The Male's Say In Abortion

[Captain Jack Harkness]

Okay, so I have to wonder something.  Let's take a scenario.  What if two people have an unplanned pregnancy, and the male in the relationship wants an abortion, but the female carrying the child doesn't, or vice versa?  I mean, the male may not directly own the body, but I would wonder what your opinion is on what his level of influence should be in the final decision, especially if that final decision is at odds with his opinion on the matter.

I mean, it's one thing when the government or people not linked to the situation attempt to have a say, but what about these situations?

[Yaezakura]

My personal view is, unless the two are married or some such, the male's say is effectively zero. His part of the process is over. He's no longer a factor.

If the couple is married or otherwise committed to a long-term relationship, obviously his input should be valued more, but only from the POV of maintaining the relationship. He's well within his rights to leave the relationship if he disagrees with the woman's decision enough, and that fact probably should be considered by the woman. But ultimately, I still believe he should have no legal say in whether the abortion happens or not.

[RavynousHunter]

If we're going for purely legal say, then, no...I wouldn't expect to get much of one, were it to be me on the hotseat, as it were.

However, if we're talking about it from the perspective of the couple themselves, and their relationship, that's far more difficult to decide.  On one end, yes, the male's part of the bargain is complete, but if you're in anything near a genuinely loving relationship, you're equals.  Your input shouldn't thrown out simply because you have a penis, and that invalidates any compunctions for or against abortion you might have.

It takes two to make a fetus, after all.  Except in cases of artificial insemination, I think the guy in the relationship ought to have some weight put behind his desires.  Because, let me tell you, this is an important fucking decision.  If my input on something this important is completely dismissed because my fuck-gear happens to include a cock and balls, then I'm fucking out of there, I'm sorry.  I don't deal with dismissive fucksticks who devalue my opinion on important matters simply because I'm male.  I'm an equal partner in any sexual relationship I'd be in, I fucking insist on it, and I'll be damned if I'll be treated as anything less.

In the end, the ultimate decision lies with the woman, of course.  If she wants to abort it, that's...actually the desired outcome, for me.  I don't want children.  Ever.  But, if she wants to keep it, such is her right, and I'll respect it...but, I wouldn't be able to stay with her, I'm sorry.  I'm terrified of having a child, I'm scared of how they'd turn out, and I don't want to fuck something that fragile up, something that important...a new being's life and development would be, at least partially, in my hands, and I can't deal with that.

[TenfoldMaquette]

Okay, so I have to wonder something.  Let's take a scenario.  What if two people have an unplanned pregnancy, and the male in the relationship wants an abortion, but the female carrying the child doesn't, or vice versa?  I mean, the male may not directly own the body, but I would wonder what your opinion is on what his level of influence should be in the final decision, especially if that final decision is at odds with his opinion on the matter.

Bolded the parts that matter, ignoring "directly" because that implicitly implies some form of ownership over another person. The guy does not in ANY way own/control/whatever his partner's body, and thus he ultimately has no say in the matter. His opinion is still as valid as the couple's relationship warrants, but that's it. If she wants to keep it, she keeps it; if she wants to abort, she aborts it. The guy is perfectly within his rights to leave the relationship, and there should be an option to abandon parental responsibilities if he so chooses, but no...he does not, ever, get to control what his wife/girlfriend/whatever does with her own body. It's absurd to even consider that he might.

[Cataclysm]

Nope. It's her body. Unless she signed an official contract with him, she can get an abortion. And even then, the punishment should be a fine.

Conversely if a man doesn't want to pay child support before the child is born, he shouldn't be obliged either.

[Osama bin Bambi]

I don't think that the father should get a say in whether or not the woman gets an abortion, because in the event that the father forced himself on the woman, or if he dies before consent for an abortion can be given, then the woman loses her rights. I do think that in the situation of divorces and the possibility of having to pay child support should the child be born, then the father should have the right to terminate all his parental rights and associations with the child - a "male abortion," if you will, that essentially severs any possible relationship with the child. The only restriction is that he can only do this before the child is born, or before the pregnancy is so far along that abortion is generally illegal. He no longer has to pay child support or any of that, but in exchange he has no visitation rights or parental rights over the child and is treated more like a stranger to the child than a family member.

I'm not sure I like the "official contract" idea, because there will be very little oversight to prevent either party from being forced into it, and then the government will have to enforce it and probably intrude on quite a few civil liberties if one of the parties later becomes unwilling. A "pregnancy contract" is not like a business contract.

[Art Vandelay]

I'll just echo the general consensus. No, the man doesn't get any real say in whether or not any woman on the receiving end of his spooge launcher gets an abortion, though he should have the option to legally sever all ties with the child before it's born.

[clockworkgirl21]

Legally, it's totally the woman's choice, and should be. But I can't respect the women who say a man doesn't even have the right to have an opinion about abortion, since they don't get pregnant. If it's your body, it's your say, but when it comes to the issue in general, his thoughts are just as valuable as a woman's.

[Yla]

It's his child as well, so the father's input should be heard out. 'Say' is ambivalent. In the case the mother is dead set for or against abortion, the father is not able to overrule her, but he definitely should be involved in the decision.

[davedan]

I agree that a potential father should be involved, as in discussing the matter with the woman. But ultimately I think the decision is the woman's. That is if she decides to abort/keep it the father can't legally intervene to procure either result.


I'm also fairly ambivalent on the 'abandon parental rights and obligations' thing, I mean in some cases, where for instance the guy is Boris Beckered it might be ok but generally I think the child's rights are paramount and if that means a guy providing child support for a sprog he didn't want, I kind of think suck it.

[The Right Honourable Mlle Antéchrist]

Legally, it should always be the woman who gives the final approval for any decision.

Ethically, the final approval should still rest with the woman, but if the situation allows for it (and we need to keep in mind that there is no answer that satisfies every situation), my feeling is that it's best for both the mother and the father to sit down as a couple and talk things through openly & honestly.

At least, that's how I'd prefer to handle it if I were the one in that situation.

[Thejebusfire]

He should have an opinion on the matter. However he has no right to force her to make the decision he wants her to.

[Sylvana]

I agree with the general sentiment. However, one part that bugs me is the obligation of the father to pay child support.

While the man has no actual say over the woman's body, if she decides to keep the child against his wishes he is similarly affected long term by her decision. Legally, as long as the woman can demand money from the father regardless of his actual input in the decision making he should have a say in the process. Even if that say is just to be legally recognized as not willing to support the child and no longer being liable for it. The man should not be able to trump the woman's decision. However, he may still be legally liable because of her decision. His input should be in a legal capacity, whereby he could choose to "abort" his legal liability for the child if he chooses.

Now I know the common arguments, if you don't want to pay, have safe sex, etc. However the only reason abortion arguments exist is because life does not always work out right, and people do stupid things. As such this is an aspect that should be considered in the overall debate.

[Witchyjoshy]

That is an interesting aspect of the law.

Due to the way our law system is set up, a man who fathers a child can be legally required to pay for that child.

So, the infant being born doesn't just affect the mother's life (but it affects the mother more), but it also affects the father's life.  And in this economy, I hesitate to say "Well, it's just money", considering that money can be the difference between health and sickness, life and death nowadays.

Where does the compromise stand?  Is there any satisfactory compromise at all?

To establish some things in this, though...

1. The woman should have absolute say in her body.  This is not a stance that should not be doubted.  She is the one who decides if she has an abortion or doesn't have an abortion.  It is her body and mind that suffers from this.  The final choice, by human rights, should be hers.

2. The whole "required to pay financial aid" thing should not be waived, either.  A woman getting equal pay is hard enough, but good luck getting a pregnant woman hired, or a woman who has to spend much of her days taking care of her infant child - often all by herself because she can't afford a nanny.  Being a single parent is tough.

3. At the same time, the man's rights must be considered, too.  He may belong to the privileged gender, but if the woman can have an "out" for the situation, he should, too.  The question is, what is an acceptable out?

I do not know the answer

[Nightangel8212]

This is a tough one. I know men who are being forced to have huge chunks of their paychecks going toward child support, for a child that they either didn't want, or worse, children that aren't even THEIRS. I know it sounds weird, but in this day and age, a man can be stuck with child support for children he had no part in creating... simply because he happened to hang around those children for lengthy periods of time. I think when it comes to equal rights, both sexes need work in different areas.

The only possible solution I could come up with is the woman receiving payments for the bare necessities of the child for six months after the child is born, giving the mother time to find necessary daycare and so she has time to recover to get back on her feet. If the man had no interest in having the child at all, then he should not be obligated to visit the child or to feel attachment. But he is half responsible for the child coming into the world, whether he likes it or not, and some people find themselves having to take care of responsibilities they'd rather not have. But don't make it until the kid turns 18.