|
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
 Posted - 10/12/2004 : 08:49:57
|
|
If a mother has the right to choose, shouldn't the father also have the right to choose? I think an argument can be made that if a mother can decide whether to have a baby or not without the fathers input, then a father should be able to decide whether he wants to take care of the baby or not. I am not advocating this position but a friend of mine brought this up in a conversation we had recently. In our society a father has less rights to a child than the mother does. A mother can abort the baby even if the father wants to take care of it if it was born. However, if the mother decides on her own that she wants the baby, the father is held accountable morally and financially. Does this argument have any merit? Do you think a father should have the right to not take care of a baby?
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 10/12/2004 : 08:58:36 [Permalink]
|
I think it would depend uopn the individual situation. If the father is in jail or a crank-addict on his way there, his rights in the matter are nil.
Remember, the mother has a vastly greater investment in the pregnancy than the father. Therefore, she should have the final say.
The couple of families that I know who have had to deal with this have given the father a and his family a say in the matter.
 |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
 |
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 10/12/2004 : 09:20:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Robb
If a mother has the right to choose, shouldn't the father also have the right to choose? I think an argument can be made that if a mother can decide whether to have a baby or not without the fathers input, then a father should be able to decide whether he wants to take care of the baby or not. I am not advocating this position but a friend of mine brought this up in a conversation we had recently. In our society a father has less rights to a child than the mother does. A mother can abort the baby even if the father wants to take care of it if it was born. However, if the mother decides on her own that she wants the baby, the father is held accountable morally and financially. Does this argument have any merit? Do you think a father should have the right to not take care of a baby?
The arguement has no merit. By making the decision to have sex, one agrees to make a commitment to whatever progeny of that act. Should the mother (who's decision to carry the fetus to term is primarily hers as her body is most affected) decide to carry the fetus to term, the male in the equasion has a moral obligation to support that progeny. Bottom line, the male's responsibility should he decide to have sex is to make sure, by a barrier method, to prevent pregnancy. Of course, there are certian situations whereby barrier methods fail, but these are relatively rare. The mother is afforded more rights because of the physical and economical burdens placed upon her by the pregnancy where the father has no such burden until after the pregnancy is brought to term.
If you don't want to support a kid, don't have sex. (Abstinance is the only 100% effective method of birth control.)
The only way I could see terminating the father's responsibility would be bad acts by the mother to defeat barrier methods (such as piercing barrier method media to induce leakage). Again, very rare. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
| Edited by - Valiant Dancer on 10/12/2004 09:23:02 |
|
|
|
Rev Prez
New Member
USA
1 Post |
Posted - 10/13/2004 : 09:29:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Remember, the mother has a vastly greater investment in the pregnancy than the father. Therefore, she should have the final say.
Vastly greater? According to what measure? |
You gonna love my style |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 10/13/2004 : 09:41:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rev Prez
quote:
Remember, the mother has a vastly greater investment in the pregnancy than the father. Therefore, she should have the final say.
Vastly greater? According to what measure?
Hi Rev. Welcome to SFN!
Vastly greater in that she must build and nuture the fetus from her own body. She then must give birth to it. A great many women have died in childbirth, and there is a certain risk there. The father, on the other hand, contributes nothing more than the semen ejaculated at the moment. And if he fails to contribute to the care on the infant, as happens more and more, it seems, he has contributed virtually nothing.
Make sense?
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 10/15/2004 : 00:31:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rev Prez
quote:
Remember, the mother has a vastly greater investment in the pregnancy than the father. Therefore, she should have the final say.
Vastly greater? According to what measure?
I can see you've never been pregnant!
I'm all for father's rights, but face it, it ain't a level playing field. |
|
|
|
ktesibios
SFN Regular
USA
505 Posts |
Posted - 10/15/2004 : 08:33:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rev Prez
Vastly greater? According to what measure?
Barbara Mertz's Temples, Tombs and Hieroglyphs quotes a bit of 20th Dynasty Egyptian "wisdom literature" which explains it nicely (I'm quoting from memory and changing the pronouns to modern ones):
quote:
Double the food you give to your mother, carry her as she carried you. For nine months she was burdened with you, and when you were born her burden was not lifted. For three years her breast was in your mouth, and though your filth was disgusting her heart was not disgusted...
|
"The Republican agenda is to turn the United States into a third-world shithole." -P.Z.Myers |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 10/15/2004 : 08:57:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ktesibios
quote:
Originally posted by Rev Prez
Vastly greater? According to what measure?
Barbara Mertz's Temples, Tombs and Hieroglyphs quotes a bit of 20th Dynasty Egyptian "wisdom literature" which explains it nicely (I'm quoting from memory and changing the pronouns to modern ones):
quote:
Double the food you give to your mother, carry her as she carried you. For nine months she was burdened with you, and when you were born her burden was not lifted. For three years her breast was in your mouth, and though your filth was disgusting her heart was not disgusted...
Damn, but I wish I'd known that quote. That says it all.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 10/15/2004 : 14:34:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ktesibios
quote:
Originally posted by Rev Prez
Vastly greater? According to what measure?
Barbara Mertz's Temples, Tombs and Hieroglyphs quotes a bit of 20th Dynasty Egyptian "wisdom literature" which explains it nicely (I'm quoting from memory and changing the pronouns to modern ones):
quote:
Double the food you give to your mother, carry her as she carried you. For nine months she was burdened with you, and when you were born her burden was not lifted. For three years her breast was in your mouth, and though your filth was disgusting her heart was not disgusted...
The mother may have a vastly greater investment in the pregnancy but not greater investment in the child. The mothers body has a certain DNA and the baby has a different DNA that is partly the fathers. I think the father should have some say in the decision on aborting the child. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 10/15/2004 : 18:44:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I think the father should have some say in the decision on aborting the child.
So, you think a father should be able to prevent a woman from getting an abortion?
Well, first you'd have to prove paternity. Which is extremely dangerous to mother and baby inutero.
So, that pretty much kills that idea. Not to mention that childbirth and bearing is a woman's burden. Nobody should be allowed to enforce such a thing on another human.
Live Free Or Die. |
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Renae
SFN Regular
543 Posts |
Posted - 10/15/2004 : 20:32:31 [Permalink]
|
To allow the father "rights" suggests two possible and equally dreadful outcomes:
1. The father does not want the child, and forces the woman into an abortion
or
2. The father does want the child, and forces the woman into bearing the child
Both of these outcomes deny a woman the ultimate say-so over her body. Mind you, these are slippery-slope type outcomes, but they follow the logic of father's rights.
As to whether or not the father should be able to abandon financial responsibility after the baby's birth, I suppose you could make a logical, if trite, "rights" argument for that. However, I think the greater societal good is served by holding parents accountable (at least financially) for the children they create. |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 10/16/2004 : 21:37:34 [Permalink]
|
Until that baby is born, DNA or not, the decision to carry or abort is the person's whose body the baby is still part of. Daddy's rights might sound nice on paper, but the field just isn't level and no amount of PC BS is going to make it level.
The baby isn't a separate entity until it is living outside of the womb. Before that, the woman and baby are still one. Hey, a pregnant woman doesn't count as 2 in the carpool lane yet. So that settles it.
|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 10/18/2004 : 07:38:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Robb
quote:
Originally posted by ktesibios
quote:
Originally posted by Rev Prez
Vastly greater? According to what measure?
Barbara Mertz's Temples, Tombs and Hieroglyphs quotes a bit of 20th Dynasty Egyptian "wisdom literature" which explains it nicely (I'm quoting from memory and changing the pronouns to modern ones):
quote:
Double the food you give to your mother, carry her as she carried you. For nine months she was burdened with you, and when you were born her burden was not lifted. For three years her breast was in your mouth, and though your filth was disgusting her heart was not disgusted...
The mother may have a vastly greater investment in the pregnancy but not greater investment in the child. The mothers body has a certain DNA and the baby has a different DNA that is partly the fathers. I think the father should have some say in the decision on aborting the child.
And the "rights" of the extreme minority of investment can say something about it, but the vast majority of investment speaks with a much louder voice. This would not give the father any sort of standing to compell an abortion or prevent an abortion if the mother so chooses.
When you carry the child in your belly for the pregnancy, then fine, you can have a say in it with any sort of weight. Otherwise, it's rabblerousing from the peanut gallery for you, pal. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 10/19/2004 : 10:29:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
So, you think a father should be able to prevent a woman from getting an abortion?
Well, first you'd have to prove paternity. Which is extremely dangerous to mother and baby inutero.
I would not advocate doing the test in utero. It does pose a problem though. It would all be based on what the mother says.
quote:
So, that pretty much kills that idea. Not to mention that childbirth and bearing is a woman's burden. Nobody should be allowed to enforce such a thing on another human.
The mother chose the possibility of pregnancy when she had consensual sex. I don't think it is enforcing anything on a woman.
quote:
Live Free Or Die.
Many mothers choose the latter over the former. |
|
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 10/19/2004 : 10:43:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Renae
To allow the father "rights" suggests two possible and equally dreadful outcomes:
1. The father does not want the child, and forces the woman into an abortion
or
2. The father does want the child, and forces the woman into bearing the child
I do not advocate a father having the right to force a woman to have an abortion, only the legal right to not be apart of the childs life.
quote:
Both of these outcomes deny a woman the ultimate say-so over her body. Mind you, these are slippery-slope type outcomes, but they follow the logic of father's rights.
A woman does not have the ultimate say-so over her body, but this is off topic.
quote:
As to whether or not the father should be able to abandon financial responsibility after the baby's birth, I suppose you could make a logical, if trite, "rights" argument for that. However, I think the greater societal good is served by holding parents accountable (at least financially) for the children they create.
I agree with this, but the mother does not have to take reponsibility for the child she helped create when she has an abortion.
I do not endorse abortions or a parents right to "divorce" their children. I thought it was an interesting idea to discuss though. |
|
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 10/19/2004 : 10:56:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
Until that baby is born, DNA or not, the decision to carry or abort is the person's whose body the baby is still part of. Daddy's rights might sound nice on paper, but the field just isn't level and no amount of PC BS is going to make it level.
The baby isn't a separate entity until it is living outside of the womb. Before that, the woman and baby are still one. Hey, a pregnant woman doesn't count as 2 in the carpool lane yet. So that settles it.
It sound like you support full term abortions. It also sounds like you are equating an abortion with the decision to have a kidney stone removed.
|
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
