Should fathers be allowed to sue over abortion?
Turtlehurdle
Posts: 412
There was a comment on another thread that said there was civil case where a father sued a woman for pain and suffering because she aborted his child against his wishes.
Should fathers be able to file a civil lawsuit if his partner has an abortion against his wishes?
Should fathers be able to file an injunction to prevent an abortion?
Why or why not?
Should fathers be able to file a civil lawsuit if his partner has an abortion against his wishes?
Should fathers be able to file an injunction to prevent an abortion?
Why or why not?
0
Replies
-
No, because my god says that fetuses are part of a woman's body, just like a leg. So the only person being theoretically injured here is the woman, and she's the one making the decision.
More seriously (although all of the above is true), forcing a woman to postpone having an abortion would be a nightmare. What if the abortion is medically necessary? What if the court case drags on so long that the baby is born, even though the courts eventually rule in the woman's favor? What if the reason for the abortion is that the woman can't afford appropriate pre-natal care, which she now has to pay for anyway?0 -
I'm conflicted on this. I want there to be a way to give father's similar rights to what happens to a child or sack of cells. What it really boils down to for me is that the woman has to carry the child. It's her body, it's her choice. There really should be nothing more to the story at this point. I don't like the idea that we could get to a point to force a woman to do something, anything, that she doen't want to do - abortion or just plain living.0
-
I'm going to have to think about this one. It's a question that's never ocurred to me. The balance between a woman's right to choose what happens to her own body and the rights of fathers is a very nasty can of worms... I shall cogitate and come back
0 -
In my opinion, a man becomes a father and has father's rights when the child is born. Until then, he is waiting to become a father. Anything that might happen in the interim to prevent him becoming a father, an abortion, a miscarriage, are events outside of his control. He relinquished the right to decide when he gave custody of his DNA to the mother-to-be.
I do think he should have first right of refusal if the mother wants to place the child for adoption, that is, the child could only be placed with adoptive parents if he himself didn't wish to raise the child.0 -
I'm pro choice to the extent that I agree with Roe v Wade. If it were my child, I would do/offer anything I could, probably more, to the mother for the child. In the end, though, it's her choice. Were it me, I wouldn't sue if for no other reason than suing someone for their legal actions has always seemed silly to me.0
-
I have nothing against the idea of the father campaigning hard for his child. If he really wants to raise the child, and he thinks he can talk her out of an abortion, by all means, talk away. Offer whatever he has, bargain however he wants...........but he shouldn't have the power of the courts to help him "force" her to continue with a pregnancy that she really wants to terminate.
It sucks for the man, to see a pregnancy that he wanted get terminated, but the complications mentioned above are examples of why the court should never be in the position to force a pregnancy to proceed against the mother's wishes.0 -
Sure, as soon as science allows easy, safe transfer of fetus to father for incubation. We live in an appearance oriented world, have you seen what having babies does to bellies? Nevermind what it can potentially do to your career to go on maternity leave, and your spine if you have a bad back like me, and to say nothing of the dangers of giving birth, and then there are the expenses of doing so.0
-
OP, you always stir the pot but never give your point of view. I won't answer until you do
0 -
No, because my god says that fetuses are part of a woman's body, just like a leg. So the only person being theoretically injured here is the woman, and she's the one making the decision.
I'm calling bullsh*t on that one. Other that the fictional "Virgin Birth" of Jesus, It takes two people to create a child. Both persons should be involved in the decisions regarding that child or the termination of that child.
Besides, if you're going to throw God into the mix, isn't abortion frowned upon?0 -
OP, you always stir the pot but never give your point of view. I won't answer until you do
I believe both parties are responsible for making that decision. If a woman can sue for child support, then a man should be able to sue for not being included in the decision making process.
I'm not the OP, but I would still like to hear your opinion..0 -
I'm conflicted on this. I want there to be a way to give father's similar rights to what happens to a child or sack of cells. What it really boils down to for me is that the woman has to carry the child. It's her body, it's her choice. There really should be nothing more to the story at this point. I don't like the idea that we could get to a point to force a woman to do something, anything, that she doen't want to do - abortion or just plain living.
But we are totally ok for a man to have to sit by and watch something thats part him as well be killed?0 -
I'm fortunate to not have dealt with this issue.
Yes, I believe that there is a right to sue. The baby is his as well as hers. Biology being what it is, he is not equipped to carry the child, but that doesn't make it any less his.0 -
OP, you always stir the pot but never give your point of view. I won't answer until you do
Fine!
No, I don't think father's should be allowed to sue over abortion. My body, my decision! I think it opens too many avenues for abuse!
Honestly, if a man doesn't want to see his potential child aborted, maybe he should think twice before sleeping with that woman?!0 -
OP, you always stir the pot but never give your point of view. I won't answer until you do
Fine!
No, I don't think father's should be allowed to sue over abortion. My body, my decision! I think it opens too many avenues for abuse!
Honestly, if a man doesn't want to see his potential child aborted, maybe he should think twice before sleeping with that woman?!
Isn't that the same logic some pro-life people use. If she didn't want to be pregnant, she shouldn't have slept around? Generally, I think women get short end of the "That person's behavior makes them a slut" stick, but fair should be fair.0 -
OP, you always stir the pot but never give your point of view. I won't answer until you do
Fine!
No, I don't think father's should be allowed to sue over abortion. My body, my decision! I think it opens too many avenues for abuse!
Honestly, if a man doesn't want to see his potential child aborted, maybe he should think twice before sleeping with that woman?!
Isn't that the same logic some pro-life people use. If she didn't want to be pregnant, she shouldn't have slept around? Generally, I think women get short end of the "That person's behavior makes them a slut" stick, but fair should be fair.
I'm not sure which argument pro-lifer's use to be honest. It was a generalization of the situation really. It's a completely flawed argument.0 -
I believe that life begins at conception. While my son was attached to my body and took up residency in my body, he was not a part of my body in any sense more than an intestinal worm would be. My body (neither consiously or autonomically) controled him during development (otherwise I would have moved him off my bladder and out of my right lung). I don't see a fetus as belonging to me akin to my leg belonging to me. My leg only has my DNA and only functions at my minds will, this is not so for a fetus. Based upon this, unless the father gives up the right to make a decision, both parents should have a say in the fate of the fetus as they would a born child.0
-
Imagine some court cases if you will: There's the rapist who wants his baby. The one night stand man who doesn't want the woman, but does want a child.
There's who must pay what costs during her pregnancy, and there is the issue of contract. If a couple decides to get pregnant and she then aborts, there might be some argument of broken contract there, and some grounds for a lawsuit. But in a situation where neither expects nor is trying by agreement with each other to get pregnant, where is the basis for your lawsuit?
And there are even issues if you treat some pregnancies as contractual. If he cheats on her or leaves her while pregnant, has he broken contract, thereby giving her the right to abort? If he loses his job, does she then have the right to abort?
You also have to consider in that situation who was supposed to be responsible for birth control. A court would probably say both are responsible and regardless of whether the male thinks the female is using contraception, if he fails to do so and she becomes pregant, he cedes the choice to her by his own failure to ensure that she does not become pregnant.
Possession being 9/10ths of the law is just a throwaway debate, naturally, but what about custody? Let's say he demands that she have the child and he will take full custody. Shall he then oblige her to pay child support? Of course it can be argued that this is what a female will do when she decides to have a child. So if we are going to allow a man to sue and force her to have the child or pay him, can we then sue the woman to either abort or not demand child support? Shall he have to pay for plastic surgery if he demands that she have the child, as well as all medical bills, her time off work, and anything lost to her due to pregnancy in wages or opportunity? What does he owe the woman he would force to give birth to his child.
It's such a messy tangled issue that I doubt the courts will get near it, and I hope they don't.0 -
^^^^^^ excellently summed it up, right there. Our court system can be a nightmare. This is an area of our lives the court shouldn't have power over.0
-
No, but I do feel sorry for the fathers in that situation.
I suppose with me being pro-choice, I don't really see it as a baby yet, just a bundle of cells. I think the woman should take his considerations into account, but ultimately if she really doesn't want a child for whatever reason, I think it will be worse for her, and for the baby growing up, to have a child she did not want purely because he did want them. Also, it's pretty selfish (even though I can imagine his feelings) of him to want to bring a child into the world where both parents are not agreeable on it. Too often, people think about themselves and their own needs, above that of a child!
I do also think, if you're going to do it, do it as soon as possible. It's unfair to go letting anyone get attached, when there's no chance that you will see it through. Even if you are unsure yet, let you're partner know!! Don't go leading them on.0 -
Imagine some court cases if you will: There's the rapist who wants his baby. The one night stand man who doesn't want the woman, but does want a child.
There's who must pay what costs during her pregnancy, and there is the issue of contract. If a couple decides to get pregnant and she then aborts, there might be some argument of broken contract there, and some grounds for a lawsuit. But in a situation where neither expects nor is trying by agreement with each other to get pregnant, where is the basis for your lawsuit?
And there are even issues if you treat some pregnancies as contractual. If he cheats on her or leaves her while pregnant, has he broken contract, thereby giving her the right to abort? If he loses his job, does she then have the right to abort?
You also have to consider in that situation who was supposed to be responsible for birth control. A court would probably say both are responsible and regardless of whether the male thinks the female is using contraception, if he fails to do so and she becomes pregant, he cedes the choice to her by his own failure to ensure that she does not become pregnant.
Possession being 9/10ths of the law is just a throwaway debate, naturally, but what about custody? Let's say he demands that she have the child and he will take full custody. Shall he then oblige her to pay child support? Of course it can be argued that this is what a female will do when she decides to have a child. So if we are going to allow a man to sue and force her to have the child or pay him, can we then sue the woman to either abort or not demand child support? Shall he have to pay for plastic surgery if he demands that she have the child, as well as all medical bills, her time off work, and anything lost to her due to pregnancy in wages or opportunity? What does he owe the woman he would force to give birth to his child.
It's such a messy tangled issue that I doubt the courts will get near it, and I hope they don't.
I like this response! I think you answered it really well!!0 -
I'm Jewish. :flowerforyou:No, because my god says that fetuses are part of a woman's body, just like a leg. So the only person being theoretically injured here is the woman, and she's the one making the decision.
I'm calling bullsh*t on that one. Other that the fictional "Virgin Birth" of Jesus, It takes two people to create a child. Both persons should be involved in the decisions regarding that child or the termination of that child.
Besides, if you're going to throw God into the mix, isn't abortion frowned upon?0 -
Mara's summation was excellent, and pointed out many of the inherent problems in this scenario. While I have no problem with a man 'lobbying' hard if he wants a child (provided this is not violent or intimidating), introducing the courts into the matter seems neither logical, given the slowness of the legal system and the limited duration of pregnancy, nor helpful. It also potentially opens up another very nasty can of worms - suits seeking to punish women for miscarriages (sometimes known as 'spontaneous abortion'), possibly aided by the frankly wrong-headed laws that already exist in several states which can, and have been, used to criminalise women who have miscarried if someone believes their actions or lifestyle may have contributed to the miscarriage. Given that medicine often has no explanation for the majority of miscarriages, this sort of legal intervention is open to almost infinite abuse.0
-
Absolutely not. Every opportunist who has lucked out with a 'one-night-stand' and later discovers there was a conception and abortion will exploit the situation.
Of course, the best option is to have both parties sign a pre-cop.
There you go, a new revenue source for all the lawyers out there. They will be the people turning up to the nightclubs with a briefcase.0 -
When the baby is conceived it is in the woman and it is hard to force the issue of what she can or cannot do with her body. Unfortunately thats the way it is. yes it sucks for the man and I think any woman that would abort a child that is wanted by someone is cruel. Of course there are many reasons she may ot be able to continue the pregnancy, but if she is healthy etc.. I can't imagine taking someone's child from them. I believe that life begins at conception, therefore it is the man's child also. If it wasn't for him there would be no child.0
-
I struggle with this one. On one hand, I think there are some guys out there who will genuinely be gutted if a pregnancy was aborted. I do feel for those guys a lot.
But on the other hand, as a woman, I don't want anyone but me making decisions for my body. It would be unacceptable for a man to force me to have an abortion I didn't want. It's no less unacceptable for a man to force me to continue a pregnancy I didn't want.0 -
I'm fortunate to not have dealt with this issue.
Yes, I believe that there is a right to sue. The baby is his as well as hers. Biology being what it is, he is not equipped to carry the child, but that doesn't make it any less his.
I agree. It takes two to make the baby, then two should be responsible and have a choice.
As long as there is no abnormal health risk to the mother by carrying the child, the father should get to choose if he wants it also.0 -
I'm fortunate to not have dealt with this issue.
Yes, I believe that there is a right to sue. The baby is his as well as hers. Biology being what it is, he is not equipped to carry the child, but that doesn't make it any less his.
I agree. It takes two to make the baby, then two should be responsible and have a choice.
As long as there is no abnormal health risk to the mother by carrying the child, the father should get to choose if he wants it also.
My problem with this is that the negative impact of a pregnancy, wanted or otherwise, on a woman goes far beyond 'abnormal health risks'. Men do not biologically suffer the physical, mental and emotional changes of pregnancy, nor the negative impact on career and related opportunities. At the end of the day, the 'cost' to the mother is infinitely higher - surely her wishes should consequently have more weight, ideally whilst acknowledging the wishes of the father also?0 -
I'm fortunate to not have dealt with this issue.
Yes, I believe that there is a right to sue. The baby is his as well as hers. Biology being what it is, he is not equipped to carry the child, but that doesn't make it any less his.
I agree. It takes two to make the baby, then two should be responsible and have a choice.
As long as there is no abnormal health risk to the mother by carrying the child, the father should get to choose if he wants it also.
My problem with this is that the negative impact of a pregnancy, wanted or otherwise, on a woman goes far beyond 'abnormal health risks'. Men do not biologically suffer the physical, mental and emotional changes of pregnancy, nor the negative impact on career and related opportunities. At the end of the day, the 'cost' to the mother is infinitely higher - surely her wishes should consequently have more weight, ideally whilst acknowledging the wishes of the father also?
That kind of goes back to my stance that if you CHOOSE to have sex with someone, pregnancy is a possible outcome. To me, saying "it's my body" when you are carrying a baby that is half the person you chose to sleep with, is avoiding responsibility for your actions. I know a few people here advocate abortion to be used as birth control though, so it's a losing argument for me..0 -
I'm fortunate to not have dealt with this issue.
Yes, I believe that there is a right to sue. The baby is his as well as hers. Biology being what it is, he is not equipped to carry the child, but that doesn't make it any less his.
I agree. It takes two to make the baby, then two should be responsible and have a choice.
As long as there is no abnormal health risk to the mother by carrying the child, the father should get to choose if he wants it also.
My problem with this is that the negative impact of a pregnancy, wanted or otherwise, on a woman goes far beyond 'abnormal health risks'. Men do not biologically suffer the physical, mental and emotional changes of pregnancy, nor the negative impact on career and related opportunities. At the end of the day, the 'cost' to the mother is infinitely higher - surely her wishes should consequently have more weight, ideally whilst acknowledging the wishes of the father also?
That kind of goes back to my stance that if you CHOOSE to have sex with someone, pregnancy is a possible outcome. To me, saying "it's my body" when you are carrying a baby that is half the person you chose to sleep with, is avoiding responsibility for your actions. I know a few people here advocate abortion to be used as birth control though, so it's a losing argument for me..
I don't recall anyone here advocating that abortion should be used as a primary method of birth control, but perhaps I've forgotten/missed something. What I do recall are a lot of people, myself included, advocating the continued availability of legal abortion so that all women, some of whom have behaved responsibly, but for whom contraception has failed, and others who have become pregnant through rape etc, as well as those who view the procedure as their primary form of birth control (statistically a minority), are able to make informed choices about their health and wellbeing and have the option of a safe, legal termination. But this could lead us a long way away from the OP, so I suspect we will have to agree to disagree on our fundamental views on the moral aspects of sexual contact. :laugh:
Coming back to the OP, though, in purely economic terms, it would seem somewhat hypocritical if a system that regularly allows males to avoid their responsibilities in terms of child support/maintenance of children they beget were to allow women to be sued for avoiding these same costs.
To add to the debate, though, one Congressman Franks is trying to get a bill passed in DC that takes this idea even further...
The full article is linked below, but the most relevant (to this debate at least) is the following paragraph:
"The bill imposes criminal penalties on any physician found to violate the law, including up to $250,000 in fines and up to two years in prison. The physician could also be sued by certain relatives of the woman for money damages. Further, if a woman is able to obtain an abortion under the law’s extremely narrow circumstances, the bill allows nearly anyone in the woman’s life—such as her husband, sibling, parent, or even any health care provider who has ever treated her for any condition, such as her high school nurse—to file a civil action in court to prevent her abortion provider from serving any other women in the future."
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/article/2012/07/19/house-judiciary-committee-passes-dc-abortion-ban-with-no-exceptions-fetal-anomali0 -
If I planted a tree in someone elses yard and they decided to dig it up, could I sue? Quickest way to stop a woman from aborting your child is to only impregnate women you are in a commited relationship with. I know that sounds easy and unfeeling, but if we allowed a man to dictate a womans right to abort, should women be allowed to control what a man does with his sperm? What if a wife wants to have a baby, the husband said yes but then changed his mind. Should a woman be able to take him to court to stop him from having a vascetomy or to reverse one if he has it? I feel sorry for this guy, and I sure have made some mistakes in the past with women that could have easily turned bad....but once that sperm enters another person, until it merges with an egg and becomes a born child, you don't have a lot of rights to it.0
