Political Crossfire Forums

[straw man]

I have heard so much talk here about "enslaving women" and the idea that whether to get an abortion or not is a decision for the woman and the woman only, and who are we to control her and what she does with her body etc. etc.

I was wondering, doesn't the father also have a say? I mean granted he's not carrying the child, he still supplied half the genetic material and was an equal partner in the child's creation. Of course if the man is nowhere to be found then he waives his rights, but besides that, doesn't he not get a say?

For the pro choice people: if the dad never split, but said let's stay here and raise and care for this child of ours, and yet the mom says no way "it's MY body and I want an abortion" then should she have the right to get an abortion anyway and destroy the child that the dad wanted to preserve?

[Izzibeth]

straw man wrote: I have heard so much talk here about "enslaving women" and the idea that whether to get an abortion or not is a decision for the woman and the woman only, and who are we to control her and what she does with her body etc. etc.

I was wondering, doesn't the father also have a say? I mean granted he's not carrying the child, he still supplied half the genetic material and was an equal partner in the child's creation. Of course if the man is nowhere to be found then he waives his rights, but besides that, doesn't he not get a say?

For the pro choice people: if the dad never split, but said let's stay here and raise and care for this child of ours, and yet the mom says no way "it's MY body and I want an abortion" then should she have the right to get an abortion anyway and destroy the child that the dad wanted to preserve?

to answer your question, unfortunately, yes. there is equal part in creating but the 'equality' of the situation ends the moment the woman gets pregnant. it is 50/50 in creation but 100/0 in carrying, nurturing, incubating, birthing. it is a sad but ... well.. factual truth. the father having a say is strictly moral, not biological. in a perfect world it would be 50/50 but in a perfect world there would also be no abortion (no one feeling they need an abortion for any reason). among other things that would be around in a perfect world. heh.

if a woman wants to get an abortion, then she will have it. a man saying "well, honey, i will stick around.. so just carry the child to term and i will raise it." can change his mind at any moment, can die, can become impaired, or any other number of scenarios (the most common being the first i mentioned). that is the problem with men having an equal say.
#1. you can't force a woman to maintain her pregnancy if she does not want to have a baby
#2. there is absolutely no guarantee that the man will stick around during or after the pregnancy.

it's a nice thought, but it just won't happen. the best you can hope for is that the two can reconcile and decide to keep the baby and raise it together or that the two are good enough friends that there is no doubt that the father would stick around to raise his child or that either way the woman has the resources to raise the child no matter what the outcome.

either way, it is a learning experience for both parties involved. regardless of what decisions are made.

[Kt]

straw man wrote: I was wondering, doesn't the father also have a say?
No, He simply supplied genetic material, for all intents and purposes, everything else is being done by the mother.

If men don't like it, why don't they have babies,.. Ohh! That's right, they can't, well, s*cks to be them! Nature simply isn't fair, and nature says that the father should have no say in the matter.

[Rubber Traits]

Helena` wrote: straw man wrote: I was wondering, doesn't the father also have a say?
No, He simply supplied genetic material, for all intents and purposes, everything else is being done by the mother.

If men don't like it, why don't they have babies,.. Ohh! That's right, they can't, well, s*cks to be them! Nature simply isn't fair, and nature says that the father should have no say in the matter.

Just because the father isn't carrying the baby doesn't mean he has no say. He still created it, and is still responsible for it if it's born in the form of child support and whatnot.

If all men do is supply genetic material, we should not be legally bound to have anything to do with the baby at all, abortions or support. As it is, it's a double standard.

[Kt]

Rubber Traits wrote: Helena` wrote: straw man wrote: I was wondering, doesn't the father also have a say?
No, He simply supplied genetic material, for all intents and purposes, everything else is being done by the mother.

If men don't like it, why don't they have babies,.. Ohh! That's right, they can't, well, s*cks to be them! Nature simply isn't fair, and nature says that the father should have no say in the matter.

Just because the father isn't carrying the baby doesn't mean he has no say. He still created it, and is still responsible for it if it's born in the form of child support and whatnot.

If all men do is supply genetic material, we should not be legally bound to have anything to do with the baby at all, abortions or support. As it is, it's a double standard.
When did I say I supported forcing the father to support said child?

[Rubber Traits]

Helena` wrote: Rubber Traits wrote: Helena` wrote: straw man wrote: I was wondering, doesn't the father also have a say?
No, He simply supplied genetic material, for all intents and purposes, everything else is being done by the mother.

If men don't like it, why don't they have babies,.. Ohh! That's right, they can't, well, s*cks to be them! Nature simply isn't fair, and nature says that the father should have no say in the matter.

Just because the father isn't carrying the baby doesn't mean he has no say. He still created it, and is still responsible for it if it's born in the form of child support and whatnot.

If all men do is supply genetic material, we should not be legally bound to have anything to do with the baby at all, abortions or support. As it is, it's a double standard.
When did I say I supported forcing the father to support said child?

You didn't, but the state says that we are tied deeper to the child than you do.

[Wyatt Earp]

Fathers don't have any rights, none zip, the only right you have is to keep it in your geans , after that forget about it.

[straw man]

I'm sorry I have to disagree with you guys.

Here is my argument:

"Having an abortion is killing a man's child"..

Therefore it is okay to kill a man's child?

If you think the woman owns the baby all to herself and gets the decision all to herself as to whether the mutually created child lives or dies, just because it's in her womb, you still can't say the man doesn't have a baby.

If a man impregnates a woman, and she is months pregnant, the man could accurately say, "I have sired a child. I am now a proud father. I have a child." Could he not say that?

What if the baby is a two year old toddler, and the mother decides to take the child with on her errands and so puts him into the baby seat in her fancy car. Now this car, the woman owns it fully. The title is in her name alone. This is all while the father is at work: the baby begins crying and it drives the mother mad. So she pulls up to a bridge, ties a brick to the baby's foot and throws it through the window into the lake so it drowns. Then she goes back home and when the husband returns, he asks "Where's Bobby?" She says, "oh well he was an inconvenience to me so I had him killed".

You don't suppose the man has any right to be a little upset here because his kid was killed behind his back? The woman is fully justified here?

I mean if your argument is:

A) The baby is in a womb.

B) The woman owns this womb all by herself.

C) Since the woman owns the place where the baby is located then she may have the baby killed with no say from anyone else.

You could use the same exact argument to justify her throwing the kid off the bridge because the kid was in her car. I can't necessarily feel you on these morals here.

[straw man]

Quote: Nature simply isn't fair, and nature says that the father should have no say in the matter.

"Nature" doesn't even acknowledge this "matter". As far as nature is concerned, there is no abortion intended. Abortion is an unnatural process for humans.

As far as I know very few species kill their own offspring. The general rule is that parents strive for their offspring's survival. Hamsters sometimes kill a kid or two but when they do it is meant for the survival of the other children.

But nature has intended all of our children to LIVE, to propegate the species. Therefore, nature cannot be used as allowing a mother to kill a man's child. Nature never intended for that. Women are designed and meant by nature to carry the child the whole nine months to term. You can't deny that. It just doesn't seem very fair, but THAT is what nature intended.

[X-Shocker]

straw man wrote: I have heard so much talk here about "enslaving women" and the idea that whether to get an abortion or not is a decision for the woman and the woman only, and who are we to control her and what she does with her body etc. etc.

I was wondering, doesn't the father also have a say? I mean granted he's not carrying the child, he still supplied half the genetic material and was an equal partner in the child's creation. Of course if the man is nowhere to be found then he waives his rights, but besides that, doesn't he not get a say?

For the pro choice people: if the dad never split, but said let's stay here and raise and care for this child of ours, and yet the mom says no way "it's MY body and I want an abortion" then should she have the right to get an abortion anyway and destroy the child that the dad wanted to preserve?

Sorry, bud. The father doesn't have a say in the matter. He had millions of choices and he chosed her; too bad!

[Scarlet Standard]

straw man wrote: You could use the same exact argument to justify her throwing the kid off the bridge because the kid was in her car. I can't necessarily feel you on these morals here.

I doubt many people are against the idea of mothers throwing their children off a bridge because the child is the property of the father. It's immoral because the child has a right to life.


The problem with your argument is this - say that a man and a woman each have equal rights to their children. In that case, a man can't force a woman not to have an abortion, and a woman can't force a man to allow her to. You're then left with a conundrum if the woman wants an abortion and the man doesn't.

[ambulans]

straw man wrote: I have heard so much talk here about "enslaving women" and the idea that whether to get an abortion or not is a decision for the woman and the woman only, and who are we to control her and what she does with her body etc. etc.

I was wondering, doesn't the father also have a say? I mean granted he's not carrying the child, he still supplied half the genetic material and was an equal partner in the child's creation. Of course if the man is nowhere to be found then he waives his rights, but besides that, doesn't he not get a say?

For the pro choice people: if the dad never split, but said let's stay here and raise and care for this child of ours, and yet the mom says no way "it's MY body and I want an abortion" then should she have the right to get an abortion anyway and destroy the child that the dad wanted to preserve?

I believe if the father is still around he should still have a choice. It takes two to make the baby, granted the father doesn't carry it. Now, of course if the father isn't around I believe whole-heartedly the woman should have the choice.

[Azuresidus]

You simply cannot force a woman to endure an unwanted pregnancy. Pregnancies are difficult when you do want the child. Sickness, weight gain, any difficulties that arise, and labor are not pleasant.

Yes, it would be wonderful if a child that was wanted, by anyone, especially their own genetic family/father, could be born and have a life. Certainly. But it is the woman's say in the end, because she is the one who will have to go through everything along the way. If there were another choice, then perhaps my position would be different. A willing surrogate, or a (at this moment) fictional incubation chamber would mean that I would be all for the father having equal "ownership" of the embryo or fetus.

And in a rational and balanced relationship, there should certainly be discussion of the possibility that she could carry it and he could then take responsibility. But that is not always the case. I honestly hate the idea of abortions when someone wants the baby; but, until you can remove the burden from a mother who doesn't want it, I say that it's her call.

[Izzibeth]

ambulans wrote: straw man wrote: I have heard so much talk here about "enslaving women" and the idea that whether to get an abortion or not is a decision for the woman and the woman only, and who are we to control her and what she does with her body etc. etc.

I was wondering, doesn't the father also have a say? I mean granted he's not carrying the child, he still supplied half the genetic material and was an equal partner in the child's creation. Of course if the man is nowhere to be found then he waives his rights, but besides that, doesn't he not get a say?

For the pro choice people: if the dad never split, but said let's stay here and raise and care for this child of ours, and yet the mom says no way "it's MY body and I want an abortion" then should she have the right to get an abortion anyway and destroy the child that the dad wanted to preserve?

I believe if the father is still around he should still have a choice. It takes two to make the baby, granted the father doesn't carry it. Now, of course if the father isn't around I believe whole-heartedly the woman should have the choice.

well, like i said, you are assuming that the father, who may be around on day 1.. will stick around 6 months into it. that is the problem. there is no guarantee that the father, who might say "yeah, baby, let's do this together!" during the first month is going to be there saying "this is the best decision we ever made!" during the seventh month. it is not an equal burden although they had an equal part in conceiving. the man has a choice to walk away and abandon the pregnancy. the woman does not (except through abortion). therefore, it is not an 'equality' issue. both of them are not in the same situation/equal situation. the woman is the only one with the burden and is the only one who should, ultimately, have a say in whether or not that burden continues to be carried.

not all women go after the man when the child is born. my former roommate had her child and when the father (after getting the paternity test which came back positive) insisted on telling everyone that he wasn't the baby's father, she said "i don't want him to even be able to say he helps support a child." and she has let him go do what he wants to do. he hasn't seen his son since he was born over a year ago and she wants it to stay that way. i'm sure she is not the only woman on the face of this earth who has chosen that path. in a perfect world, as i said, the two people would be able to come up with a good solution which involved the two of them making decisions together... but there are some things in this life that only one person can decide upon.

[straw man]

Izzibeth wrote: ambulans wrote: straw man wrote: I have heard so much talk here about "enslaving women" and the idea that whether to get an abortion or not is a decision for the woman and the woman only, and who are we to control her and what she does with her body etc. etc.

I was wondering, doesn't the father also have a say? I mean granted he's not carrying the child, he still supplied half the genetic material and was an equal partner in the child's creation. Of course if the man is nowhere to be found then he waives his rights, but besides that, doesn't he not get a say?

For the pro choice people: if the dad never split, but said let's stay here and raise and care for this child of ours, and yet the mom says no way "it's MY body and I want an abortion" then should she have the right to get an abortion anyway and destroy the child that the dad wanted to preserve?

I believe if the father is still around he should still have a choice. It takes two to make the baby, granted the father doesn't carry it. Now, of course if the father isn't around I believe whole-heartedly the woman should have the choice.

well, like i said, you are assuming that the father, who may be around on day 1.. will stick around 6 months into it. that is the problem. there is no guarantee that the father, who might say "yeah, baby, let's do this together!" during the first month is going to be there saying "this is the best decision we ever made!" during the seventh month. it is not an equal burden although they had an equal part in conceiving. the man has a choice to walk away and abandon the pregnancy. the woman does not (except through abortion). therefore, it is not an 'equality' issue. both of them are not in the same situation/equal situation. the woman is the only one with the burden and is the only one who should, ultimately, have a say in whether or not that burden continues to be carried.

not all women go after the man when the child is born. my former roommate had her child and when the father (after getting the paternity test which came back positive) insisted on telling everyone that he wasn't the baby's father, she said "i don't want him to even be able to say he helps support a child." and she has let him go do what he wants to do. he hasn't seen his son since he was born over a year ago and she wants it to stay that way. i'm sure she is not the only woman on the face of this earth who has chosen that path. in a perfect world, as i said, the two people would be able to come up with a good solution which involved the two of them making decisions together... but there are some things in this life that only one person can decide upon.

Those are some very good points and it is hard to say much against them.

[LostSoul3412]

Unfortunately, the father has a choice as to whether or not he has a choice. While I would take much interest in my own potential children, any father holds the option of taking off at the first signs of pregnancy. Do father's have a say in abortion? Yes. He helped create the embroy, he has the say in aborting it. With any hope, the parents can come to an agreement on the issue, should there be a continous dispute, I believe that the mother has the final say.

So does the father have a say? Yes. Does the father have authority? No.

[Captain Lovebird]

Helena` wrote: straw man wrote: I was wondering, doesn't the father also have a say?
No, He simply supplied genetic material, for all intents and purposes, everything else is being done by the mother.

If men don't like it, why don't they have babies,.. Ohh! That's right, they can't, well, s*cks to be them! Nature simply isn't fair, and nature says that the father should have no say in the matter.

Nature simply isn't fair... maybe, but it's funny how easily women accept this here... in this context, where it pertains to men's "rights"

But when nature is not fair because women become pregnant and are "enslaved" to the baby, how does "s*cks to be them" sound?

Besides, "nature" has not said the father should have no say in the matter. You did.

[gemma]

straw man wrote: If a man impregnates a woman, and she is months pregnant, the man could accurately say, "I have sired a child. I am now a proud father. I have a child." Could he not say that?

Well, he could say that if he wanted... but it's more common to hear "We're going to have a baby/child/boy/girl!"

straw man wrote:
What if the baby is a two year old toddler, and the mother decides to take the child with on her errands and so puts him into the baby seat in her fancy car. Now this car, the woman owns it fully. The title is in her name alone. This is all while the father is at work: the baby begins crying and it drives the mother mad. So she pulls up to a bridge, ties a brick to the baby's foot and throws it through the window into the lake so it drowns. Then she goes back home and when the husband returns, he asks "Where's Bobby?" She says, "oh well he was an inconvenience to me so I had him killed".

Interesting analogy, but I'm not sure it follows itself very well. She can hire a babysitter. Also, others can ride in her "car," she can sell her "car" and get a truck ... see that it kind of breaks down after not too long?

[Gitana]

Actually, nature doesn't offer the father a say at all. A man can never even know he is the father until paternity testing (one reason why matriarchal lines make so much more sense). Nature has left producing babies primarily to the female - men dislike this idea because we live in a patriarichal society, and it places them in an 'inferior' position regarding offspring.

[Captain Lovebird]

Gitana wrote: Actually, nature doesn't offer the father a say at all.


How does nature prevent the father from having a say? Because you think a paternity test must be a pre-requisite to have a say? If a man thinks he's the father, and the mother thinks he's the father too, then there is no reason why they can't negotiate who gets "a say" for themselves.

Gitana wrote: A man can never even know he is the father until paternity testing (one reason why matriarchal lines make so much more sense).


So what? This does not have to have any bearing at all upon whether or not the father (or the supposed father) should have a say in any childbirth issues.

Gitana wrote: Nature has left producing babies primarily to the female - men dislike this idea because we live in a patriarichal society,


Thank you for speaking on behalf of all mankind.

Gitana wrote: and it places them in an 'inferior' position regarding offspring.

It's not just men in an inferior position, it is also the unborn child, whom you want to relegate to a piece of property to justify killing it as a matter of convenience.