Do men have any rights concerning abortion?

Only one person can have the ultimate decision. One has to be at the top. In the thousands of years prior to the SCOTUS legalization of abortion (technically a woman's right to medical privacy actually) the woman, her womb, the potential child, etc. were all the sole propety of the man. Even in pre-Constantine Rome when abortion (even infanticide) was a long standing legal tradition it was at the leisure of the man's decision exclusively, and most likely legal because of a strong deference to men's wishes.

One's medical decisions aren't a democracy of two. Ultimately, in any conflict of interest, one must supercede the other. So someone has to be at the top of a woman's reproductivity. If not the women carrying the child as we have deemed to be the case in our enlightened age, then who?

Put the man back in charge? The government? Religion? What a horrible and unconstitutional idea.

This is a man's opinion.


Interesting side note:



Perhaps it's the huge influx of our tax dollars into these "services" and similar outreach and witnessing inititives. I've posted previously on exampes of "groups" comprised of little more than a man with a Bible, a website and address getting federal grants of $800,000 to "counsel" on medical services in his town.

Those convinced there's a secret shadow government at work would be well served to visit the White House website and follow the links directly to it.

Faithbasedcommunityinititives.org indexes the "God Departments" in most major arms of government.

It's pretty much adding an "/fbci" to once secular departments like Health and Human Services (God Dept.), Housing and Urban Development (God Dept.), US Dept. of Labor (God Dept.), Department of Justice (Tribulation Force), etc.

So as to your statement about the "law being a powerful teacher," um yeah. Fear not I guess. That crazy little delapidated shack on the corner in your town with the Virgin Mary statues, Christmas lights and sign that says "Free Abortion Counseling" is THE LAW now.

[edit on 5-3-2005 by RANT]

I know that many of you have made it a point to say that "not ALL men are horrible people who leave" but i just wanted to give an example that backed it up.

me

2 months ago a switch flipped inside my wife (that's really what it seemed like) and her 2 major disorders (one of which we didn't know about and the other we ididn't know how serious it was) kicked in. Bi polar disorder (didnt know it was that serious) and paranoid schizophrenia (didnt know about at all). She lost control of herself, kept abandoning us, treating us badly, sleeping with my best friend. Eventually i had to take Michael and move back in with my parents so she couldn't hurt him. She's getting treated now (though our relationship didn't survive, we're getting divorced, she's now with my former best friend) but until, or unless she is successfully treated, she isn't allowed to be alone with our son, or see him for extended periods, which means I am now a single parent, and effectively his only parent. And i have stepped up to that responsibility happily.


just think about that before any of you make alot of accussations about how ALL men are.

for the record, my opinion is also that the man should have rights as well, if you couldn't tell that by now.

[edit on 5-3-2005 by KKing123]

That's the sad part, the second it is deemed she is free of her disorders to a point where she's stable, she will probably get automatic permanent custody of your child, you being the weekender. I don't see how that's right.

I'm sorry to hear about your troubles, I hope everything is working out ok.

Let have some discussion here that is related.

Suppose a young man is dating this girl that has told him she was on the pill. No suppose she is not actually taking the pill but wants to get pregnant to trap him into paying child support, marrying her, or the girl just wants to be a mom with someone to love and receive love from. Now the boy has other plans and paying child support for 18 years was not one of them. That amount of money would directly effect his life and maybe his body. He might have to work two jobs just to support his self and his child. The emotional health of this young man could also be severly compromised. He might even become suicidal. It also might affect his love life as well.

So should he have the right to make her go down to the Plan Parenthood
(sic) Clinic and have an abortion so his life is not ruined?

Personally, I do not believe anyone should have the legal right to take another human's life except as an act of self defense. That is how some of these feminists describe that child, as an unwanted invader into their body and that they have the right to protect themselves from that................


Again, what about the guy?

My logic is not necessarily your logic

It doesn't matter whether she said she was on the pill or not....if he doesn't want a child...he better take care of it himself or be more selective in his sexual activity....JM not so humble O

Hell must hath frozen over for me to agree with LadyV

My response to that young man was... Why would your wife lie to you about being on the pill..Oh you are not married? Then what were you doing have sex with someone other than your wife? You reap what you sow young man!


Just because something is legal does not mean there are no consequences for your sin. All can be forgiven but consequences are lifelong.

Likewise there is consequences for deliberately killing children or shedding Innocent blood.

Ps 106:36-39
36 They worshiped their idols,
which became a snare to them.
37 They sacrificed their sons
and their daughters to demons.
38 They shed innocent blood,
the blood of their sons and daughters,
whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan,
and the land was desecrated by their blood.
39 They defiled themselves by what they did;
by their deeds they prostituted themselves.
NIV

It is because of this, we nutty Christians are so passionate.


Jer 26:12-15
12 Then Jeremiah said to all the officials and all the people: "The LORD sent me to prophesy against this house and this city all the things you have heard. 13 Now reform your ways and your actions and obey the LORD your God. Then the LORD will relent and not bring the disaster he has pronounced against you. 14 As for me, I am in your hands; do with me whatever you think is good and right. 15 Be assured, however, that if you put me to death, you will bring the guilt of innocent blood on yourselves and on this city and on those who live in it, for in truth the LORD has sent me to you to speak all these words in your hearing."
NIV

You might notice redundancy here

Hey, wait a minute, the mother gets a say, the father might get a say, what about the baby? Does the baby have to say please dont murder me.

Again:

Does the Baby of the capability to have a say??? OR are you suggesting that a legal guardian be appointed to represent the baby. It's been my experience that many of these legal guardians aren't really placing the kid's well being on the top of their list now, when those they are representing are capable of talking and telling them what they want. All that seems to happen in the family courts now is that all the lawyers meet behind closed doors and make their deals, and then if your lucky, they might decide to come tell you what they have decided, or, the first you might hear about it is in the courtroom, as the judge is telling you what the decision is.


SO, let's say that we did manage to work it out so that somehow, both mother and father could at least have an equal influence in the decision.....as long as it didn't risk the health of the mother.

So, the little tiny baby is now just as much the "property" of the father, as the mother. Does he now have legal say over just what the baby "eats", or just how much excercise the mother does or doesn't do during pregnancy? Can he insist that she only listen to classical music 24 hrs a day? What about emotional stress, should he be able to shield his baby from the stress that is induced in the mother when she watches all that horrible, scary news?
Protecting the father's rights involving the abortion issue would be easier than dealing with the backlash afterward.....and well, the courts are all overloaded as it is. Should they really be hassled with the question of weather or not a dozen chocolate doughnuts every day is really healthy for the baby?

[edit on 6-3-2005 by dawnstar]

We wouldn't have to face virtually ANY of these unfortunate issues if people were capable of accepting personal responsibility for their actions. Nothing like good ole-fashioned morals and values.

Does anyone remember those archaic ideas? Unfortunately, not many these days.

Isn't it the truth...but one does not have to be of any particular faith, to have morals and decency, and to take responsibility for their actions.....today's world is too caught up in the if "I" want to, I can" mentality and shrugging off responsibility.....

Angellic....the father should have had the baby in his custody if the mother didn't want it.

No a father does not have the ultimate choice over abortion

No a mother should not get child support and so on. She wants to raise it alone, support herself then.

In our country the government is so nice it pays money to single mothers that is quite enough not to need the father to give his money to raise a child, often being raised by another man with the mother.

It ultimatly depends on each situation, what is right for one, is not always right for another.

How "ole-fashioned" do you want to get? I think your presumption of "archaic" might be a little off. But I'm game.

Anything pre-Eisenhower is fine with me with the exclusion of post Constantine Christian State Rome.

Abortion Has Always Been With Us



Let's get real archaic shall we? When man was truly free. Pre- Church States. Of course, we've tried since with a little thing called America. A secular dream of our enlightened founding fathers. I'm obviously not saying they were perfect or envisioned women to have the right to medical privacy or reproductive sovereignty any more than they wanted women to vote, or blacks to not be slaves... but they did have the right "archaic" ideas of kicking the moral authoritarians out of our lives.

Interesting summary from that study (which goes through all religions and parts of the globe in history)...




[edit on 6-3-2005 by RANT]

At the end of the day a womens body is her own and only she can decide what to do with it.

As a man i would not allow someone else to dictate to me what to do with my body, i have the right to make all descicions regarding my medical situation.

If men are allowed to dictate to women whether they have to have abortions or not then women should be allowed to insist that men have vasectomies as this could help prevent the need for more abortions.

Joe shoot up heroin then or masterbate in public. Your body, just do not get caught huh? Those things do not hurt anyone else. It might offend some though like killing babies instead of using birth control?

Men are always the aggresor. Always. This is why almost all the decisions concerning abortion are left up to the woman. If it was left up soley to a mans carnal instincts the abortion rate in this country(Amerika)would be ten times higher. Peel the mental layers back and we(men)are brutal animals that would eat our young if we had too just like wild animals. We may have the intellegence but we are carnal beasts just like rabid wolves. If us men dont kill us all first it will be tens of thousands of years before men evolve above the carnal level of predatory wild animals. Deal with it. Thank you...

All great references to mens right when it comes to abortion.
Where are the drug support references in my post? Or public masturbation?

Women have the right to subject their body to any medical treatment they feel they want or need. Men should not have a say in the matter.

To prevent these situations use condoms. Its that simple kids!

just as i thought i see a lot of folks talking out of both sides of their mouths- and MOSTLY seems to be women.


to paraphrase " if you guys don't want a kid- you are responsible for taking the pre-cautions - else you can be responsible finacially FOR LIFE- but women always have an out"

i disagree whole heartedly-

it takes two to have sex
it SHOULD take two to take precautions
It SHOULD take two to handle the consequences of it.


right now the women have their cake and can eat it too.

if the guys says up front he didn't want the child- and the women overides him- (oh and BELIEVE ME SHE IS ABLE- even when HE uses condoms) then she SHOULD BE on her own. That is the ONLY truely fair out come to THAT HALF of the situation.

to reference the very messed up analygy of the "BASEBALL" mentioned earlier by a very missguided FEMALE. sure you can own the ball once it is placed in your "yard" but when it causes damage to others property YOU are responsible for the finacial damages not the original owner. At least that is how it should be.


how come if i go donate to a sperm bank am i "reasonably" safe from being forced to pay child support? whereas, if the woman has decietfully poked holes in condoms or "harvests" the contents of a used one to get pregnant on purpose despite the male being up front on the issue and taking precautions (happened to me) the man can be hunted down and finacially ruined? still the fathers fault? -- gimme a break! i did not concent to use of my DNA.

a synical approach might be: "Just gimme my half of every cell and i'm outta here"


Then what of denying the father equal visitation once said child is in the world? in California (and many others) the amount of support a father must pay is factored baised on how much time each has the child- boy call that fair! if he isn't interested in a relationship with the child or the mother interferes enough with his visitation, his income is the ONLY determining factor on support amount and it can be as high as 51% BEFORE TAXES!!!! In some cases this amount is so astronomical that the mother can comfortably afford to quit working/ buy a new car/ and a new house and never has to pay taxes on the money because the father already has. Often times in this type of case to add insult to injury- mom and child are shacked up or married to another and the father of the child funds ealier retirement of the whole bunch or greatly suppliments the quality of life- meanwhile the bio-father is scraping by with little if any recourse and out 51% of his income PLUS the taxes on the whole income.

Women forcing men to have offspring (what else can you call it?), withholding visitation (if he is interested), and demanding support after the fact are nothing more than parasites. Should a father have rights in reguards to keeping the child? Why is this even a question? YES! MOST DEFINITELY YES! Else there needs to be a REASONABLE out for the s'perm donor'

someone asked WHY a wife might LIE to her husband and go against his wishes?? get real! you wouldn't ever have been married have you? How about HER timing and desires don't necessilarly match up with yours or the 'groups/families' consenses and she doesn't want to wait? yeah sure something THAT big and with such far reaching concequences SHOULD be a unanamous decision but usually it isn't. How about just the factor of another persons selfishness and willfulness? no man and wife are ONE person- there is another individual there that is going to still have moments (at least) of wilfulness and selfishness and ignor the "group" desires. But God forbide the man wants a new powertool which has much less impact overall.

Personally I think it all comes down to responsability. It is quite obvious that it is only natural for a child to come to being with the help of two adults. Our anatomies are designed for reproduction so that our species may not become extinct. While it is almost completely ridiculous to think that that is the only reason we will have sex, it is the only reason our bodies our designed this way. Now saying I for one believe we should only have sex for means of procreation is totally untrue. For many of us it is a constant part of our lives, almost an art in form. But we should not degrade the fact that we may create a new human in the process. Kids are going through puberty at much earlier stages then ever before because of all the crap we pump into the animals that we eat. Its in the milk the meat and even most produce is grown unnaturally. So it is almost not the way nature intended when it comes to kids "doing it". We all know nothing is going to stop them though, we`ve all been there (that is if you aren`t too old). In cases with children I believe it is up to the parents then to make the correct choice for their child if they are to be a parent at such a young age. Getting past the issue of kids having babies, I didnt mean to drag on, we as adults need to be responsable. Every time you have sex with someone you need to know you may share a bond with this person for the rest of your life if a child is the result of your fun. Times have changed and it is accepted that you dont have to be married to have a child so thats not to worry about, however I think thats what nature intended in some sense anyway. When a man and a woman come together and produce a child whether they wanted to or not they must take responsability. I think that the man should take care of this woman at the least throughout the pregnancy. There is a reason why nature intended for two people two make a baby and not one. A child needs two parents no doubt but if it is accepted by both parents that only one will raise then that is between the two and may infact be better off for the child in certain circumstances. If the two adults dont want to be together as a couple but choose to have the baby then it is the man`s responsability to take care of that woman until she delivers their child and is healthy enough to take care of herself and then go back to work if that is what she does. That is what makes us men and its a shame that so many fathers are not men and just run away like little boys. However if that man wants to try and work something out in terms of a relationship and living together for better financial purposes and making an attempt at being a family and on all terms he is not a danger or something like that then the women should not expect money for anything besides the child if she so chooses she doesnt want to be with him. Dont get me wrong no woman should feel like she has to spend the rest of her life with someone just because they created a child together but if that so be her choice then she is responsable for paying for all her expenses and no one else. That man also has an obligation to pay half of everything that that child needs such as clothes, food, diapers, toys ,furniture, daycare, schooling and so on. The choice of the relationship is between the adults but both need to know they have an obligation to take care of that child. Also the same applies if the woman does not want to raise that child and the man takes it on then the woman is obligated to pay half of the expenses. On the issue of abortion it is clear that it must be a unanimous vote if one wants and the other doesnt whoever wants it gets it and gets no help after all is said and done. it is only fair. I for one do not believe in abortion for one soul reason and I know there are so many who disagree with me but I have to put it out there. I truly 100% believe that as soon as a child is conceived you have a new human life there. I dont believe it is right to take anyones life especially that of a defenseless unborn baby. Whether it is 1 minute old or one month or one year it is a life. I believe that even life in its most earliest stage is life. The only difference is that it is still so undeveloped but it is there and it is beginning. Sorry to stray too far again. The issue at hand is very complex for me. Under the law abortion is legal so I will address it as so. If a man wants the baby and the woman does not then he should be required to take care of that woman until his baby is born and then they can part ways. Mabe the woman should even be compensated in some way for her very hard work through all of this but like I said the man should be taking care of her every need during her pregnancy paying for all her bills and all of everything. When they part ways that woman then has no obligation to have anything to do with that baby. The same should apply to a man. Even if he doesnt want the baby he needs to take reponsability for his actions and that means taking care of the woman until she gives birth. Then he should be able to go on his way. There are plenty of men who arent going to like me saying this but its like I said in the beginning you have to understand that even if you take every precaution you may still create a baby. It is very hard to not have sex with someone when you both want to so like nike said "just do it" but keep it real and remember why we were all naturally equipped with the means to have sex. Take responsability for your actions when it happens. Until then if you dont want a baby make sure you use a condom, birth control and mabe even another condom. Nothing is 100% fullproof so adding together a few things will only help. To sum it all up I would like to add my own experience on this subject. I was 23 when I found out my girlfriend was pregnant and I was so far from being a responsable adult. Anyway I changed my life dramatically because I knew it was the right thing to do. I took responsability and I`m not sure how I did that but I am very happy I did. Things will work out if we let them and we need to be reponsable. I got a better job a place to live and couldnt imagine life without my beautiful daughter by my side every day.

Unless she actually dug through a rubbish bin to find a used condom just to self impregenate.. [and that does happen- i agree the guy shouldn't have to pay if he hasn't had sex with her and she's stolen sperm] what you are saying is a bit baseless.. how are you sure the woman poked holes in it? Condoms can tear all by themselves.
Why should a man be mortiphied when a woman becomes pregnant to him through sex? Sex causes pregnancy.. this is not a recent phenomenon and as said before contraception offers no guarentees.