child and not held to be responsible for her actions as the man is”. To this, AnnArbor replied “How so?” I responded to AnnArbor with a solid example of BOTH the man and the woman being EQUALLY drunk, and having EQUAL culpability in the bad and drunken decision to have drunken sex. Are you saying that only men are culpable for their decisions when drunk and women are not?

If women want to be treated as equals in society, then they need to be treated as equals in society, not only when it benefits them.

 

[ialsop]

If women want to be treated as equals in society, then they need to be treated as equals in society, not only when it benefits them.

EXACTLY!!!