Since abortion is legal..........?

Question

(I know it's kind of long but I'd love to know EVERYONES opinions, the ones I will disagree with, just as much as the ones I will agree with)

What can we do to allow men at least some sort of choices when it comes to them fathering a child, or not? Do you think anything should be changed or do you think the way it is now is the way it should stay? Do you think the father has a right to know the woman is pregnant as soon as possible after the woman finds out? Does he deserve the right to know at all?

Until we can put an aborted fetus somewhere outside of the womans body till it grows to full term and then hand it to the father, I cant think of anything that could be done to let a man choose to keep a baby that the woman decides she is going to abort. Any suggestions?

As for a man deciding that he doesnt want to be a father to a child that a woman chooses to keep, ideas are a little easier to come up with. Primary one being the man having the chance to 'opt out' of any part of the parenting of the child, including financially, if the woman decides to keep a child he doesn't want. Implementing them, the laws, conditions and policies that would have to be in place to regulate those ideas are beyond me however.

I know we arent going to solve the problems of the world here in Yahoo Answers but Im curious about peoples ideas and the diverse opinions I'm hoping to read.

Karma.
x

My opinion: Opting out should be a law passed immediately into our society. It is ludicous that women can go ahead and have a mans child against his express wishes and demand that he pay for it. Women won the right to abortion, we have to progress and allow men as close as possible the same rights as women when it comes to choosing whether or not to be a parent. I know that it is our body but it IS his child.

Now for the controversial bit... I agree that a women should not be forced to carry a child she doesnt want so she can hand it over to the father, that would be a HUGE step backwards for us. However, what if a man does want his child? How can it be fair that a women can simply say no, abort his baby and walk away? What if women who decided to do this were made to compensate the man in some way? What if she had to pay him the equivilant of child support that he'd pay the other way around? Or at least a fraction of the 18 years we expect from him?

One word, CONTRACEPTION!!!

Answer 1

For the record, personally, I consider abortion to be murder but realize it is legal so I am not arguing for or against abortion.

The answers from the diesel-fired trantulas are typical. Me, me, me.

The argument that men who don't want to be a parent and don't want to pay child support (in other words the same rights as women who choose abortion) should practice birth control is substantially an argument against abortion on demand. Women have the right to deny parenthood but deny the same rights to men. That is sexism. It is bigotry. It is shameful.

For those who fall back on the idea that women carry the fetus therefore men aren't involved should be more than willing to pay for your own choice, including so-called child support. They make the unilateral decison that brought the child into the world, then they are demanding the rights to decide if the parents are allowed to be parents and want to be paid for the demands they unilaterally make.

Mothers who don't tell the father he is a father are selfish little girls that should not be raising children. They are hypocrites.
It is also amazing that fathers are denied the right to be a full and equal parent but demanded to make monthly payments to the mother because of choices she alone made and he was not allowed to make. More self-centeredness.

Ideally, if fathers are given the same rights in the same time frame as mothers then:
Fathers would be notified as soon as reasonably possible that they are involved in a pregnancy. At that point, and in the same time frame, the father would be allowed to make the choice of whether to accept the legal title (and financial obgligation of) becoming a parent. If both parents decide on abortion then each parent pays half the cost of the abortion. If the mother chooses to give birth and the father chooses not to become a parent, she accepts full and total responsibility for the child and the father is no longer involved in any case to any degree. This would have to be done within a time limit that would allow the mother time to decide if she wanted to birth the baby or abort.
If the mother decides to abort, both are automatically absolved of all responsibility beyond the cost of the abortion. This is only because abortion is currently legal and abortion kills the fetus.

In all, these who would deny that the father is an equal parent in all aspects are demanding that it's "my body, my choice, HIS responsibility". Odd how that works. These women are demanding the right to decide not only for themselves but for the father and the fetus. Then they have the gonads to demand to be paid for giving birth if they choose.
They are demanding sole rights with no responsibility while offering men no rights but the responsibility the women choose for them, which can change daily.

Answer 2

The only thing that I would say is that a woman has to have the final say as to her body and the responsibility of bearing a child. Men have a choice to use contraception if they don't want a child or to only have sex in a committed relationship (read: MARRIED) so that they can be involved with a potential child (and mother).

This is why there should not be sex outside of marriage. Sure, abortions would happen anyway for several reasons (good ones) and I am all for a woman's right to choose, but it would sure eliminate so many societal ills if people would just simply abstain from sex until married.

I know how simplistic that sounds in this day and age, but if you think about it, the rules put forth by God in the ten commandments make very good sense - even today.

Answer 3

i dont believe that abortions are right. i think they should be made illegal. if two people choose to be together then they should know that they are choosing to possibly have a baby together. nothing works 100% except abstinence. i dont think a man should be able to tell a woman that he doesnt want what he created so she should get rid of it. a fetus whether it be a week old or six months is still a living being. if two people having a baby dont want it they should carry it out and give it up for adoption. there are too many good people out there who cant have kids and would do anything to have one. we take away from those who cannot even have, we take for granted that we are blessed enough to carry a baby and bring a beautiful wonderful new gift into to world. as far as if a man has the right to know, of course he does. i dont care if hes a rotten piece of nothing that was a one nite stand. the fact that he is a part of what is growing inside of woman is reason enough why he should know. there is absolutely no reason why fetus' have to be murdered. no reason why things cant be done to make everyone happy. there are all types of adoption from never knowing to seeing your kid. all things will depend on the partys at hand, but there is no reason at all for why half of america feels like they have no responsibility, like they cant do it, or that they must get rid of it. theres this website that can be a little graphic to viewers but its something i think everyone should know. please take the time to check it out. jfaweb.org

Answer 4

while i don't think a man should have the right to force a woman to have a child (it is her body, and she shouldn't have to be forced to go through pregnancy and labor), he should have the right to opt out of responsibility for that child, if he didn't want it.

What about the men who were told that a woman couldn't have children, and used condoms (which are only 85% effective anyway), had an agreement with the woman that if anything happened that they would terminate the pregnancy, and then she gets pregnant and demands that he care for it?

the reason this will never work is because society doesn't want to take care of "someone else's problem". it's easier to say- look, you have half the DNA, it's your issue, then to come out of our wallets (potentially) to help care for a child that the single parent can't afford.

and the reason abortion became legal is because poor and middle class women were nearly killing themselves using unsafe means, while rich women were going to the doctors and using mental health as a reason to terminate the pregnancy

Answer 5

I agree with you, a woman can not be forced to carry a baby to term just because someone tells her she must, its her body. But I do believe a man should have the right to opt out of parenting a child that he didnt want in the first place. Obviously birth control is the first line of defense, so perhaps men who arent interested in having children for awhile should think about getting a vesectomy, in order to protect themselves from having to deal with the consequences of making some random woman pregnant.

Answer 6

The reason abortion became legal is because men once had control over women and their bodies yet many ditched their responsibilities for fathering. Unfortunately, legal abortions are now being used as contraception, if you will. I think it is too easy to obtain, although I am pro-choice. This issue has become so complicated you almost need some sort of contract before engaging in sex. Hmm...what a novel concept.

Answer 7

I believe that the man has the right to know and he should be informed ASAP. Also if it is his choice that he would take the baby when the mother wants to abort it would be that the woman can have either a C-section(if thats how it is spelled) or go through the natural way. Because I think the man has a right to have the child if the mother says to abort it. That is my opinion on that situation! thank you

Answer 8

Just give the man the choice weather or not he wants to take responsibility for the child. It wont help him if he wants her to keep the child, but if she does want to keep it only for money sake, itll safe the unborn baby the grief to spend its life as an living and breathing ATM card for the mother. I do not think a man should have sex outside a brothel anyway unless he wants a child with the woman he dates. Itll safe him and her a lot of grief and if the prostitute gets pregnant, well she is beeing payed anyway and can abort like everyone else for her careers sake if she so whishes.

Answer 9

While most abortions are a woman's choice, she is very often being coerced by another - boyfriend, parent, etc. Many a young woman goes into an abortion clinic crying because she is "making the best decision" for her life. (sure)

Laying on a table, spreading your legs wide open, and allowing an abortionist (97% of whom are are men) to stick a vaccuum hose into your most initimate part and suck the little life out (limb by limb) from a woman's most sacred place - her womb - is the worst kind of sexual abuse one could ever encounter. Worse than rape, because the mother lives with the knowledge (and sometimes guilt) of her CONSENT to this vile and disgusting violation of her own body - and sometimes because of her decision to kill her baby - for the rest of her life. Rape is involuntary. Abortion is voluntary - and many woman will ask themselves, "How could I kill my own child?"

As for the fathers, I have seen many, MANY men crying and pleading with women to not kill the baby as they marched defiantly into the abortion mills - to excercise their "right" to terminate the little life that was created by BOTH of them.

I would strongly push for legislation that says that a paternity test be performed on the fetus, and BOTH parents must consent to the termination of the pregnancy. Otherwise, too bad for you, mommy, you get to carry the child to term and leave your helpless little boy or girl in the arms of someone who will not sacrifice an innocent child for personal convenience, irresponsible behavior and selfish ambition.

(Want to see for yourself? Go stand outside an abortion clinic and quietly watch them go in, and watch them coming out....crying and hurting and remorseful. Not all, but many.)

Don't like that? Keep your legs together and/or get yourself a battery operated boyfriend.

Answer 10

And that one word (contraception) is key. Condoms, if used PROPERLY are 95-98% effective, not just at preventing pregnancy, but STD's as well. But because they are not always used correctly or consistently, their effectiveness is diminished. On with the topic. I would be all for men "opting out" of paternity if not for one pesky problem...it sounds too much like men wanting to have all the fun and none of the responsibility. As many others have said, men should protect themselves against the eventuality of pregnacy by using condoms. When this is done, 95-98% of time (if done properly), this question is moot.The same is true for women. If the man didn't want a child, why did he engage in an act that, MOST of the time, leads to a child, without using technologies available to prevent it? Each individual should be responsible for preventing unwanted pregnancy. I do believe that if the man can prove that he was NOT NEGLIGENT (i.e. used condoms responsibly-but his one of those "2-5% cases") then he SHOULD be able to opt out. Of course this would entail involving the courts, and be determined on a case by case basis.

And let's face it, biology dictates a good deal of our lives. And this is most true in the case of pregnancy. The very biology of pregnacy dictates that women bear the brunt of responsibility. For anyone to argue that women want "all the choices, but none of the responsibility" is ludicrous. Nine months of carrying a developing child? Men, if you think it's a "cake walk", and not something you are "responsible" for, try it sometime. Being a parent to the child for (forget "18 yrs") the REST of YOUR life? Or having to decide to abort (too easy for some, I know, but not even an option for others, at least not morally), or giving it up for adoption. NONE of these are easy, and ALL entail "responsibility" to one degree or another. The very biology of pregnacy dictates that women will be responsible. Society only asks that men be just as responsible. If you are negligent, you are responsible. You cannot drive on the freeway, recklessly speeding and weaving in and out of traffic, and then when you cause an "accident" defend your actions by saying you didn't WANT to cause an accident, and, besides, you assumed that everyone else would be watching out for you anyway. That argument is no different than trying to argue that, though you acted irresponsibly and negligently during sex, you should not be held accountable because you did not WANT to have an accident, and besides, you thought she was on the pill, anyway.
As for a man's right to have the child, biology, again, dictates outcome. A woman cannot be made to carry the child against her will. Other forms of "contraception" having failed, (or fallen to the wayside, i.e., she was negligent) the woman has one more option. If she cannot have an abortion (moral, religious reasons) she will "pay," for her negligence. Men who chose to be negligent should do the same. In a nutshell, women have more "options" (because of the biology of pregnancy) but they do not have more rights. Everyone has the right to protect themselves against unwanted pregnancies, men and women who refuse to do this, give up that right through their OWN actions. Otherwise, everyone has the right to have children, biology, and the right person, willing. You can't have rights without responsibility.
And no, I don't think you could make a woman pay for the "absence" of a wanted child. That would be like a woman suing her husband for having a vasectomy, because he would not provide her with children.