Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I do not believe that fathers have enough say in whether or not a woman carrying their fetus should have an abortion.
As it stands, a woman can abort a fetus despite whatever opinion the father may have on the issue. If he wants her to keep the fetus, she can still abort. If he doesn't want her to keep the fetus, she can abort.
What about the scenarios where the man DOESN'T want her to keep the fetus and the woman refuses to abort! This is wrong to me. I think if the father wants the pregnancy terminated the mother should follow through with his wishes and end the pregnacy.
I think in order for a pregnancy to come to term their needs to be MUTUAL consent on whether or not to have a baby. If either parent is in disagreement then the fetus should be aborted promptly.
What do you all think? As a very pro-choice person I think there needs to be consent from both parties before a child is born.
From This Old House...Home repairs 101. If you don't want light in a room, don't screw the light bulb into the socket.
No! It doesn't! My thread is about a father's right to what happens to his fetus (a fetus is not a child). Any financial obligations he might have after a child is born can be discussed in a different thread.
So, do you think a man should have a right to tell his partner to abort their child? I think he should.
Not his body....not his choice.....period.
Do you think a woman should be able to force a man to undergo a medical procedure against his will?
The father does not have enough say when it comes to abortions!
Either he can decide or he can't. There is no such thing as "not have enough say". That's like being a little bit pregnant. As there are only two choices then he does not have a say. He assumes the risk when he puts A into B.
I don't think he should be able to have a say in the abortion process, just the finances. By having a say in the finances he can influence the abortion decision. The man's body doesn't get ruined, he doesn't get fired, and he doesn't risk death when a pregnancy occurs. Plus, by giving him a choice in the financial aspect less pregnant women will be murdered.
Do you really think that last sentence is true? If the guy is willing to murder the woman in the first place, is the money thing enough to stop him? I can't see it. It may prevent 1 less murder or something, just as virtually any change might prevent one less crime here or there. But I can't really see it as a trend of guys who will murder women purely over child support and nothing else. I mean given how completely amoral someone would have to be to do that in the first place, concerned purely with self interest, wouldn't it just be easier to just duck the child support than to try to get away with murder? And someone who is going to murder out of being a violent person I don't think is going to be stopped.
Note - as I said previously in this thread, I support your position on the issue. Not arguing that. Just questioning whether there really is a rash of men out there killing pregnant women to avoid child support. (I realize there are people who do it who are already in the situation of paying it and get desperate, but this is someone who would do it based on possible support payments in the future - different thing entirely I think)
Really? So if the wife decides the husband should have a vasectomy......you think he should have no choice?
There is 3 people in an abortion. The unborn child, the father, the mother. 2 trumps 1. The unborn child belongs to the father just as much as the mother in a marriage so by aborting (without his permission) she is robbing him of his child.
There is also a difference from preventing someone from getting a procedure and forcing someone to get a procedure.
Do you really think that last sentence is true? If the guy is willing to murder the woman in the first place, is the money thing enough to stop him? I can't see it. It may prevent 1 less murder or something, just as virtually any change might prevent one less crime here or there. But I can't really see it as a trend of guys who will murder women purely over child support and nothing else. I mean given how completely amoral someone would have to be to do that in the first place, concerned purely with self interest, wouldn't it just be easier to just duck the child support than to try to get away with murder? And someone who is going to murder out of being a violent person I don't think is going to be stopped.
Note - as I said previously in this thread, I support your position on the issue. Not arguing that. Just questioning whether there really is a rash of men out there killing pregnant women to avoid child support.
I read an article some time back that basically said that women were most at risk of becoming a homicide victim when they are pregnant and it was usually at the hands of their S/O. There was a story just this past week about a husband killing his wife because she wouldn't get an abortion. I really don't know how often the money is the reason, but it is the only possible reason I can think of.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
