Should fathers be allowed to sue over abortion?
Replies
-
don't ever be alone so you don't get raped etc.
Are you serious?
Reading comp please. You know I'm not blaming women for rape. I'm making a ridiculous suggestion like "don't have sex with a woman who will get an abortion". I'll fight absurdity with absurdity to make a point.
No, I don't know that. I unfortunately do know people who DO blame women for rape, so I had to clarify. My bad.
Her statement wasn't absurd. If a man really wants a child, he has choices. Get with a woman who WANTS a kid, for example.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?
I'm going to with this. Just because they can't carry the child, doesn't make it any less his child. Woo hoo, lucky female, the baby sits in your belly. Well, quite frankly, the baby wouldn't be there without a man's sperm.
When men start carrying babies instead of women, then I'll change my stance and say the man has the final say so. It doesn't matter if it takes 50 people to make a child--whoever it is carrying it has the final say. Would you, in all honesty, want someone else, no matter who it is, to have control over YOUR body like that?
I find this to be a very arrogant response. So because men cannot physically carry a child, means they have no say? That's bogus. If I did not want the child, but some man I decided to open my legs to and not use proper protection with, wanted said child, then yes. I would carry that child.
I find others thinking they have a say in another's body to be arrogant. Your point?
How exactly is the baby inside you "your body"? You carry it inside, but it's not your body. I don't understand that logic.
"How exactly is the baby inside "your body"? You answered it already. "You carry it inside."
Not really. You're carrying another body inside of you. You are a vessel for it to grow. It doesn't mean it's your body just because it needs you to survive.0 -
Yes, he clearly represents every doctor that performs abortions, and every pro-choice person in the world. I'm glad you found out the secret agenda. :yawn:0 -
Not really. You're carrying another body inside of you. You are a vessel for it to grow. It doesn't mean it's your body just because it needs you to survive.
Ah, right. Women are just vessels. That's good to know, that my sole purpose in this world, is to bring more people into it.0 -
Not really. You're carrying another body inside of you. You are a vessel for it to grow. It doesn't mean it's your body just because it needs you to survive.
Ah, right. Women are just vessels. That's good to know, that my sole purpose in this world, is to bring more people into it.
Please, that is not what I said and you know it. You know full well what I meant with that statement. If you can't refute my position with a logical response, then don't respond. You would be better served chasing down people who say "you people" and making it out to be something that it's not. I've yet to hear a valid argument about the mentally ill, all I've seen is my words taken out of context. I'll take the position of the pro abortionists here is justified because they say so and nothing more.0 -
Wow, does it hurt to make leaps that large?
Treated as medical waste doesn't count as garbage? Where do you think they go?
There are people that can't live without assistance outside the womb. Many can't speak or communicate like we can, yet we take care of them. Seeing that they are not self-sufficient, would it matter if we end their life?
ANYONE can care for a born person who cannot live without assistance. That person does not rely solely on one specific person.
You seem to exemplify your user name. You are ranting about people who don't believe in God playing that role over someone else as if God has anything to do with it. If I have an abortion I'm not playing God over someone else. I'm making a medical decision that's best for myself and my family. If you don't like it then don't have an abortion or impregnante someone who would have one. But if you believe in God then why do you think you get to play His role over someone else? Since He exists, isn't that His job, not yours?
I assume since you are all in favor of life that you are also in favor of universal health care too right? And increasing funding to welfare, food stamps, Headstart, public schools, etc? Or is that life only important until it's born at which point it becomes a burden to society and a welfare leech? I'm always amazed at the number of adamant "pro lifers" who are really only pro fetus because once it is absolutely without a doubt and universally agreed upon that it is most definitely a life they hold it and its mother in contempt and no longer give a damn about it. Those people should either put their money where their mouth is and either be pro life or just admit that they are pro fetus and not at all about the actual life.
What does have more people available to take care of a person have to do with it's ability to survive on it's own outside the womb? Makes no sense, and it's a weak answer to be honest. Pro abortionists say the baby cannot survive on it's own outside the womb and therefore it is not a human, how are the mentally ill any different than a fetus? Why do they have more of a right to live than the unborn? If the ability to take care of one's self is the criteria for determining whether or not it's human, then you have to acknowledge the mentally ill are indeed subhuman and do not have a right to live. It doesn't matter if a person needs paid help or not, if he/she cannot live on their own due to their physical state, how are they any different than an unborn child? The reality is, you cannot answer that honestly without discrediting your argument.
Don't tell me you wouldn't be playing God, you are making the decision to take an innocent life and not allowing it the opportunity to live any longer. That is playing God. Trying to tell someone to not murder the weakest among us is not playing God. You want to tell me not to create a baby with someone who would abort, I can say the reverse. Don't get pregnant when you are not ready, don't ever be alone so you don't get raped etc.
Please, this topic is not about healthcare, or welfare programs, it's about whether or not a baby is human or not.
Prove to me that it's not human.
A fetus can only be cared for by 1 person. If that person dies before the fetus is viable, it dies too. It NEEDS 1 very specific person in order to live. A mentally ill person is already born. If it's mother dies, it still lives. If everyone it knows dies, it still lives. It is a completely separate entity that is not dependant on any 1 specific person. It has nothing at all to do with the ability to care for one's self. It has to do with the ability for others to care for it. No one else can take care of a fetus except the mother. If you can't see that, well, there's no point continuing.
What is a "pro abortionist" anyhow? I've seen that term bandied about by radicals but I've never in my life heard anyone say "Yay! I'm going to have an abortion today!" or "I think everyone should have at least 1 abortion in their life." The closest to a pro abortionist I've ever heard of is China's 1 child policy which even the most liberal pro choicer agrees is barbaric. We're not in favor of abortion. I don't know anyone (except, ironically, some who claim to be pro life) who wouldn't love to see some sort of 100% effective method of birth control be available to everyone. Abstinence doesn't count because this is reality.
You said "You want to tell me not to create a baby with someone who would abort, I can say the reverse. Don't get pregnant when you are not ready, don't ever be alone so you don't get raped etc." but do you realize how stupid an argument that is? I'm 42 years old. I've been married for 19 years. I have a 15 yr old and a 12 yr old. We were absolutely done having kids after the 12yr old was born. But your entire counter point is that my husband and I should not have had sex for the past 12 years, and presumably, we shouldn't have sex again until I'm post menopausal. He did have a vasectomy over 11 years ago but as my friend with 4 yr old twins can attest, even that isn't 100% guaranteed.
You also didn't answer whether or not you are actually pro life (insurance, Headstart, etc) or just pro fetus. I haven't actually read past this post though so if you did answer later then disregard the above.0 -
Yes, he clearly represents every doctor that performs abortions, and every pro-choice person in the world. I'm glad you found out the secret agenda. :yawn:
Aw crap, busted. Do we have to change the secret hand shake now?0 -
Yes, he clearly represents every doctor that performs abortions, and every pro-choice person in the world. I'm glad you found out the secret agenda. :yawn:
Aw crap, busted. Do we have to change the secret hand shake now?
We'll just scan each other with our smartphones to verify our identities. :laugh:0 -
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?
My answer to the original questions:
Simple answers:
No
No
No one should be allowed to force anyone to do anything to or with their body that they don't want to do.
The longer, less simplified answer:
If a woman wants or needs to abort, it's her choice. Sorry guys. I'd love to say that you have some say in the matter, but the truth of it is that it is the woman's body going through the emotional, hormonal, and physical changes for nine months. These are changes that can remain permanent, AND can sometimes damage the woman's body. So she gets to choose. Now... I do feel that if a woman wants a baby and a man doesn't, that he should have the ability to sign away all parental rights to said child. There would be stipulations of course. It would have to be within so much time pre/post birth. Haven't worked it all out, but then I'm not a lawyer or changing the laws, so it's just my thoughts anyways. *shrugs*
And before anyone tells me "BUT it's not the WOMAN'S body!" I'll say this: The fetus is feeding off of the woman like a parasite. It is using her blood, her oxygen, and her nutrients, sometimes to the detriment of said woman, without giving anything back. It cannot survive without using her body. No body else can take over the responsibility of the fetus, as it is attached to the woman.0 -
Okay, so I'm not going to bother with quoting everything, but a few comments:
1. I can say that a fetus is a part of the mother's body for the simple reason that my god says so (I'm Jewish). Which, by the way, is the exact same argument Christians use for the whole "life starts at conception" nonsense. The only difference is that I actually have Biblical and ancient extra-Biblical texts to back me up, whereas all Christians have (Protestants included) is the doctrine of papal infallibility.
2. Anyone who can't understand the difference between the Nazis, who effectively applied the assembly line technique to death, and a women who has to make a carefully considered, but tragic decision to end a pregnancy is a loon.
3. If conservatives don't want women to have elective abortions, then they need to create an environment where women don't feel like they have to have an abortion, and that includes nationalized healthcare, welfare assistance, education subsidies, and a whole range of other benefits.0 -
What does have more people available to take care of a person have to do with it's ability to survive on it's own outside the womb? Makes no sense, and it's a weak answer to be honest. Pro abortionists say the baby cannot survive on it's own outside the womb and therefore it is not a human, how are the mentally ill any different than a fetus? Why do they have more of a right to live than the unborn? If the ability to take care of one's self is the criteria for determining whether or not it's human, then you have to acknowledge the mentally ill are indeed subhuman and do not have a right to live. It doesn't matter if a person needs paid help or not, if he/she cannot live on their own due to their physical state, how are they any different than an unborn child? The reality is, you cannot answer that honestly without discrediting your argument.
Two-minute answer before I have to do some work. Statistics for the person who asked for them later.
Simply put, 'surviving' outside the womb for a foetus is a case of having a heart, lungs, and other organs sufficiently developed to be capable of self-perpetuation. A foetus before 'viability', and often for some weeks after, does not have this ability. Seriously premature babies die more often than they live, even with the help of extreme medical intervention (someone yesterday noted that the most premature surviving child was born at nearly 22 weeks' gestation, well after the typical cut-off point for late-term abortions). The mentally ill or disabled, while often requiring help to perform manual functions and day-to-day tasks, generally have hearts and lungs that operate adequately on their own or with minimal assistance. Their quality of life may or may not not be excellent, but the absence of either the maternal host or vastly-sophisticated machines does not generally mean that their fundamental ability to live - a beating heart, lungs that breathe - is compromised. The two states are not comparable.
If one took your argument further, one would be able to argue that all children under the age of 'say three or four were "subhuman and do not have the right to live" - they generally need assistance with day-to-day tasks that help them to live too. However, "life" and "living" are differing concepts.0 -
I'll just say that if women are going to have the right to abort a baby against the fathers wishes. Then fathers should have the right to not take responsibility if a woman chooses to keep a baby. If men are labeled as 'deadbeats' for not wanting to raise a child they conceived, then women should be labeled as deadbeats for choosing the same.0
-
I'll just say that if women are going to have the right to abort a baby against the fathers wishes. Then fathers should have the right to not take responsibility if a woman chooses to keep a baby. If men are labeled as 'deadbeats' for not wanting to raise a child they conceived, then women should be labeled as deadbeats for choosing the same.
Men do have the right to give up all claims to custody once the baby is born and walk away with no strings attached. Laws like that have been on the books for a long time now.0 -
I'll just say that if women are going to have the right to abort a baby against the fathers wishes. Then fathers should have the right to not take responsibility if a woman chooses to keep a baby. If men are labeled as 'deadbeats' for not wanting to raise a child they conceived, then women should be labeled as deadbeats for choosing the same.
Men do have the right to give up all claims to custody once the baby is born and walk away with no strings attached. Laws like that have been on the books for a long time now.
In most cases, unless both parents agree, the father can still be forced to pay support. Of course this depends on the judge, state or county but typically the only way either parent can get out of financial responsibility is if the child is being adopted by a new spouse or another family.
A friend of mine went through this. Her ex signed off rights but still has financial obligations. In Indiana, I don't know of any cases in which 'not wanting responsibility' or not being financially or emotionally ready to care for a child give the father the option to get out free if the mother takes him to court.0 -
No they shouldn't. Should a man be able to sue if the woman doesn’t have an abortion? Maybe he never wanted to reproduce, maybe he has a family history of mental illness and just doesn’t want to pass on his genes. Its beyond silly to think that a man should be able to sue a woman over what she does with her own body. She has no obligation to even tell him that she was pregnant in the first place.
Biologically men have choices, their choices end and begin at different times as the woman.0 -
No they shouldn't. Should a man be able to sue if the woman doesn’t have an abortion? Maybe he never wanted to reproduce, maybe he has a family history of mental illness and just doesn’t want to pass on his genes. Its beyond silly to think that a man should be able to sue a woman over what she does with her own body. She has no obligation to even tell him that she was pregnant in the first place.
Biologically men have choices, their choices end and begin at different times as the woman.
And what if a couple decided to conceive together and the woman changes her mind? It's fair to the father to have to lose his child (comparable to a miscarriage) because they woman changes her mind?0 -
I'll just say that if women are going to have the right to abort a baby against the fathers wishes. Then fathers should have the right to not take responsibility if a woman chooses to keep a baby. If men are labeled as 'deadbeats' for not wanting to raise a child they conceived, then women should be labeled as deadbeats for choosing the same.
Men do have the right to give up all claims to custody once the baby is born and walk away with no strings attached. Laws like that have been on the books for a long time now.
In most cases, unless both parents agree, the father can still be force to pay support. Of course this depends on the judge, state or county..
A friend of mine went through this. Her ex signed off rights but still has financial obligations.
My stepdad signed over all rights to my stepsister and my brother and is not legally obligated to pay a dime. The documents he filed essentially took his name off the birth certificate for both kids allowing them to be legally adopted by another father. This is the type of custodial abdication I'm referring to.0 -
***0
-
I'll just say that if women are going to have the right to abort a baby against the fathers wishes. Then fathers should have the right to not take responsibility if a woman chooses to keep a baby. If men are labeled as 'deadbeats' for not wanting to raise a child they conceived, then women should be labeled as deadbeats for choosing the same.
Men do have the right to give up all claims to custody once the baby is born and walk away with no strings attached. Laws like that have been on the books for a long time now.
In most cases, unless both parents agree, the father can still be force to pay support. Of course this depends on the judge, state or county..
A friend of mine went through this. Her ex signed off rights but still has financial obligations.
My stepdad signed over all rights to my stepsister and my brother and is not legally obligated to pay a dime. The documents he filed essentially took his name off the birth certificate for both kids allowing them to be legally adopted by another father. This is the type of custodial abdication I'm referring to.
Depends on the jurisdiction but I am pretty sure you cannot sign away your parental rights to avoid paying child support. If you could there would be a lot less dead beat parents out there ;p. In addition, you generally have to have an adult ready to take over your parental rights when you sign them away as in the case of a parent giving up their rights so another can adopt the child.0 -
There is no equality when it comes to someone elses body. I can't sue someone because they don't bow down to my will.No they shouldn't. Should a man be able to sue if the woman doesn’t have an abortion? Maybe he never wanted to reproduce, maybe he has a family history of mental illness and just doesn’t want to pass on his genes. Its beyond silly to think that a man should be able to sue a woman over what she does with her own body. She has no obligation to even tell him that she was pregnant in the first place.
Biologically men have choices, their choices end and begin at different times as the woman.
And what if a couple decided to conceive together and the woman changes her mind? It's fair to the father to have to lose his child (comparable to a miscarriage) because they woman changes her mind?
I would also have to guess that the number of women in loving relationships who get pregnant on purpose with their lovers consent and support who turn around and get an abortion are pretty slim in numbers.0 -
I'll just say that if women are going to have the right to abort a baby against the fathers wishes. Then fathers should have the right to not take responsibility if a woman chooses to keep a baby. If men are labeled as 'deadbeats' for not wanting to raise a child they conceived, then women should be labeled as deadbeats for choosing the same.
Men do have the right to give up all claims to custody once the baby is born and walk away with no strings attached. Laws like that have been on the books for a long time now.
In most cases, unless both parents agree, the father can still be force to pay support. Of course this depends on the judge, state or county..
A friend of mine went through this. Her ex signed off rights but still has financial obligations.
My stepdad signed over all rights to my stepsister and my brother and is not legally obligated to pay a dime. The documents he filed essentially took his name off the birth certificate for both kids allowing them to be legally adopted by another father. This is the type of custodial abdication I'm referring to.
Depends on the jurisdiction but I am pretty sure you cannot sign away your parental rights to avoid paying child support. If you could there would be a lot less dead beat parents out there ;p. In addition, you generally have to have an adult ready to take over your parental rights when you sign them away as in the case of a parent giving up their rights so another can adopt the child.
I know people who have done it. Honestly, they usually do it so they don't have to pay child support, and had no real interest in the child, anyway, so it's beneficial for that person. No money, no rights to the kid, end of. Perhaps it does vary, depending on where you live, but honestly, if that were the "norm"...that'd be fine with me. Personally speaking, of course.0 -
Nope because they do not carry the baby to term. If they did then it would be a different story.0
-
Exactly. It is very clear that people are trying to figure out a way to make a biological mother and father equal in a situation that is inherently unequal.Nope because they do not carry the baby to term. If they did then it would be a different story.
The fact of the matter is that, in the case of an unplanned pregnancy, the birth mother inherently has a number of considerations that the father doesn't. For example, she has to decide whether she can afford appropriate pre-natal care, which can easily become really expensive. Also, she has to decide whether she can afford to even give birth, which costs thousands of dollars. What happens if she has some sort of complication and is told by her doctor that she can't work in the last month of her pregnancy? How is she supposed to pay for rent, electricity, water, or food?
By the way, it's interesting how many people here are assuming that only unwed mothers have abortions.0 -
There is no equality when it comes to someone elses body. I can't sue someone because they don't bow down to my will.
Debate over.0
