OK Abortion, pregnancy and equal rights?

Question

So a woman can choose to have an abortion and the "father" says he wants the baby. he files an injunction and is denied because he gave his sperm to her, it is now hers and not his.

(As I recall correctly, this did actually happen)

and she gets her abortion.

So, if she chose not have an abortion and he didnt want the kid, could we argue that the sperm is now hers alone and she is solely responsible for the child as thats exactly what she would have argued if she had chosen abortion?

Or is it just a double standard????

Answer 1

It's a double standard. That guy would be stuck paying child support for at least 18 years.

Answer 2

It may be a double standard, but it has an explanation.

Where abortion is concerned, the issue is purportedly a woman's right to control her body, and what's in it. Not the father, and not (primarily) the unborn.

Where child support is involved, the concern is the child - making sure it has someone to provide for it - not the father's desires.

So Dad is not priority number one either time - but for arguably good reasons. The Dad can even be held responsible if he's an anonymous sperm donor! No matter what contract is in place. If it's your sperm, it's your responsibility.

Right or wrong, that's how the law works.

I guess I could feel it's unfair to men. But maybe it's just unfair to the men who create kids they don't want. Should we ALL pay for the kid? Or just the guy who created it? I say the latter.

I think BOTH men and women should act responsibly. Sex is how babies are made. Abstinence is the only thing that reduces the risk to zero.

Answer 3

Excellent question and very close to being right. Here is the fault. He "gave" her the sperm with full knowledge that the possible result of the "gift" would be a baby. Since he knew that he is said to have been a willing accomplice to any action that the result of the giving produces.

For example, if I give you a gun, and you tell me that you may rob a store with it, if you rob the store I am an accomplice before the fact since I was aware that this could happen and I participated anyway.

In the case of abortion, since the "gift" results in no other action other than the "disposal" of the product of the gift the father does not have claim nor responsibility.

BTW. I apologise to anyone offended by the terms being used here. Obviously a baby is not an object . The terms are suitable for the purposes of this discussion only.

Answer 4

It is truly a double standard. If the woman's baby is killed in a car accident with the fault being the other driver, she can sue for the death of her baby. So now the baby is called a baby, and not a "glob of tissue", which the libs call it. Liberals are the most confused people on God's green earth. They will have to answer for their decisions some day.

Answer 5

It's a double standard, but if we allowed men to "choose" without some other changes, then women who don't want abortions would feel forced to have them or would be treated unfairly since it takes 2 to make a baby and the responsibility should be shared.

Wouldn't it be better to allow men (or women for that matter) to trade their share of parental rights to an adoptive parent who would accept their share of parental responsibility in return? The adoptive parent would have to be approved by some agency of course. The custodial natural parent would then have the option of sharing custody in return for child support from the adoptive parent.

Would this be better for the custodial natural parent than fighting an unwilling parent for child support; or in the case of the woman, being pressured into having an abortion or attacked by someone trying to induce an abortion?

Would it be better for the baby than having an unwilling parent?

What are the drawbacks of such an idea?

Please discuss this idea here or at :
http://www.yaktivist.com
Polite Discussion, Respectful Disagreements regarding nonlethal alternatives to Abortion, Death Penalty, Lethal Weapons.

Answer 6

omg... you are forgetting this is about a kid. once the child is born he is his own being. the courts are not giving the money to the woman. if the father wants to raise the child EQUALLY with the mother (ie spend 1/2 the days of the year with the kid, pay 1/2 the unreimbursed medical) he can petition the court to do so. they can have joint custody 50/50 & the father gives zero to the woman. if the courts give the kid to the dad, then the woman has to pay. this is about a kid. not about women & men's equality.

if the woman says she's getting an abortion & then doesn't it still doesnt' stop a kid from needing someone to care for him - be it the mother or father. the courts don't care about what happened during the pregnancy, they only are concerned for the welfare of the child after birth.

Answer 7

Yes, it is a double standard, but there is a reason for this maddness. First it is considered that the woman does most of the work since she carries the fetus for nine months. Second, the law must be written for the protection of the child/fetus. If a child is to be born then that child has rights such as basic support.

Answer 8

I think we should make a law where two people can make a contract stating that the male doesn't want a child and would perfer ana abortion to take place. if the woman refuses he can sign over all parental rights and not have to pay a dime. he will never, under any circumstances be allowed to have his parental rights back.

but if the contract isn't made prior to the pregnancy than the man has no legal standing to protesty paying child support.
thus if like in the new movie, Knocked Up, someone has a one night stand they are stuck with the consequences however unfair and biased.

abortions are still in the end a female's choice. no woman should ever be forced to have one or to not have one. its up to couples to talk about these things and if the disagreement is that bad than its best to end the relationship.

I feel bad for men who state they don't want children and then get forced into parenthood. I think if a man offers to pay for an abortion after hes explained before the pregnancy that he didn't want a child, he is fulfilling his responcibilites.
I saw a case like that on Moral Court. the women admitted she knew he didn't want a child if birth control failed (or if she made it fail). she didn't care and when she was pregnant she didn't terminate and told him she wanted child support. he agreed to pay because he felt it wasn't going to be the baby's fault when it was born, but he was still unfairly pushed into it.

Answer 9

For ProfessiorC who said:

"Sorry, but the right of the CHILD to support from both parents is what you are not figuring in your example. It is the child who gets the support not the mother. Something most guys refuse to acknowledge."


The thing is mothers can misuse the child support. It doesn't go to the child to spend, it goes to the mother who HOPEFULLY uses it for the child. I think of that 'gold digger' song where it says "she was suppose to get tyco with your money, instead she got lipo with your money". Granted thats an expensive example but an example none the less. I think Sway is comepletely right, its a double standard. I'm against abortion but you can't have your cake and eat it two by making the father support a child that he doesn't want because princess wasn't taking BC.

Answer 10

His choice is whether to impregnate the woman or not. Once he has done that, he does not have a say over what she does with her body. If he did not want the possibility of having to support the child, he had the option before conception took place.

If it makes you feel better, he is has the equal right to choose to abort any child he would otherwise have to carry in his body for nine months.

Answer 11

Well, it's sticky because it's not an entirely equal situation due to the natural advantage the woman has in the scenario.

Normally, these things are handled once the baby is born, and at that point, the court is concerned with the best interest of the child, not necessarily the mother or the father.

Personally, however, I do believe that a man should have the ability to "opt-out" while the woman is still in the stage of pregnancy. Of course, the interest of equality in this situation does undermine the interest in preserving the traditional family unit.