terminations: in what circumstances does the male have a right to a voice

I think it's the woman's choice completely. I agree a man shouldn't be put in the legal position of supporting a child he didn't want,sometimes this results in men who don't even want the child seeking custody and dumping the kid on his own parents. I live in the lower economic spectrum and have seen this many times,they do it to avoid paying child support. There should be some other system to aid single mothers who have no real contact/relationship with the father. I also thing men should NEVER have a say in making a woman get an abortion she doesn't want and feel this probably happens in a majority of abortions. it's HER choice,completely.

 

I personally feel that the male partner should have a say in the decision unless the woman fears for her safety. When I was 17, I left a bf because he started threatening that I was "making him want to put [his] fist through [my] face." Then I was late. And he was acting frighteningly stalker-esque. In that situation, had I been pregnant, he would never have known about it or the fate of that pregnancy. While comparable situations are not as rare as I'd like to think they are, they are still in the minority... Otherwise, I feel the man has a right to know.

But, that's easy for me to say, since I can't imagine ever choosing an abortion. While I'm staunchly pro-choice, I don't see it as something I could do. My first scare was when I was 15, and I decided then that I would give it up for adoption rather than abort if I were prego. Given that context, it's a lot easier for me to hold the opinion I have and much harder to understand or even imagine any scenario where it might possibly be ok to not involve the partner in the decision (especially if you are IN a reltionship at the time of the pregnancy, not broken-up with good reason before finding out).

 

Absolutely not.
If she wants it, let her have it as long as the male has the option to 'opt' out -
no child support (which oftentimes is 'mom' support)
and no contact w/the child.

Good to see I'm not the only one to see
there are worlds of differences
between coffee shop/ forum discussions and R/L
in addition to
realizing many females want it both ways...


Course there are many that will continue to keep their Heads stuck in the sand...

 

One other thing -
What's w/no votes for
"when a genetic issue is present in his family (living or dead of complication)"?


Do yall really believe money/medical services grow on trees
or is it
males have unlimited deep pockets?
I get confused....

Silly question for this forum, eh?

 

Name a genetic issue that is so hereditary and so severe that a person should never reproduce to avoid it.
Those people should probably opt for sterilization so they needn't worry about it.

 

Are you are kidding?
You can't think of any?


BTW 'sterilization' isn't as readily available as Folks seem to believe
based on my personal observations.
Docs claim the potential legal liability is too great... least round here.

 

Can't you?

 

How did the thread get HERE??

It began with "assume abortion is legal, don't argue the merits of that law" and ends up considering under what conditions forced sterilization is appropriate.

Why is everyone so concerned with making others do the right thing (whatever that may be)? Let the woman decide if she is going to have an abortion. Let her ask/tell whoever she chooses, let her avoid the advise of those she doesn't want it from.

To those who say, "Its the woman's decision, but she should consult the father." If she doesn't want to consult the father, don't make her. Are you going to force her to listen to his presentation, even though she doesn't need to take the advise? Forcing someone to listen to unwanted advise is a waste of everybody's time and effort.

Oh, and about child support. Living children need to be supported by their parents. A father should be allowed to opt out of child support whenever the child opts out of needing support.

 

Yes I can Think of a few genetic reasons.
I have my reasons for not listing any in these forums.

~~~~~

How did we get here?
Read the poll.


A week later and we're in the same place we were last week.
Prolly will be the same next week.... and the next... and the next...

I'm certain if there are any legal beagles reading this thread
they're laughing their arses off
just thinking of all the bucks they have/ will make over this issue
that shouldn't exist in the first place as it defies Logic...

 

Firstly, it's part of the poll and therefore on topic.

Second, maybe you misunderstood me. I was trying to say that I don't think this is an excuse to try and force an abortion on a woman.

 

I expressed myself poorly. It definatly is on topic.

I was expressing my surprise at how many people have strong opinions on how an other woman's uterus should be run.

 

If a man is so concerned that the seed within him is so destined to produce a horribly disfigured (and, to him, more importantly, more expensive) monster, than a quicky Vas in Mexico would be the best solution. No questions asked, it's a simple procedure, easier than an abortion and certainly easier than childbirth (WHy is it that those who are the most in favor to making reproductive choices for other people are the most likely to scream, "OMG DON'T TOUCH MY GONADS."???)

Of course there are basically NO genetic diseases that produce 100% sure damaged offspring, so it really isn't an issue. But, if it bothers those who are worrying about it, there is an easy fix. My guess would be if they are this worried about it, they wouldn't want a child with anyone at all. So, it's a non-issue.

 

Suggesting I to an undeveloped state for surgery on my testicles because standards are laxer is the equivalent of me suggesting you go to that alley behind McDonalds for the actual abortion.

 

Never. It's a woman's body, a woman's choice, regardless of whose genes the fetus possesses. However, I would not have the male in any way compelled to support a mistake child financially.

 

Well. That is what womyn who live in places or times where anyone other than themselves have to do when they have an unwanted pregnancy. Besides no one said you HAVE to go to Mexico, it is much easier for any man to get a Vas than it is for womyn to get abortions, anyway, just about anywhere.

 

I think it is sad most men are willing to just let their offspring be terminated without having a voice in it. The worries seem to stem from child support on the guys side. Why is that? Men protect and raise your children dammit. Women and men make this choice at the same time, it is when they pull their pants down. Men shouldn't be able to escape support of their children and women shouldn't be able to "terminate" a baby that is wanted and will be cared for by the man. If you are scared to carry a baby for a short while to hand it over to the father then maybe sex should just be avoided.

 

You see this logic is flawed. There is no such thing as "financial" abortion. Neither party is able to "opt out" of paying for support for their fully born children. It is ALWAYS the case that every non-custodial parent pays child support to the custodial parent. It just so happens that there are more custodial mothers then fathers. In the cases where the father has custody there is NO WAY for a mother (or non-custodial parent) to "opt out" to avoid paying up. The mother will be required to pay support just like any man. Non-custodial mothers aren't free'd from their responsibilities....why should we allow non-custodial fathers to be free'd of the same responsibilities? Equal rights & equal responsibilities for a fully born child. Abortion is not "opting out" financially. Medical abortion is not financial abortion. The two things are not comparable. In order for support to be ordered there must be a live born child to support. A mother obtaining an abortion prevents a birth so neither party has any legal obligation to a child that doesn't exist. A woman obtaining an abortion and a man abandoning his fully born child are 2 very diffrent things.

That being said child support is the right of the CHILD not of the mother. Every child has the right to be supported by both parents. Child support money doesn't go into the mother's pockets. I find the immage of every woman who has ever had an unplanned pregnancy (about half of the populations mothers mind you) plotting a scam to extort money from some guy who knocked her up laughable. The excuse "women get pregnant to get money" is just not valid. In the MAYBE 1 in every million times that this happens then OK I can see the man being upset....but this is used as nothing more then an EXCUSE most of the time. Women don't go around trapping men into some sort of financial slavery just for the sake of it. Especially sence having a child will put them in FAR GREATER DEBT then any child support payment could ever hope to reimburse. This just makes the woman look like a robber so men can get out of their equal responsibilities. If these men had ANY IDEA of what it costs to be a single mother and attempt to raise a child by yourself...they would not be saying such things. Single non-custodial dads only offer a TINY percent of their paycheck to their child. Single moms often have to work 2 jobs, pay 500 dollars per week for day care per kid, pay bills, buy things for the baby, pay rent, and put 100 percent of what ever money they make into keeping their little family afloat. You think that women make some kind of a profit off of their children??? Hell no. Single moms struggle. The least any man can do is help out with his OWN child. Regardless if the kid was "wanted" it would be a violation of the child's civil rights and IMHO morally horrific to to allow a parent to legally abandon thier child in the name of "equality" or political correctness.

As I stated before....women have theptions they do because of biology. Termination can not be avaliable to men...not because of politics...but because their bodies do not give them that option.

 

Especially this part:

and this:

Well done. Great points.

 

Grim: The "it's my body" wah-wahs are still the best argument for the decision. I know too many men who refuse to pay for a woman's abortion ('I'm not giving you money to kill my kid' blah blah blah) and it turns out they just didn't want to give money. No one, but ME deserves dominion over my body. I can't even imagine a man making me carry a baby I didn't want, because he wanted it. Giving up my rights, health, and income because someone else wants me to is ludicrous. It also opens up the door for men to dictate a woman has to have an abortion, because he wants her too.

Hey, if they can take the embryo or fetus out of a woman's body and place it in a man who wants it, I'm all for it. Until then, I have final say over my body and what I do with it.

 

The only "voice" the men can have is the voice of discussion with the woman. The bottom line is that men should not be able to either have a woman obtain an abortion against her will or have a woman go through childbirth against her will.

Why? Why should sex be a legally binding act? Why should it not just be an isolated incident?

So, should sex be reserved only for procreation, or for when procreation as a result is not particularly minded?