What would you do if...

[SaraJayne]

Everyday there is another thread that reminds me of all the nuts that cohabit the world around me.

I hate to break it to (general) you but if you are pro-choice you wouldn't be forcing an abortion on anyone. The whole point of pro-choice (which I am) is allowing the parents (and it should be a decision that both parents come to in my opinion) make the choice and accept it whether it is the choice you would make or not be it abortion, adoption, or having and keeping the baby.

Ahhh no. The decision is strictly up to the mother, not anyone else.

 

[FireDancer]

Well I wouldn't have went there, but since you did, no it shouldn't be the choice of both parents. I would never have an abortion or even suggest it to my teenage child, but a woman or girl should never be forced to have child they don't want because the "father" disagrees. You would have to conduct an amnio just to prove paternity anyway, which would only prolong the situation making the abortion more painful for all parties.

I don't want to force anyone to have a child they don't want either but I find it sad that fathers get no say in what happens to unborn children that are just as much theirs even though they aren't physically carrying them. I don't even see many people mentioning the father at all here. They should be part of the discussion even if they don't get to make the final decision. Having the father or father's family willing to help does make a difference. He should be getting custody of the child part of the time if he wants it (unless the hypothetical 15 year old here was raped of course).

I also find it hypocritical to say that no mother should have to have a child they don't want (which I agree with by the way) but to say men do have to have children that they don't want. I'm not suggesting if they don't want them that abortions are forced but just as a mother can choose to not have the financial burden of a child they choose not to have a father needs the same legal out (signing away parental rights for example).

There needs to be more equity without forcing anyone to make a choice they don't want to make either way. Of course fathers are treated like second-class citizens when it comes to their children by much of society so I'm not really surprised.

 

[Pigeon]

Everyday there is another thread that reminds me of all the nuts that cohabit the world around me.

I hate to break it to (general) you but if you are pro-choice you wouldn't be forcing an abortion on anyone. The whole point of pro-choice (which I am) is allowing the parents (and it should be a decision that both parents come to in my opinion) make the choice and accept it whether it is the choice you would make or not be it abortion, adoption, or having and keeping the baby.

I completely disagree that the father's opinion counts unless he's the one who is pregnant.

I'm completely pro-choice and I agree that you cannot force anyone to have an abortion. But neither can a pregnant teenager force her parents to provide anything at all for a baby that she is completely unequipped to parent.

 

[luvsJack]

Everyday there is another thread that reminds me of all the nuts that cohabit the world around me.

I hate to break it to (general) you but if you are pro-choice you wouldn't be forcing an abortion on anyone. The whole point of pro-choice (which I am) is allowing the parents (and it should be a decision that both parents come to in my opinion) make the choice and accept it whether it is the choice you would make or not be it abortion, adoption, or having and keeping the baby.

You are right, the whole point of "pro-choice" is that it IS a choice. And while it really is the choice of the girl/woman who is carrying the baby, I think it is very sad that so many would not allow the boy to have a voice in it.

IMHO, one of the reasons that so many young men think they can easily walk out of the life of their child and the girl/woman that is carrying that child is that we (society) make it that easy by not allowing him to be a part of the decision making. If he can't help to decide whether abortion, adoption or keeping the baby is the best choice, why should he have to take responsibility for that choice?



As for paternity (another poster brought up), I certainly hope that I have, at the very least, taught my child enough morals that paternity would not be in question (unless of course, the boy brings it in to question and at that point I guess his choice would be apparent anyway.)

 

[FireDancer]

You are right, the whole point of "pro-choice" is that it IS a choice. And while it really is the choice of the girl/woman who is carrying the baby, I think it is very sad that so many would not allow the boy to have a voice in it.

IMHO, one of the reasons that so many young men think they can easily walk out of the life of their child and the girl/woman that is carrying that child is that we (society) make it that easy by not allowing him to be a part of the decision making. If he can't help to decide whether abortion, adoption or keeping the baby is the best choice, why should he have to take responsibility for that choice?



As for paternity (another poster brought up), I certainly hope that I have, at the very least, taught my child enough morals that paternity would not be in question (unless of course, the boy brings it in to question and at that point I guess his choice would be apparent anyway.)

I agree. I know it isn't easy but just because a father doesn't physically carry the baby should erode his rights. I realize it is hard to make them equal without forcing a an abortion decision either way (which I do not want to do nor am I suggesting) but there are solutions out there. If there is a paternity question, and I would wager most pregnancies there are not (at least I hope), then of course the waters muddy and the situation changes.

I want to reiterate I would not force anyone to have a child they don't want or abort one they do but there should be some input from the father in the form of discussion and a legal mechanism for them to opt out if they don't want the child but the mother does. I realize that going the other way is much harder and in the end it will be up to the mother but there should be a way to have her also sign away her parental rights after birth and have the father cover the cost of the pregnancy and birth. If she wants the abortion she should ultimately be allowed to get one but it would add one more choice and more choice is good, isn't it? That is all I'm saying. I realize that wasn't clear in my first post and that is my fault. Sorry.

 

[morethananyonex]

I see what you're saying Firedancer, and I agree in a perfect world it would be the decision of both parents whether to abort, adopt or parent. How would that work though? If a father wants the child aborted, can you force the mother to abort? If a father doesn't want the child aborted, can you force the mother to carry the child and give birth? It's a slippery slope, because if you start doing those things well then wouldn't it make sense for a wife to be able to force her husband to have a vasectomy or for a husband to force his wife to get her tubes tied? How about other medical procedures?

It isn't fair, I agree, they made the child together. But there's really no way around it when you are talking about abortion. The father does (or if not, I believe should) have equal say in choosing to parent or adopt though.

 

[EPCOTatNight]

So, if the man doesn't want the child, he can be forced to pay child support for 18 years. But, if he wants the child and the mother gets an abortion, he has no rights whatsoever. As a man that would accept and raise my child with or without the mother, that pisses me off. Your body, your choice. Ok, I get that. But, there should be some legal mechanism in case for the father. The "mother" should have to pay the man if she has an abortion and the man wanted the child.

 

[FireDancer]

I see what you're saying Firedancer, and I agree in a perfect world it would be the decision of both parents whether to abort, adopt or parent. How would that work though? If a father wants the child aborted, can you force the mother to abort? If a father doesn't want the child aborted, can you force the mother to carry the child and give birth? It's a slippery slope, because if you start doing those things well then wouldn't it make sense for a wife to be able to force her husband to have a vasectomy or for a husband to force his wife to get her tubes tied? How about other medical procedures?

It isn't fair, I agree, they made the child together. But there's really no way around it when you are talking about abortion. The father does (or if not, I believe should) have equal say in choosing to parent or adopt though.

I don't think either forcing an abortion or forcing a birth is the way to handle it.

In the scenario where the father wants an abortion and mother does not he should be able to sign away his parental rights. He gets no contact but also shares no financial burden.

In the opposite scenario there should be a way for the father (and his insurance) to incur the cost of the pregnancy and delivery and then the mother has the same option of signing away her parental rights, just like the father did. This of course would be a choice and not a mandate and in this scenario if the mother ultimately chose abortion than that is what it will be. It does open up another option in which basically you are opting for adoption by the father. I don't see anything wrong with offering more choices.

 

[Colleen27]

IMHO, one of the reasons that so many young men think they can easily walk out of the life of their child and the girl/woman that is carrying that child is that we (society) make it that easy by not allowing him to be a part of the decision making. If he can't help to decide whether abortion, adoption or keeping the baby is the best choice, why should he have to take responsibility for that choice?

The hard truth is, though, that it isn't his life that will be ruined. He will dictate the terms of his involvement with the child, and if he so chooses he can walk away with at most a financial cost. He won't be the one who is kicked out/faces pressure to drop out of school. He isn't the one who will have to quit extracurriculars or give up dreams of a traditional college experience. He isn't the one who will need babysitters to date or hang out with friends. He's not the one who will lose friends or have a hard time finding a suitable mate when he is ready to marry because of his "baggage". Not only does the entire physical toll of pregnancy and birth rest with the mother, the vast majority of the social and emotional toll does as well. It is only fitting that the mother should have the final word on whether or not to assume that responsibility.

 

[RitaE]

As I said in my first post, people mostly consider this to be a teen daughter problem, but birth control options for men are extremely limited in comparison to women.

I think most can agree it is unfair on some sort of theoretical level that men have at best a lesser vote. However, it is a biological fact and if they care that deeply about it they'll keep control of their sperm.

 

[Colleen27]

I don't think either forcing an abortion or forcing a birth is the way to handle it.

In the scenario where the father wants an abortion and mother does not he should be able to sign away his parental rights. He gets no contact but also shares no financial burden.

In the opposite scenario there should be a way for the father (and his insurance) to incur the cost of the pregnancy and delivery and then the mother has the same option of signing away her parental rights, just like the father did. This of course would be a choice and not a mandate and in this scenario if the mother ultimately chose abortion than that is what it will be. It does open up another option in which basically you are opting for adoption by the father. I don't see anything wrong with offering more choices.

Except right now, because of the social support net we have in place the law considers it beneficial for every child to have two legal parents responsible for the costs of raising that child. Do we really want a system where parents can opt out of financial obligation to the children they create, knowing that households headed by single parents are far more likely to end up in poverty and on public assistance?

 

[ols386]

So, if the man doesn't want the child, he can be forced to pay child support for 18 years. But, if he wants the child and the mother gets an abortion, he has no rights whatsoever. As a man that would accept and raise my child with or without the mother, that pisses me off. Your body, your choice. Ok, I get that. But, there should be some legal mechanism in case for the father. The "mother" should have to pay the man if she has an abortion and the man wanted the child.

Pay him? And how much would that amount be? That doesnt' make sense.

 

[FireDancer]

The hard truth is, though, that it isn't his life that will be ruined. He will dictate the terms of his involvement with the child, and if he so chooses he can walk away with at most a financial cost. He won't be the one who is kicked out/faces pressure to drop out of school. He isn't the one who will have to quit extracurriculars or give up dreams of a traditional college experience. He isn't the one who will need babysitters to date or hang out with friends. He's not the one who will lose friends or have a hard time finding a suitable mate when he is ready to marry because of his "baggage". Not only does the entire physical toll of pregnancy and birth rest with the mother, the vast majority of the social and emotional toll does as well. It is only fitting that the mother should have the final word on whether or not to assume that responsibility.

I agree with the bolded but that doesn't mean that the father shouldn't be consulted and that step has been missing from just about every post on this thread as though the baby in the hypothetical scenario doesn't even have a father. It is quite sad really.

 

[tyzzle]

I agree. I know it isn't easy but just because a father doesn't physically carry the baby should erode his rights. I realize it is hard to make them equal without forcing a an abortion decision either way (which I do not want to do nor am I suggesting) but there are solutions out there. If there is a paternity question, and I would wager most pregnancies there are not (at least I hope), then of course the waters muddy and the situation changes.

I want to reiterate I would not force anyone to have a child they don't want or abort one they do but there should be some input from the father in the form of discussion and a legal mechanism for them to opt out if they don't want the child but the mother does. I realize that going the other way is much harder and in the end it will be up to the mother but there should be a way to have her also sign away her parental rights after birth and have the father cover the cost of the pregnancy and birth. If she wants the abortion she should ultimately be allowed to get one but it would add one more choice and more choice is good, isn't it? That is all I'm saying. I realize that wasn't clear in my first post and that is my fault. Sorry.

Unless men start having babies paternity will always be a question in these situations. If you tried to make abortion legal only by consent of both parties, then all a woman has to do is deny paternity to the father in question. So to make fathers have a say there would have to be in utero testing

 

[FireDancer]

Except right now, because of the social support net we have in place the law considers it beneficial for every child to have two legal parents responsible for the costs of raising that child. Do we really want a system where parents can opt out of financial obligation to the children they create, knowing that households headed by single parents are far more likely to end up in poverty and on public assistance?

I agree that a two parent house is best. Ultimately though there must be no gender bias in the law. If there is a mechanism for a mother to decide that she doesn't want to be financially responsible for raising a child she doesn't want there must be a mechanism for a father to do the same. We should never have a situation where one gender has the option while the other doesn't.

As it sits right now, under the law, a mother can choose abortion to elevate herself of the financial burden of a child even if the father wants the child. I think there has to be an equal way for a father to opt of of the same financial burden in the same scenario without forcing anything physically on the mother, that is all.

I should also point out that I would never sign away my rights as a father or not be 100% involved in my child's life but that is my choice which I wouldn't force on anyone else.

 

[tyzzle]

I agree that a two parent house is best. Ultimately though there must be no gender bias in the law. If there is a mechanism for a mother to decide that she doesn't want to be financially responsible for raising a child she doesn't want there must be a mechanism for a father to do the same. We should never have a situation where one gender has the option while the other doesn't.

As it sits right now, under the law, a mother can choose abortion to elevate herself of the financial burden of a child even if the father wants the child. I think there has to be an equal way for a father to opt of of the same financial burden in the same scenario without forcing anything physically on the mother, that is all.

I should also point out that I would never sign away my rights as a father or not be 100% involved in my child's life but that is my choice which I wouldn't force on anyone else.

They do have choice, abstain, vasectomy, or wrap it up. Women just have more choices

 

[FireDancer]

Unless men start having babies paternity will always be a question in these situations. If you tried to make abortion legal only by consent of both parties, then all a woman has to do is deny paternity to the father in question. So to make fathers have a say there would have to be in utero testing

Except I never said abortion should be legal only with the consent of both parties. Perhaps my original post wasn't clear but I thought I clarified that.

Also, yes, technically no man can ever know with absolute certainty that a child is his unless there is a paternity test but a mother can be 100% sure that a particular man is the father of her child if she isn't sleeping with anyone other than him. Whether or not the mother is honest about whether or not there is a paternity question is up to her and I don't think there is a way to legislate that.

They do have choice, abstain, vasectomy, or wrap it up. Women just have more choices

Ugh. Yes, both parties have choices before conception but this thread is about what happens after conception. A man's choices shouldn't stop with conception. Again, not saying they should force or block abortions. Why is no one even mentioning talking to them and asking for input, even if in the end they go against it. That is the real problem with this thread, it is as if they don't exist but they do exist and are just as important to that child as the mother long-term. The pregnancy is a short 9 months compared to the life of the child.

 

[morethananyonex]

I don't think either forcing an abortion or forcing a birth is the way to handle it.

In the scenario where the father wants an abortion and mother does not he should be able to sign away his parental rights. He gets no contact but also shares no financial burden.

In the opposite scenario there should be a way for the father (and his insurance) to incur the cost of the pregnancy and delivery and then the mother has the same option of signing away her parental rights, just like the father did. This of course would be a choice and not a mandate and in this scenario if the mother ultimately chose abortion than that is what it will be. It does open up another option in which basically you are opting for adoption by the father. I don't see anything wrong with offering more choices.

I think the financial costs are the least of the problems. I think it's safe to assume you've never given birth or been pregnant. First, how do you monitor the mother 24/7 to insure she is taking proper care of herself and not doing anything to harm the child? Second, there is way more to pregnancy and birth then just the cost, I would consider the emotional and physical "costs" much much greater then the financial ones. So, do you compensate the mother for basically being a surrogate for the father? Is financial compensation good enough? Do you just say too bad so sad he wants the baby? Well now there go the mother's rights.

I think it would be awesome if fathers could be treated more equal in these situations, but the logistics of pregnancy just don't allow it IMO.

So, if the man doesn't want the child, he can be forced to pay child support for 18 years. But, if he wants the child and the mother gets an abortion, he has no rights whatsoever. As a man that would accept and raise my child with or without the mother, that pisses me off. Your body, your choice. Ok, I get that. But, there should be some legal mechanism in case for the father. The "mother" should have to pay the man if she has an abortion and the man wanted the child.

I agree, ideally that's how it should work. But how do you make that work? How do you force a woman to carry a child and give birth to a child that she doesn't want? I can't think of any way to make it work unless a man could carry the child instead.

 

[sbell111]

OMG, that just makes my skin crawl, and I don't care if I get in trouble, but a "medical solution" to getting rid of a baby? Just makes me SICK.

Calling it just a 'medical solution' has a coldness that isn't appropriate to the issue, in my opinion, but referring to it as a 'perfect' medical solution shows me something about the author that I do not wish to see in my fellow man.

 

[sbell111]

I'm not punishing anyone. I'm laying out the house rules of my house. No pregnant teens and no babies I'm neither the parent of or I didn't invite. Period.

Everyone who makes these choices is "manipulated" by circumstance, are they not? How is the 30-year-old who just lost her job, got pregnant unexpectedly and has no supportive family or anything else have any more choice than the 15-year-old? Plenty of people who have abortions as adults - and most people who have abortions ARE adults - choose to do so because they feel they have no other option, and they're generally right. Same here.

I'm absolutely in favour of adoption. If the choice is adoption, then someone is going to have to find someplace to live for a while (and these places do still exist) - not because I don't support adoption, I totally do. But because there is always the option of changing one's mind, and I will not be put in the position where someone thinks or says they want to go that route, has the baby and then says 'oh, but now I want to keep it....' and then I'm changing the locks on a newborn and someone had a baby 24 hours ago? I don't know I could do that, but they're not staying, so we're not getting in a situation where that's a possibility - because it is, again, imo, better if that choice (staying here) is absolutely off the table and it'll make it simpler for someone to not entertain the choice of keeping the baby.

As long as that is the choice and it's stuck to, though, I'll help and the door is open to come back. It's not however, the best choice, it's a distant third behind not getting pregnant in the first dang place and abortion.

I'd hope it's clear that hiding a pregnancy until it's too late to abort wouldn't be wise on any level because yes, that will buy you a ticket out the door immediately. Want an abortion and don't have the money? I'll loan it to you while pointing to the 8,000 drugstores between here and the nearest clinic at which they sell innumerable birth control options. Try and pull 'oh, well,can't do anything about it now!' There's the door.



I think you read me wrong. I didn't know any then, I don't know any now. My high school had exactly one teen parent in its history (to date as far as I know), and she was immediately chucked out of the school when she revealed she eas pregnant and planned to stay that way. I believe she stayed with her parents though, and went with a familial adoption - she predated me by some years.

There were a few people I knew as a teen who had families that probably would not have tossed them out, but most people I knew, knew that would be the instant reaction. Same as now - most people I know have a 'they wouldn't DARE' reaction to the idea of a teen coming home saying they were going to be a parent at 15. Because, well, they wouldn't dare. It'd be like 'btw, I've decided to drop out of high school, become a Hari Krishna and spend my days down at the airport selling carnations.' Just... hah, no, that's not happening. If you want to derail your life to that extent, there's the door, do it on your own dime.

I'm thinking that you 1) don't have kids, 2) don't intend on having kids, AND 3) are just having fun with the community by making these posts.