Can a male go to court and prevent a woman from having an abortion?

Question

If a male is confident that the fetus growing inside her is his, and she wants to have an abortion, can't he legally prevent her from doing so. What if the male wanted to marry another woman who couldn't have kids (I know that is a low thing to do, but that is his right)? Now what if he wanted to raise the child that his ex is carrying in his new family? If he agrees to pay for all medical costs for her, can he prevent her from having an abortion?

I mean some women have no problems being a surrogate, and techinically the fetus is half his anyway.

Woman aren't secondary citizens here in the US, but they shouldn't be exempt from everything either.

I don't think that it would matter if they were married or not. Especially since marriage is falling at the waist side now days.

I would love to see a case like that on CourtTV.

It is not against her will, it is by the court of law. Women can be surrogates, and if the man is paying for all medical cost and to make it better any pain and suffering she may have then why not. Provided that the male was rich enough.

Evil.. I am sure that if some problems arose they will have to go back to court, and work it out. Now as long as the woman is getting proper prenatal care problems can be prevented. Also even though his new wife can't adopt, the baby is still partly his.

Tattoo, you had me thinking. So if during the pregnancy she changes her mind and wants to keep the baby, she can go to court and say that she wasn't in her right mind when she wanted an abortion.

Wemblan..: Interesting, do you have a link to that story.

Helen M:

To sum up your rant, you are implying that if a man does go to court for this, it will only because it some egotistical ownership trip. As if a male is not capable of wanting and loving a baby. Why are you not shocked that woman doesn't think a man cared if she had an abortion or not?

Not every male is jumping for joy when their ex decides to get an abortion.

Ranting is not a bad thing. At least not to me it is. I just consider it a long filabuster. Plus I consider it a rant because she was implying (at least to me) that she was going to 'tell me something or educate me'. Lesson plans like that are usually chopped up to a rant by me.

That Girl:

Well since women have no problem being a surrogate, then the parasite claim is off base.

Answer 1

I think a man can apply for the woman to not have an abortion until the courts decide, because there was a case here recently in the papers (in Australia), but as court cases take so long to be heard, the child would be 3 years old before anything would be decided. The woman can't be restrained, so she can slip away anytime and have the abortion and pretend she had a miscarriage. In this particular case she just went ahead and had the abortion and ignored all the legalities and then the newspapers lost interest so I don't know what happened.

Answer 2

Answer to your question: sure he can. It's up to a judge in the end though and I bet most judges would say, no because an unborn child is not awarded the rights that a baby is by the Constitution- that was how the Supreme Court interpreted the Constitution in 1973, at least. Agree if you will.

Women may go through a lot when pregnant and in labor but the unborn child goes through a lot more during an abortion: death.

Is it worth killing a human life just so a woman can feel better? Do we allow mothers to kill their toddlers so they don't have to experience the negative health affects of being exposed to so many more germs than they otherwise would?

It seems people separate those two issues by acting like the unborn child is not human...

The definition of a parasite as "a person who receives support, advantage, or the like, from another or others without giving," has many problems. For one, it ignores organisms that we classify as parasites! The first two words are "a person," meaning that only a person can be a parasite. This is a social definition and we do not kill people who are parasites. We may look down on them, hate them, and so on, but when is the last time you justified killing a kid just because it didn't do any chores yet? It would fall into the definition. Or a woman who just lives off a man? We might not like her but DEATH?

Using ThatGirl's definition, she is suggesting that an unborn child is indeed a person. I'm guessing she did that by mistake- she surely wouldn't support killing an INNOCENT person, right? Or, I guess the fetus is guilty of sucking nutrients from it's mother- a crime punishable by death! But it's only a crime when mothers don't like it... Ahhhh yes we can make killing human life sound so complicated when we try hard enough, can't we?

If we use the definition "an organism that lives off of, in, or with other organisms," well, then like it or not we've all been parasites. The good news is that an unborn child does not remain a parasite any longer than the rest of us have.

The pro-choice movement chose the word "parasite" in order to remove meaning from the word abortion. We already have negative social connotations when we hear the word parasite and the good old tape worm makes us think "KILL IT" before going much farther. Never mind the parasites that live in your body that are important to your life. Try removing all the Acidophilus from your system and see what happens to you.

Before we choose to kill something we need to ask what it is, parasite or not. If it's human, don't try to fool yourself.

Answer 3

First off, in most cases they can do paternity tests while the baby is still in the womb. Its dangerous though. As for him sueing her, yes I believe that has happend. Generally the guy has no chance of actually winning, but as long as he can delay it long enough, she won't be able to have an abortion. Your idea about the new family thing is pretty out there. The new wife would not be able to legally adopt the baby, or have any legal right to it until the birth mother got rid of her rights. And chances are, if they broke up and he was engaged or married while she was still pregnant, she would probably be pretty pissed, and fight it.

The problem with this though, is pregnancy, while generally safe in this day and age, can still pose health risks. So what if the guy sued, won, and the woman had to have the baby, then something happend to her. Or what if she needed an abortion, due to medical reasons? Its rare, but it does happen. And the guy is pro life and against abortion. Does anybody have the right to tell you to put your life on the line?


While I do agree with mens rights, I know its a far more complex issue, with many more things to be considered.

Answer 4

No, you have no right to force anyone to carry a child for you. It may seem unfair, but you really have to think of the legal can of worms it would open up if a man could decide what a woman should do with her body.
If it is a man's right to be a lowlife and marry someone else, then it's also a woman's right to abort said lowlife's baby.

It would be against her will if a court forced her to carry it. Being a surrogate is voluntary, if a court ordered you to be a surrogate, it would be against your will.

You can argue all you want, it is illegal to force a woman to carry a child. Abortion is legal in this country and you cannot make a decision about what a woman can do with her body. Argue all you want, a court cannot legally make that ruling.

Oh, and I have a huge problem being a surrogate. HUGE. You can't say that women have no problem being a surrogate. I'm a woman and have a huge problem being a surrogate, no way in hell.

Answer 5

You've been very careful to present this as a hypothetical case, but rather than go through linguistic contortions I'm going to answer as if it's your problem. Don't take this personally unless you need to!

I'm sure you could find a lawyer who would take this case for you, and a court that would hear it. On the facts as you've laid them out, I don't know if the court would find for you, but hey, it's your money.

But you should bear in mind that, although you might be able to prevent the woman having an abortion, you can't force her to give up her child to you and your new wife. If a woman were to have the child in the circumstances you describe, any good social worker would move heaven and earth to protect the child from you.

Why? Because your questions shows a staggering degree of selfishness and insensitivity to the feelings of others. You present yourself as a manipulative and grasping man who is more concerned about rights and ownership than about love and compassion. Who in their right mind wants a child to be raised by someone with those attitudes?

You should also consider how the woman you mean to marry would view this. What will you say to her? "Hey honey, I got another woman pregnant because you can't have kids but it's OK because we can take her to court and force her to give us her baby?" What does that tell her about your honesty, your respect for her, your attitude to women and to the rights of others? You might even have given her an STD in the process of trying to get what you want.

How can you be sure of the child's fatherhood? Was she a virgin when you had sex? Did she think the two of you were in an exclusive, loving relationship even though you're seeing someone else and planning to marry her? If that isn't the case, then a paternity test after the birth could destroy your dreams of having a baby. You'd have spent a lot of money, destroyed your reputation and broken the hearts of two women who loved you, all for nothing.

Finally, I know some women have no problem being surrogates, but they volunteer for it beforehand and are treated with respect and gratitude, not used like breeding animals and then dragged through a court of law. Surrogacy should be a loving process between consenting adults.

I really, really hope that this is just a hypothetical question!

Answer 6

I think you entirely missed the points in what Helen M has said- and that you accuse her of ranting show that you are taking a "hypothetical question" unnecessarily personally.

You just don't get it, do you? I'll boil it down for you-Think of it in this (yes, I know- very harsh) light- how would you like a little parasite growing in your body for forty weeks for someone else's benefit?

You will have the stress and discomfort of carrying a child you don't want for 40 weeks. You will risk your health. You will have the pain of labor. Do you actually know what women go through to be able to conceive and deliver a child? If you don't, go to YA's pregnancy category and read a bunch of the questions- what ever they are, they will give you an idea of how hard and sometimes frightening it is to carry a child. We don't just squirt them out easily, like toothpaste out of a tube.

By the time you have a baby, your maternal hormones (oxytocin and estrogens) will pretty much make sure you adore it even if you didn't want it at first; And then some jerkwad wrenches the little thing away and calls it his, when all he did to contribute is have an orgasm... seems fair?

Get it now?

Edt: BTW, I know it isn't nice to call a baby a parasite- it's a baby, after all. But they literally are parasitic on their mothers: they live in you, eat your food, make you tired and often make you feel ill-

Parasite- a person who receives support, advantage, or the like, from another or others without giving any useful or proper return, as one who lives on the hospitality of others.

Edit: That said, I would way rather have a baby than liver flukes or tapeworms... ;-)

Edit: I do think human life is that complicated. I think abortion is a bad solution to a serious problem... I've never had an abortion and in fact, want a child now; however, i try to be realistic. There are unwanted pregnancies. What does one do about them? I would never force a woman to carry a child she didn't want- for any reason.

I do think of a baby as a sort of parasite; it feeds and shelters in the mother; she disposes of its wastes, and carrying it can harm her. If she and the baby are fortunate in each other,it's a darling, little parasite who's face she is looking forwards to seeing; and for whom she is willing to take responsibility for for the next 21 years.

As for bacteria- [ :-) LOL] "Try removing all the Acidophilus from your system and see what happens to you." Acidophilus isn't a parasite, it's a symbiote. We need it just as it needs us. There are many women who don't "need" a baby. There are many couples who don't need a baby- some just for now, some forever.

And I think there are very few women who are willing to be surrogates...I doubt if anyone has done a study, so I can't quote statistics. Some women will be surrogates out of compassion for a childless couple- some women enjoy pregnancy. That is their blessing and their right. Other's are horrified by it. That is their opinion and their right. Some long for a child and others have many; some even give theirs away- or choose to abort them. They have this right as well. What the asker has no right to do- what no one has a legal or moral right to do- is force a woman to have a baby...or to take away the baby she does have and give it to the woman he wants to have it, whether he is the father or not.

Answer 7

I highly doubt it, since the courts do not recognize the unborn child as life worthy of life.

I don't think the court can argue that the unborn child is not human life- it has HUMAN DNA (not its mother's), it is growing, it may have a different blood type than its mother, it has everything necessary to grow into a baby, then a toddler, then an adult.

So we know it is alive, we know it is human too. But it isn't worthy of the rights afforded to the rest of us. I think the easiest way to say that it that the courts consider it as "life unworthy of life."

Similar to blacks back in the slavery days and Jews in Hitler's eyes, the unborn child in America (and most countries) is looked at as something that can be discarded.

4,000 times a day in the USA. 1 in 4 conceptions ends in abortion.

People always get emotional because some of those are from rape or incest- maybe 1% of them. I'm not going to discuss that case here since it starts to go way off topic from your answer.

It's a shame that those unborn children aren't valued by the majority of this country the way human life is after it has moved 8 inches down the birth canal.

Answer 8

Maybe in some country where women are secondary citizens .... I don't think that this will wash anywhere else, to be honest. And also, I doubt very much that the woman he marries who can't have children would be keen to rear a child he had with another woman.

This man is very selfish.

Answer 9

if you're not married to her - you have no say in it even if it's proven to be your baby as well. abortion in some states is still illegal and maybe you can tell her you'll report her to the police if she does continue with it but before you do that - have you considered HER feelings about it? You're not the one who's going to carry it for 9 months and deliver it, she will. Even if you paid for everything - if she isn't your wife and she doesn't want the baby, you can't stop her from doing it.

Answer 10

that is a tuff one ay... but yeah u can but only if it urs... a blood test'll be taken out first to prove that the baby is his...... but if they do keep the child and it does grow up in the other family... let the child kno who its reqal mum is and from a young age..... people find choices hard... and if the mother is against it know perhaps wen it is born she'll feel like the right decision was made, and will wanna be part of the childs life... and i think that should be respected