Should a man have a say in the abortion?

[Moooooo]

Im not sure there is a law already in the books for this type of situation or what so bare with me.

Do you guys/gals think a guy should have just as much of a say in an abortion as the woman?  Should the guy be able to hold the woman back from having an abortion and vice versa?

[angus]

Im not sure if this is already a law or what so bare with me.

Do you guys/gals think a guy should have just as much of a say in an abortion as the woman?  Should the guy be able to hold the woman back from having an abortion and vice versa?

lemme do this before I head out to the kitchen, as I've given it some thought.  Ultimately, the answer should be no.  You might want her to, and might be terrified at the thought of progenesis, and the attendant economic and social responsibilities, but allowing one being to force another to terminate a pregnancy sets an extremely bad precedent.  Sure, this happens all the time in China, Africa, etc., but do we really want to emulate them?  The problem is, as far as I can tell, is that many folks are against abortion owing to deeply held moral convictions.  While I do not share their convictions, I am convinced that allowing the impregnator to make someone terminate an unwanted pregnancy would be tantamount to a violation of the first amendment. 

[Cashcow]

Angus has the right idea.

[A18]

No, but he shouldn't have to pay child support.

[Moooooo]

No, but he shouldn't have to pay child support.

Ive argued that point for a long time with people and most say Im a horrible person (most dont really mean it but you get the point) when I propose that idea.  If he wants to abort the pregnancy and the woman does not agree.  Should he really be responsible for a baby he didnt want?

[John Dibble]

No, but he shouldn't have to pay child support.

Ive argued that point for a long time with people and most say Im a horrible person (most dont really mean it but you get the point) when I propose that idea.  If he wants to abort the pregnancy and the woman does not agree.  Should he really be responsible for a baby he didnt want?

Agreed, but only if he states willingness to pay for the abortion(perhaps not the whole thing, but at least half) - he still has some responsibility in that the impregnation was a result of his own actions. Offering to pay in this case would alleviate him of those responsibilities.

[A18]

No, but he shouldn't have to pay child support.

Ive argued that point for a long time with people and most say Im a horrible person (most dont really mean it but you get the point) when I propose that idea.  If he wants to abort the pregnancy and the woman does not agree.  Should he really be responsible for a baby he didnt want?

Agreed, but only if he states willingness to pay for the abortion(perhaps not the whole thing, but at least half) - he still has some responsibility in that the impregnation was a result of his own actions. Offering to pay in this case would alleviate him of those responsibilities.

If she didn't want to get pregnant, she shouldn't have agreed to have sex.

Just having sex with someone doesn't mean you're willing to raise her kid.

[Dr. Cynic]

Angus is right.

[angus]

Angus is right.

Ladies and gentlemen, you have never before, nor are you likely to again, ever seen this three-word phrase posted by this particular poster.  A rare treat.

Also, Nick, I have said the same thing many times too.  Let's have a single standard for men and women who choose to recognize that sometimes unwanted babies happen, not a double standard.  However, forcing a pregnant female to terminate a pregnancy is not the solution to this double standard.  The solution is to simply do away with the double standards laws.  I say that not for your benefit, as you already posess that logic, but for others who may not.

[John Dibble]

No, but he shouldn't have to pay child support.

Ive argued that point for a long time with people and most say Im a horrible person (most dont really mean it but you get the point) when I propose that idea.  If he wants to abort the pregnancy and the woman does not agree.  Should he really be responsible for a baby he didnt want?

Agreed, but only if he states willingness to pay for the abortion(perhaps not the whole thing, but at least half) - he still has some responsibility in that the impregnation was a result of his own actions. Offering to pay in this case would alleviate him of those responsibilities.

If she didn't want to get pregnant, she shouldn't have agreed to have sex.

Just having sex with someone doesn't mean you're willing to raise her kid.

True, but if he didn't want to get her pregnant, he shouldn't have agreed to sex. Nobody forced him not to wear a condom.

The reason I specified that he should only have to offer to pay half the cost is that he has half the responsibility in the action of creating the child. The act was commited by both, so why absolve one party of the consequences?

[nclib]

I don't believe a man should have any say as to whether or not a woman he impregnated gets an abortion or not, as far as legal rights are concerned.

I do think, however, that it would be good for the man and the woman to discuss the situation, though the woman should have the final say since it's her body.

[Richard]

Abortions should be illegal. BUT, if it is legal then:

YES, a man should, and you can then form an opinion that men should pay for child support,

NO, a man should not, and then you can't and shouldn't force a man to pay child support.


Which one?  I have no idea.  I'd probably go with the latter.

[Smash255]

I don't believe a man should have any say as to whether or not a woman he impregnated gets an abortion or not, as far as legal rights are concerned.

I do think, however, that it would be good for the man and the woman to discuss the situation, though the woman should have the final say since it's her body.

I agree 100%, very well said

[TeePee4Prez]

I don't believe a man should have any say as to whether or not a woman he impregnated gets an abortion or not, as far as legal rights are concerned.

I do think, however, that it would be good for the man and the woman to discuss the situation, though the woman should have the final say since it's her body.

Same here.

[senatortombstone]

I was watching FOXNEWS on friday night and it had a report on convicted felons having murder charges overturned and reduced to mere manslaughter, because at the time the crime was commited, they didn't actually "intend" to kill their victims.  Normally, anytime a felonious act results in death (whether or not it was part of the original plan) it is considered murder.  HOwever, some state court ruled that if the intent to kill wasn't there, then the death can only be prosecuted as manslaughter.  That is how Wilbert Rideau got out of prison. 

I think that the same legal precedent should be applied to cases of child support.  If the man didn't "intend" on geting the woman pregnant, then he shouldn't be forced to pay for child support or an abortion.  Unless you can prove he intended to get her pregnant.  After all, to liberals, intentions are more important than results and consequences.

[Trilobyte]

I don't think "intent" should be a factor here. If it can be proven definitively that the man impragnated the woman, strict liability should apply.

If a construction company were doing some blasting alongside a road, and the blast somehow injures you, it is legally liable for your injuries regardless of their "intent" or how careful its workers were. There is no need to prove negligence, the fact that their blast injured you is enough.

If intent were a requirement for child support, a lot of fathers would easilly be let off the hook.

[senatortombstone]

I agree, but why is it okay to make a man pay for a child he didn't intend to father or for a company to pay for damages they didn't cause, but then it is not okay to charge criminals with murder because they didn't "intend" to kill their victims?

It seems intent is irrelevant in torts and civil cases, but it is very relevant in criminal cases.  is that not a double standard?

Liberals are so evil, they want to sue everyone and give every criminal a break.

[angus]

I'm not sure there's any a priori reason the same standards need be applied in civil and criminal cases.  If I break a law, I will be prosecuted for breaking a law, and I should be presumed innocent till proved guilty.  If I'm sued, it's not necessarily that I broke a law, but just offended someone.  The bar is appropriately higher in that case.

but bludgeoning a pregnant woman's abdomen is a criminal matter, anyway, and so intent can be a factor.  I'd argue that it can be a factor without resorting to the question of whether abortion is tantamount to murder.  Surely, the penalty is reasonably stiffer for striking a pregnant woman with such force that a baby is killed, than for striking a pregnant woman such that it only injures, not the baby.  In the former case, if the intent to cause psychological distress (by nullifying progenesis efforts) can be established, then we need not turn to the issue of abortion to see that a stiffened penalty is merited.

[opebo]

I don't think "intent" should be a factor here. If it can be proven definitively that the man impragnated the woman, strict liability should apply.

If a construction company were doing some blasting alongside a road, and the blast somehow injures you, it is legally liable for your injuries regardless of their "intent" or how careful its workers were. There is no need to prove negligence, the fact that their blast injured you is enough.

If intent were a requirement for child support, a lot of fathers would easilly be let off the hook.

I love the 'Blasting' analogy for impregnation.  You must be quite a man Richious!

[A18]

And if you gave your consent to be blasted?