Should men have the right to choose?

Thank you minx. That is exactly what I was wondering. I, too, think that if the man wants his child then, by law, he should have the right to challenge the mother's abortion decision. To me, that's fair. Currently, we don't have to take the man's feelings into consideration but...if it takes two to make a baby, then shouldn't it take the same two to determine what they both want to do with the baby?

I do not believe it should be because one parent wants a child. If the person carrying the child (the emotional and mental and physical health of this individual directly relates to the health of a child) does not want said child, what could that do to a child? It may not only result in a loss of the child, but of the mother as well....

Yes - I think it should. If the child is wanted by EITHER parent - it should be allowed to come into the world... And receive all the love that parent has to give.

That's my point. We can go have an abortion any time that we want to without telling the father. Yes, alot of men would still say 'hey, go have the abortion' but there are men out there who are devastated by the fact that their' child was aborted and he didn't know anything until after the fact. Should we change the law to include a father's rights?

Hello again. I would just like to add that at 36 weeks pregnancy I found out I was expecting a spina bifida baby. I went to the fetal medicine unit and they offered me an abortion. The father and I were horrified at that offer just a month from the birth. The fact is if I had said yes the father would have been really upset and this knowledge might have made him extremely depressed.

Wow max, I gave birth to a perfectly healthy baby at 35 weeks. To kill a baby at 36 weeks is murder big time. Those people are sick.

Drumman, My passionate friend! Boy! You have been busy on this discussion! LOL! I think you are right and YOU also bring up an interesting point...if the mother wanted to kill the baby after it was born, the courts would grant the father custody. So shouldn't our laws give the father that same right BEFORE the child is born? The fathers' rights should be recognized on an enforceable level.

Prinzess, That is all too true. I just saw something similar in the news. I'll never understand people!

A lot more would happen to the mother if a child was born and wanted to kill the baby.

Hey Prinzess! I disagree. Didn't you see the 'pregnant man' on 20/20? LOL! You know I actually thought they had done some weird science thing before they fully explained? LOL! I understand our laws too and why they are in place but I don't think they are fair to the men who really want to raise their' children.

The only way the man didn't choose is if the woman got pregnant by herself. Besides, if the woman didn't want to be pregnant why did she choose that in the first place?

No I am saying, men don't have any rights because they aren't the one who is pregnant.

That is true. But at the same time why shouldn't we give men the legal right to object if he wants the baby. Are we not being completely one sided here by leaving it all up to the woman? I know of a man who was devastated to hear that his girlfriend had aborted his child. She never bothered to say anything to him until after it was done. Some men will still want the abortion performed but those who don't and have no right at present to do anything about it have to deal with the grief of "what if?" The law has to be fair. So what do we do?

I do agree with you that women have all the say. But my concern would be what would the woman do to the child in her if she is a vendictive woman. You do have a point though so please do not get me wrong.

I'm just trying to see this from a different angle. From the vantage point of a man who wants his child but has no say in the matter. Women have very strong opinions on abortion, whether it be for or against. I wonder if there isn't a way to be more fair to the men who want their' children. I admit that this is a really tough question where no clear lines have been drawn. That is why I asked it. I think it's very interesting to know what other people think about this.

While that is true...'A woman should make the choice before conception'...currently the law is bent toward women only. Shouldn't the father of the child have the 'right' to atleast be heard if he wants the child?

Given the parameters of the question I do agree that the father should have the right to be heard. After all the woman didn't make the baby all by herself.

It should not be about the law, or anyone else for that matter. If a mother does not want to raise her child, or go through labor and carrying of a child, she should have the right to decide what happens to her body. Regardless. Before conception sounds like a good idea, but too many elements come into play here. Some people discover they are pregnant, and then get cheated on discovering that is not the man they want to raise their child with and do not think they could manage elsewise. I believe in a healthy relationship, all things equal, a man should be entitled to some involvement in the decision, but in the end a person's body is her or his body. A child cannot sustain itself without the mother until after birth, so until then, it is the mother's body.

You may say so! :) Your' answer went straight to the heart of abortion. It should be a much more rare thing than what it currently is. The reasons that you listed are all true in my mind as well. In this day and age, with all of the children that are being raised by single mothers, you would think that society would be more accepting of these women and their' children. Hopefully we will get there soon!

Thank you. I'm glad you said that. I agree with you.

While I agree with what you have said, I have to ask this question....Rather than depend on women to 'give the man the option', should we not change the law to include the man's right to object to the abortion? If he wants to raise his child, should he not have the right to take it to court?

By all means it should be a law, I'm afraid that while I was typing the response I was thinking of what would be the right thing for a woman to do in the situation and not the legal side of it. I do think that since there are women who will do what suits them it would be far more fair to both to simply have the law that if a man wants to raise his child and the woman wants an abortion then his rights should also be considered. If he's fit and able to raise a kid, why destroy it. To me, it would be like finding a good home for a pet and then rather than give them a good home, you have them put to sleep. It makes no sense. [b]MERRY CHRISTMAS!!! ~~AT PEACE WITHIN~~ **STAND STRONG AND TRUST IN GOD**[/b]

Hi Tamarafireheart, I'm sorry that you couldn't have children. I also think that for the men who want to raise their' children, they should have a voice in the decision.

It is right when both parties make the decision. But I wonder if we need to make it so that it is required that both parties make the decision so that the man is heard. We tend to ignore them when we make these decisions.

There is a man on page two of this discussion who went through this very thing. Prevention would be the key but with the amount of abortions happening, prevention isn't working. It is a hard question and I thank you for your' answer!

Told ya this one could get a little hairy. Sorry. All I'm asking is if the law should include the man's rights. Many men will still want the abortion but, as it is now, there are many men who are mourning the loss of a child that they did want to raise. The Supreme Court has said that abortion is legal. But should the law also be fair to the Fathers? Aren't we lopsided right now?

All you have to do is go through 9 months of a little inconveniance and then give the baby to the father who wants it and never have to worry about it again. Are you saying you would rather kill someone?

Well, First, you are right. No one group should try to force every woman to live by their' set of moral standards. We agree on that. I also agree that in the case of rape, the decision should be left to the mother and only the mother. She didn't ask to be raped. I do like your' idea about having the father adopt the child and pay all of the bills. If the father truly wants to raise his child and has the means to do so...that would be a great thing if the mother agreed to it! Thank you for your' input!

There are always exceptions that why we let the politicians make all those confounded and confusing things. The first situation you gave-there's no controversy there. The man wants to keep the baby that a complete stranger is having. After doing the bumping nasties for a night they ain't exactly strangers no more. If he wants the baby and her health is not endangered then too bad, it takes two to tango and they did just that. The second situation you handed out is a rapist and a rapist has no rights. He is a criminal and he has no rights to do nothing except rot in the deepest darkest prison we can send him too. The woman has all the say in that situation. It's really easy for me to see.

It isn't that easy though is it? The woman in the first situation doesn't want to be pregnant. Doesn't want the risk of pregnancy. Doesn't want to risk her future fertility. There is no assurance that something won't go wrong. Why should she have to take this risk for a stranger? Bumping uglies in the night doesn't change the fact that they are indeed strangers. Why should a stranger have any say over another persons medical decisions? The termination of an unwanted pregnancy in the first trimester is nothing more or less than a medical decision. Second case, that of a rape. Well the rapist is convicted and likely will not go to trial for months. It is likely that that rapist will either be let out on bail (bond) or will remain in jail awaiting trial. In the US you are innocent until proven in a court of law, guilty. This means that the rapist has the very same rights as the "stranger" in scenario #1. He has the right to demand that his victim continue the pregnancy because he wants the child to be born alive. If this is true and men have the right to prevent a woman from obtaining an abortion during the first trimester than his victim will now being forced to carry to term the result of a violent attack, in essence she will be victimized twice. In truth three times as she will then either give birth and give the child up or raise it herself, a constant reminder of her victimization. You never addressed my third scenario. There is absolutely no way in which to write laws that protect women while giving men a voice. The only voice a man can have is the voice that allows him to "opt out" of parenthood in the first trimester.

Ok. Good answer. But what I'm asking is...should the laws be changed in order to include the father's rights to the baby? Should he have the right to take the mother to court to stop an abortion if he wants to raise the baby?