Abortion and fathers' rights

Einhard

I know from reading threads on the subject that most AHers would advocate legislating for abortion and making it legal in the Republic, and thus be of the belief that the rights of the mother trump the rights of the unborn child (foetus, whatever), if they believe the latter even has rights.

What though, are peoples' opinions on the rights of the father when it comes to a decision to terminate a pregnancy? I know if I a woman was expecting my child, and chose to abort it, I'd be absolutely devestated. And yet, I imagine there is precious little I could do to stop it (assuming I'd want to go down that route). Should fathers have any rights in this regard, and if so, how should they be defined?

This isn't a pro-/anti-abortion thing, so let's not dragged off topic arguing as if it were.

JonJoeDali

I'd be in favour of locking women up who threaten to "abort" (i.e. kill) their own flesh and blood.

Saila

when they figure out on going halves on a carrying a child yes they should have rights then

Fremen

Why bother with legal rights for men? All we need is chloroform and a coat hanger.

Big Nasty

Interesting topic.

I know a lad who got a girl up the stick. She already had a child (single mother) and didn't want another one so 'got rid' and never told him. They broke up soon after and he is still none the wiser.

Often wonder how he would feel if he knew what happened.

Sid_Justice

I think there is a legal precedent in China for biological fathers of the potential child to prevent the pregnant woman from getting an abortion. Elsewhere, this is not. In the UK, there have been 2 cases, the Paton case and the C v S case. Both cases ended with the same result, the man cannot prevent a woman from having an abortion.

However, with regard to males coercing pregnant women into getting abortions, I believe this happens all the time but there is no legal precedent for it. Men have a certain ability, especially in Ireland, in completely opting out of parenthood, and some can get away with not paying maintenance.

But if I was to step back from the practical side of this debate I would suggest the following. If men and women are equal (isn't that what the feminists are saying), if fathers and mothers have equal rights with regard to children (which they don't in this country) then men should have an equal right to the destiny of the foetus. Obviously, the female is, and always will be (maybe in 500 years this will be different) the carrier of said foetus, so she should have absolute autonomy on procedures taken place within or around her body.

I would argue though, that a women who consents to sex (regardless of contraception) has also consented to the possibility of gaining a lodger in her womb. And getting an abortion should be an illegal termination of that unwritten agreement.

AudreyHepburn

It takes two to make a baby so it should also take two to get rid of it imo.

Obviously the woman is the one going to have to go through it physically but the child/foeutus/embryo is also the man's and so he has to have to a say.

Obviously in the case of rape/sexual abuse the abuser should not have such a right.

JonJoeDali

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

It takes two to make a baby so it should also take two to get rid of it imo.

Disgusting.

Nolanger

What about the father who doesn't want to pay maintenance for 20 years and requests the mother has an abortion?

MagicSean

Fathers in Ireland don't have rights over live children, never mind unborn ones. I'd start with that problem. In any case, there would be a problem in proving paternity would there not?

AudreyHepburn

JonJoeDali wrote: »

Disgusting.

Sorry to offend you :rolleyes:

What other way should I have put it do you suggest? Isn't that what abortion is; getting rid of or ending an unwanted pregnancy.

Not that I agree with it by the way.

Slideshowbob

Legally unless married - isnt it the woman's choice!?

debate over or am i missing something

PK2008

Abortion for some , miniature Ireland flags for others

Nodin

JonJoeDali wrote: »

I'd be in favour of locking women up who threaten to "abort" (i.e. kill) their own flesh and blood.

Yep. Locking up wimmin was such a successful tactic over the years....

Bullseye1

Slideshowbob wrote: »

Legally unless married - isnt it the woman's choice!?

debate over or am i missing something

What if she decides to keep it and the father doesn't want to keep it should he be in a position to disown the child? Or am I missing something?

JonJoeDali

Nodin wrote: »

Yep. Locking up wimmin was such a successful tactic over the years....

Dochas exists for good reason. Anyway, you're entitled to your opinion.

Deus Ex Machina

JonJoeDali wrote: »

Disgusting.

I look forward to reading your future posts on this thread, and the responses they elicit.

My name is URL

Ideally the father should have some say in it, but the simple fact is that it's the female's body which is effected so they should have the choice to do what they want.

If the guy wants to keep the child and the woman wants to get rid of it, then it's probably a good sign that the relationship isn't going to work out anyway.

Einhard

Saila wrote: »

when they figure out on going halves on a carrying a child yes they should have rights then

I think that's a very harsh way of looking at it. Afterall, a father can have just as much an emotional stake in the unborn child as any mother. Yet there seems to be something of an agenda to relegate the father as a means to an end, rather than a partner. I understand that there are huge difficulties surrounding the issue, and any move to enhance fathers' rights would necessarily mean compromising the rights of the mother, but at the moment, the sentiment from some seems to be that the father can fuck off with himself...unless the mother wants the child, and then it's time to pay up. Is that equitable?

Sid_Justice wrote: »

However, with regard to males coercing pregnant women into getting abortions, I believe this happens all the time but there is no legal precedent for it. Men have a certain ability, especially in Ireland, in completely opting out of parenthood, and some can get away with not paying maintenance.

If a mother can terminate a pregnancy without recourse to the father, then surely it is only fair that, should the father not want a child, and obviously cannot force the women to have an abortion, then he shouldn't have to pay towards the child if he doesn't want to?

But if I was to step back from the practical side of this debate I would suggest the following. If men and women are equal (isn't that what the feminists are saying), if fathers and mothers have equal rights with regard to children (which they don't in this country) then men should have an equal right to the destiny of the foetus. Obviously, the female is, and always will be (maybe in 500 years this will be different) the carrier of said foetus, so she should have absolute autonomy on procedures taken place within or around her body.

There's something to this alright, but then one comes to the issue of forcing a woman to go through a hugely traumatic experience. pregnancy can be hard enough, without carrying the child to term against one's will.

I would argue though, that a women who consents to sex (regardless of contraception) has also consented to the possibility of gaining a lodger in her womb. And getting an abortion should be an illegal termination of that unwritten agreement.

This is interesting. I certainly wouldn't want a situation where the mother was forced to carry a child that she didn't want, purely because her partner insisted on it. But perhaps there could be some form of sanction, monetary perhaps? Although, even typing this, I'm having serious reservations about it.

Nolanger wrote: »

What about the father who doesn't want to pay maintenance for 20 years and requests the mother has an abortion?

It's a form of double discrimination. A father has no right over whether the pregnancy proceeds or not, and cannot stop an abortion, no matterthe emotional trauma he might experience on the loss of his unborn child/potential child. Yet, should the father not want the child- tough sh!t. Not only will the child be born anyway, but he'll have to pay towards it. Again, that's hardly fair IMO.

Slideshowbob wrote: »

Legally unless married - isnt it the woman's choice!?

debate over or am i missing something

I don't think a married father has any more say in the matter than a isngle father. Also, you are missing something- abortion is illegal in Ireland, so it doesn't matter what the father or mother think.

Deus Ex Machina wrote: »

I look forward to reading your future posts on this thread, and the responses they elicit.

I'm not...

CK2010

I think morally (perhaps the wrong word to use when discussing abortion), a father should be included in the decision, but i dont think it should be a right.

PK2008

I once had strong views on abortion, but through the power of reasoned and informative internet debate I realised I was in fact wrong and by the end of the thread I had completely changed my views on abortion*




*Dramatisation does not reflect real events

Saila

Einhard wrote: »

I think that's a very harsh way of looking at it. Afterall, a father can have just as much an emotional stake in the unborn child as any mother. Yet there seems to be something of an agenda to relegate the father as a means to an end, rather than a partner. I understand that there are huge difficulties surrounding the issue, and any move to enhance fathers' rights would necessarily mean compromising the rights of the mother, but at the moment, the sentiment from some seems to be that the father can fuck off with himself...unless the mother wants the child, and then it's time to pay up. Is that equitable?

the simple fact is the mother has to carry it for 9 months, thats what it boils down to, you cant expect her to carry something she doesnt want.

CK2010

Saila wrote: »

the simple fact is the mother has to carry it for 9 months, thats what it boils down to, you cant expect her to carry something she doesnt want.

yeah but the father may want to love it for the rest of his life and he cant be expected to give that up because she doesnt want to carry it for 9 months of her life.

this isnt exactly my opinion, just another side of the argument.

OutlawPete

My name is URL wrote: »

If the guy wants to keep the child and the woman wants to get rid of it, then it's probably a good sign that the relationship isn't going to work out anyway.

What has that got to do with it? Who gives a **** whether the woman is romantically interested in the guy any longer or not. It's his kid and no woman should be allowed to abort a child unless she has the father's written consent to do so and I couldn't care less how hard that would be to legislate. If the woman gets another man to sign the form and lie and say he is father when he is not, then they both should do time.

AudreyHepburn

Saila wrote: »

the simple fact is the mother has to carry it for 9 months, thats what it boils down to, you cant expect her to carry something she doesnt want.

And she wouldn't have a baby to carry without the father. The baby is his as much as hers so his rights should be equal to hers.

My name is URL

OutlawPete wrote: »

What has that got to do with it? Who gives a **** whether the woman is romantically interested in the guy any longer or not. It's his kid and no woman should be allowed to abort a child unless she has the father's written consent to do so and I couldn't care less how hard that would be to legislate. If the woman gets another man to sign the form and lie and say he is father when he is not, then they both should do time.

So it's logical and morally acceptable to essentially force a woman to have a child that she doesn't want? And before you say "well she should have thought about that before".. I agree, but we don't live in a perfect world where everyone makes the perfect decisions.

metrovelvet

There is no point talking about father's rights and pregnancy because you are not a father until the child is born and paternity can be established. Until that point, all discussion is moot.

CK2010

metrovelvet wrote: »

There is no point talking about father's rights and pregnancy because you are not a father until the child is born and paternity can be established. Until that point, all discussion is moot.

true, but once the baby is born its too late, obviously..

Gordon

It is possible for paternity tests to be done in utero.

southsiderosie

OutlawPete wrote: »

What has that got to do with it? Who gives a **** whether the woman is romantically interested in the guy any longer or not. It's his kid and no woman should be allowed to abort a child unless she has the father's written consent to do so and I couldn't care less how hard that would be to legislate. If the woman gets another man to sign the form and lie and say he is father when he is not, then they both should do time.

But it would be nearly impossible to legislate and enforce. How would you establish paternity in-utero? How would you 'prove' it afterwards? For this to work, you would have to have DNA testing of the parents and the aborted fetus to be sure they matched. And even then, the woman could claim that she "thought" the man was the father - how would you prove otherwise?

Also, in cases of rape and/or incest, why should the mother have to be beholden to the wants of the person who violated her? She didn't willingly engage in sex.

Finally, there is nothing stopping a woman from going to England for an abortion anyway without the father's knowledge.

There is very little you can do legally to stop a woman who wants an abortion - she will do it safely if the has the means, and unsafely if she doesn't. Instead of focusing on essentially unworkable, invasive legislation, it seems to me that it would make more sense to focus on reducing the number of unplanned pregnancies in the first place - something that has always been difficult in Ireland, given the influence of the RCC when it comes to access to birth control (combined with the lack of influence of the RCC when it comes to sex outside of marriage).

southsiderosie

Gordon wrote: »

It is possible for paternity tests to be done in utero.

But isn't that invasive? I thought it carries a risk of miscarriage.

Also is that even possible within the window of when an abortion is a viable procedure?

Einhard

Saila wrote: »

the simple fact is the mother has to carry it for 9 months, thats what it boils down to, you cant expect her to carry something she doesnt want.

Well actually, you can to an extent. Abortion is illegal in Ireland, and were it elsewhere, then women would face a greater prospect of having a to carry an unwanted child. However, that's besides the point.

The conundrum is that, in order to grant some rights to the father, the mother's rights have to be compromised to a large degree, eg if the father is granted some say in the matter, and wants the child, then the woman is placed in a horrible position, and her rights entirely set aside. However, there must be some means in which the views of the father can be taken into account. At the very least, if a father is anot allowed any choice in the continuation or otherwise of the pregnancy, then surely he should be allowed to opt out ot responsibility for the child?

metrovelvet wrote: »

There is no point talking about father's rights and pregnancy because you are not a father until the child is born and paternity can be established. Until that point, all discussion is moot.

Paternity can be established prior to the birth of the child. In any case, I'm not talking about the rights of individual men, but of fathers in general.

JonJoeDali

metrovelvet wrote: »

There is no point talking about father's rights and pregnancy because you are not a father until the child is born and paternity can be established. Until that point, all discussion is moot.

Do you have sympathy for a woman who miscarries? Is all the grief just a show?

Gordon

southsiderosie wrote: »

But isn't that invasive? I thought it carries a risk of miscarriage.

There are a number of options, some (or maybe just one) non-invasive.

Also is that even possible within the window of when an abortion is a viable procedure?

Yes.

metrovelvet

You can do it through amnio which does carry some risks but the courts dont accept that kind of dna testing. Also, amnio is done at 21-23 weeks, when its too late to have an abortion, unless you do it illegally. They only accept blood tests done through court approved labs once the baby is born. Paternity cannot be established legally until the child is born. There is no point in talking about rights before that point.

RachaelVO

My personal opinion is that I would probably never have an abortion. However that is my decision, and no body else has any say as to whether I would or wouldn't. Now I'm in a good marriage and I already have two children, however I am barely the right side of 40 (a few years to go) and I don't particularly want more, but I still don't think I'd have an abortion, I would probably throw a few cups and tantrums but I'd get over it.

However, to me, in this instance my husband has NO choice, a voice yes, but he does not have the final say. That's mine, and mine alone!

I've read that some guys say well it's only 9 months, and that if you have sex with or without contraception there is a chance you can have a "lodger" for 9 months, and that should the father want the baby it should be expected on some level. What a load of ****e! Pregnancy is so much more than that. From sore boob to a bad back not to mention there are so many complications that arise from pregnancy from high blood pressure, heart burn to toxemia. These complications alone exclude men from the final decision making process.

Like it or not, women are going to be stuck with a child, men can easily walk away. I'm not saying all men want to walk away, and to be fair in a lot of instances they don't, but some do walk away and have nothing to do with their children. I 'm not just talking about a one night stand, I have seen relationships break up and in a couple of instances the father has had nothing to do with their children.

It's not a cut and dry answer, but like a said I think men have a voice but that's it!

metrovelvet

Einhard wrote: »

Paternity can be established prior to the birth of the child. In any case, I'm not talking about the rights of individual men, but of fathers in general.

You're not a father until the child is born and named as the father, either automatically through the marriage bond or through signing birthcerts or through the courts.

JonJoeDali

RachaelVO wrote: »

My personal opinion is that I would probably never have an abortion. However that is my decision, and no body else has any say as to whether I would or wouldn't. Now I'm in a good marriage and I already have two children, however I am barely the right side of 40 (a few years to go) and I don't particularly want more, but I still don't think I'd have an abortion, I would probably throw a few cups and tantrums but I'd get over it.

However, to me, in this instance my husband has NO choice, a voice yes, but he does not have the final say. That's mine, and mine alone!

I've read that some guys say well it's only 9 months, and that if you have sex with or without contraception there is a chance you can have a "lodger" for 9 months, and that should the father want the baby it should be expected on some level. What a load of ****e! Pregnancy is so much more than that. From sore boob to a bad back not to mention there are so many complications that arise from pregnancy from high blood pressure, heart burn to toxemia. These complications alone exclude men from the final decision making process.

Like it or not, women are going to be stuck with a child, men can easily walk away. I'm not saying all men want to walk away, and to be fair in a lot of instances they don't, but some do walk away and have nothing to do with their children. I 'm not just talking about a one night stand, I have seen relationships break up and in a couple of instances the father has had nothing to do with their children.

It's not a cut and dry answer, but like a said I think men have a voice but that's it!

I could never marry a pro-abortion woman like you. Even if you were the last woman on earth.

It's really unfeminine and seriously off-putting.

southsiderosie

Gordon wrote: »

There are a number of options, some (or maybe just one) non-invasive.


Yes.

But medical (as opposed to suction) abortions - which are less invasive - have to be done within the first 8 weeks, and I thought that was the point where establishing paternity was just barely possible.

EDIT: well if it isn't legal until the baby is born, I guess that is a moot point anyway

metrovelvet

southsiderosie wrote: »

But it would be nearly impossible to legislate and enforce. How would you establish paternity in-utero? How would you 'prove' it afterwards? For this to work, you would have to have DNA testing of the parents and the aborted fetus to be sure they matched. And even then, the woman could claim that she "thought" the man was the father - how would you prove otherwise?

Also, in cases of rape and/or incest, why should the mother have to be beholden to the wants of the person who violated her? She didn't willingly engage in sex.

Finally, there is nothing stopping a woman from going to England for an abortion anyway without the father's knowledge.

There is very little you can do legally to stop a woman who wants an abortion - she will do it safely if the has the means, and unsafely if she doesn't. Instead of focusing on essentially unworkable, invasive legislation, it seems to me that it would make more sense to focus on reducing the number of unplanned pregnancies in the first place - something that has always been difficult in Ireland, given the influence of the RCC when it comes to access to birth control (combined with the lack of influence of the RCC when it comes to sex outside of marriage).

Exactly.

I would add that the influence of alcohol is a much stronger influence than the RCC these days.

Einhard

RachaelVO wrote: »

My personal opinion is that I would probably never have an abortion. However that is my decision, and no body else has any say as to whether I would or wouldn't. Now I'm in a good marriage and I already have two children, however I am barely the right side of 40 (a few years to go) and I don't particularly want more, but I still don't think I'd have an abortion, I would probably throw a few cups and tantrums but I'd get over it.

However, to me, in this instance my husband has NO choice, a voice yes, but he does not have the final say. That's mine, and mine alone!

I've read that some guys say well it's only 9 months, and that if you have sex with or without contraception there is a chance you can have a "lodger" for 9 months, and that should the father want the baby it should be expected on some level. What a load of ****e! Pregnancy is so much more than that. From sore boob to a bad back not to mention there are so many complications that arise from pregnancy from high blood pressure, heart burn to toxemia. These complications alone exclude men from the final decision making process.

Like it or not, women are going to be stuck with a child, men can easily walk away. I'm not saying all men want to walk away, and to be fair in a lot of instances they don't, but some do walk away and have nothing to do with their children. I 'm not just talking about a one night stand, I have seen relationships break up and in a couple of instances the father has had nothing to do with their children.

It's not a cut and dry answer, but like a said I think men have a voice but that's it!

This is a reasonable response, but I have one or two issues.

Firstly, I don't think rights can be subjective. You would make sure that your husband had some input in the matter, but many other women wouldn't- and currently, there's no obligation for them to do so. Perhaps some framework should be set, up whereby a woman seeking an abortion against the wishes of the father, should have to attend some form of mediation before she decides for sure? At least then, the concerns of fathers would be heard, if not necessarily acted upon.

As for your other point, would you agree that, should a mother continue the pregnancy against the wishes of the father, then the father can opt out of responsibility for the child? If not, then everything seems entirely stacked in favour of the mother.

Einhard

metrovelvet wrote: »

You're not a father until the child is born and named as the father, either automatically through the marriage bond or through signing birthcerts or through the courts.

OK, we can be pedantic about it, or we can deal with the issue I'm rasing. If someone has a reasonable expectation of being the father (progenitor, whatever) of an unborn child, should he have a say in decisions made about that child prior to its birth? And if not, should he be forced to take responsibility for that child, once born, if he had been against the continuation of the pregnancy?

JonJoeDali

metrovelvet wrote: »

I would add that the influence of alcohol is a much stronger influence than the RCC these days.

Of course Catholics don't drink...

Einhard

JohnJo, this isn't a pro- or anti-abortion thread, and I'd like to get the views of as divirgent a group as possible, so if you want to attack others for the views that the thread has solicited, then perhaps you should just leave this thread and post elsewhere?

metrovelvet

Einhard wrote: »

OK, we can be pedantic about it, or we can deal with the issue I'm rasing. If someone has a reasonable expectation of being the father (progenitor, whatever) of an unborn child, should he have a say in decisions made about that child prior to its birth? And if not, should he be forced to take responsibility for that child, once born, if he had been against the continuation of the pregnancy?

You titled this thread to include RIGHTS. You cant escape a legal discussion. Rights are not rights unless legally enforceable. So its not pedantic, it's essential.

Gordon

metrovelvet wrote: »

You can do it through amnio which does carry some risks but the courts dont accept that kind of dna testing. Also, amnio is done at 21-23 weeks, when its too late to have an abortion, unless you do it illegally. They only accept blood tests done through court approved labs once the baby is born. Paternity cannot be established legally until the child is born. There is no point in talking about rights before that point.

southsiderosie wrote: »

But medical (as opposed to suction) abortions - which are less invasive - have to be done within the first 8 weeks, and I thought that was the point where establishing paternity was just barely possible.

EDIT: well if it isn't legal until the baby is born, I guess that is a moot point anyway

In the UK, abortion is legal up until 24 weeks.

Whether or not the test is admissable as factually/legally correct, is moot in my opinion as I believe fathers should have rights, just as mothers do, so prenatal paternity tests should be considered legally binding.

JonJoeDali

Gordon wrote: »

In the UK, abortion is legal up until 24 weeks.

Based on some arbitrary "ethical" "standard".

JonJoeDali

Einhard wrote: »

perhaps you should just leave this thread and post elsewhere?

Nothing like a bit of good aul back seat moderating on a Saturday night.

Anyway, if you want to have a serious discussion, perhaps the humanities forum is for you? That said, I think you're a great fella all together and wish you'd stay.

Im Only 71Kg

the fact that anyone would choose to abort a child is terrible. there's simply no justifiable reason. not wanting to sacrifice your social life or your career is just not a logical reason. why would any man have children in this country when we've absolutely no rights in a court of law. it's terribly sad. regarding men's right to abortion..if women have the right..men should have equal rights.

Gordon

JonJoeDali wrote: »

Based on some arbitrary "ethical" "standard".

Sorry, I don't follow you, what are you getting at?

JonJoeDali

Im Only 71Kg wrote: »

the fact that anyone would choose to abort a child is terrible. there's simply no justifiable reason. not wanting to sacrifice your social life or your career is just not a logical reason. why would any man have children in this country when we've absolutely no rights in a court of law. it's terribly sad. regarding men's right to abortion..if women have the right..men should have equal rights.

I can see how a man can be totally abstracted away from the concept that is a child growing in a womb, but for a woman to be pro-abortion and have no empathy or guilt whatsoever is very unfeminine, anti-maternal and seriously off-putting.

Of course if you view women entirely as sex objects, abortion is a convenient route on the self-gratification road.