Men and Abortion

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by Astronomer70
I think if a man's wife gets pregnant then he damn well should have a say in whether or not it gets a chance to become a baby.

When you say that a man should have "a say", what does that mean exactly?

What do you mean exactly? That she should go along with his wishes, even though she doesn't want another child? Or that the law should be involved?

Im wondering when BH's questions will be answered? What does 'have a say' mean? I believe men already 'have a say' as it is. Do you mean, 'what men say goes'?

Anyone?

His 'say' should be his expressed opinion. If he can prove that he will be able to support both mother and foetus until birth, and afterwards support and love the child, this should be taken into account when deciding whether or not a termination should be performed.
I'm not saying that his word should be final. If he believes the woman shouldn't have one she can't.
I'm saying that some sort of impartial mediator should be established which monitors and controls abortions. It would be better if this mediator was occupied by women as they will be able to provide a sympathetic ear to the mother, may or may not relate, and will be better able to decide what action should be taken.

For me its means exactly that, we’re married, that also my potential child, I helped create it, I want a direct say in the outcome. If we disagree, then in the interest of the baby it should be carried through, regardless of who the one proposing or opposing abortion is. Regardless of what the law says thats my view on it, so, does that answer your question?

EDIT:

[edit on 26-7-2006 by WestPoint23]

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Ok, got that, still not clear about who the court would have granted paternity to if they were both fighting to disown her though.

Well, I'm not absolutely clear either, but I don't know why a paternity test would not stand up in court. A man should not be held responsible for a child that isn't his, unless he has promised to do so or claimed the child as his.

The child does not have to get punished; just find the biological father to pay the child support.

Exactly.

If you’re going to hold the presumed father responsible regardless then grant him full custody of the child in question and in doing so he would continue to pay child support and the mother gets punished? How’s that?

I could never support using the child as a game piece to punish one or the other parent. The custody of the child should be determined based on the interest of the child and not to punish one or the other. So, no, I don't support that at all.

This mindset of anger at the women and using the child's support or custody as a weapon or punishment really has me concerned. In fact, you guys claim you stand for the child, even the unborn child, you declare your concern and emotional attachment to it, but then, you'd withdraw support from that child to 'get at' or punish the mother in a heartbeat.

It just seems a bit disingenuous to me...

I'm sorry, almost everything you have said in this thread shows that your first concern is not FOR the child, but AGAINST the woman. I understand anger at women. I'm not crazy about most of them, myself, but be careful where you aim your arrows.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
If we disagree, then in the interest of the baby it should be carried through.

So you are saying if the woman is pregnant and she doesnt want it but he does, then the woman is forced to have the pregnancy? What if she tries to harm herself, you know bottle of gin and a tumble down the stairs... should she be restrained? What if the husband doesnt want the pregnancy to continue, should she be forced into an abortion?

Originally posted by WestPoint23
If we disagree, then in the interest of the baby it should be carried through, regardless of who the one proposing or opposing abortion is.

I think I understand. You're saying you think if the father doesn't want an abortion but the mother does, then the mother should be forced (legally) to carry and bear the child.

Is that right?

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
This mindset of anger at the women and using the child's support or custody as a weapon or punishment really has me concerned. In fact, you guys claim you stand for the child, even the unborn child, you declare your concern and emotional attachment to it, but then, you'd withdraw support from that child to 'get at' or punish the mother in a heartbeat.

No, no, I would support MY CHILD, not some dudes who screwed around with my wife, big difference here. Let that man and the now disgraced mother take care of that child, it should not be my burden if there already is an able biological father.

Originally posted by JackofBlades
If he can prove that he will be able to support both mother and foetus until birth, and afterwards support and love the child, this should be taken into account when deciding whether or not a termination should be performed.
I'm not saying that his word should be final. If he believes the woman shouldn't have one she can't.

Sounds resonable, we should offer much more to women who find themselves pregnant, it should never be about money or restrictions on lifestyle (for instance, more kids equals less time for own pursuits).

If people, especially white people, care about the falling birth rate, then more must be done to encourage births. The money and restrictions placed upon women (and men) when having children should be a top priority. I believe women will have less abortions if having a child wasnt such a rough deal.

Originally posted by Dae
So you are saying if the woman is pregnant and she doesnt want it but he does, then the woman is forced to have the pregnancy?

Yes, like I said, if we disagree then the baby should be born, even if I support abortion but the mother does not, the baby should be born. Unless there is a clear consensus, the baby gets born. Not my ideal way of doing things but again in the absence of the laws being changed...
Keep in mind this is in regards to marriage.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Is that right?

Yup. To me there can be no greater interest in favor to the child then letting that child live when there is a support foundation able to take care of him/her.

[edit on 26-7-2006 by WestPoint23]

Originally posted by Dae
If people, especially white people, care about the falling birth rate, then more must be done to encourage births.

White people? WTF does that have to do with anything?

Originally posted by Dae
If people, especially white people, care about the falling birth rate, then more must be done to encourage births. The money and restrictions placed upon women (and men) when having children should be a top priority. I believe women will have less abortions if having a child wasnt such a rough deal.

Precisely. As it stands, any woman can walk into her physicians, ask for an abortion and doesn't need to give a valid reason apart from "I don't want it."
This is why, as I mentioned earlier, teenaged girls are using abortion as a means of contraceptive, often without any modicum of knowledge on how much potential damage abortions can cause.

If we have a mediation board, they can pick which are valid reasons (hazardous to health, unable to care for child etc) and allow those who really need it to have one. Of course, this will also need to be reinforced with a greater emphasis on the us of real contraceptives early on.
The board could also say that in some cases it may be best to have the child and give immediate custody to the father.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by Dae
If people, especially white people, care about the falling birth rate, then more must be done to encourage births.

White people? WTF does that have to do with anything?

Umm... 'cos there is a falling birth rate amung white people? And umm... abortion and choosing not to have children causes the birth rate to fall. Thats if you care about that sort of thing. I dont particularly care myself but some people do.

And umm.. why the WTF? Did I do something bad and mention the word white with the word people? ^.^

Originally posted by Dae
Umm... 'cos there is a falling birth rate amung white people?

I wasn't aware of this. So, I wondered what race had to do with any of this. That's all.

And umm... abortion and choosing not to have children causes the birth rate to fall. Thats if you care about that sort of thing.

Yeah, I don't care about that sort of thing, only that we could stand to have the birth rate fall a little in this overpopulated world.

And umm.. why the WTF?

Sorry, that's how I talk and I was REALLY confused. No. You didn't do anything wrong. Thanks for clarifying.

"The money and restrictions placed upon women (and men) when having children should be a top priority. I believe women will have less abortions if having a child wasnt such a rough deal. "

--------------------------------------------------------------

already been there, flew over most of their heads....

life is sacred, until it is born, then well, it depends on weather mommy or daddy read the crystal ball right when they were younger and made the right prediction as to just what career would be rewarding those employees a living wage, and well, the rest isn't conseidered that sacred at all if you want my opinion.

Originally posted by dawnstar
life is sacred, until it is born, then well, [...snip] the rest isn't conseidered that sacred at all if you want my opinion.

Damn straight! Life is sacred when living is sacred too, cant have one and ignore the other...