Results so far:
| No | 25% | 79 votes | Total: 322 votes | |
| Yes | 75% | 243 votes |
To say that a father should have some say in whether or not a woman has an abortion is to say that it is alright for a man to use a woman's body as a vehicle for producing a child for his own purposes. This is clearly an abuse. A man may justify this by saying that it is his child as well, but the onus of childbearing and child raising will always fall on the mother.
Any time a man chooses to have sex with a woman he runs the risk of creating a child. He knows this, as much as he may argue that he was tricked or wants to keep a baby that he has through random chance fathered. There is a very simple way to avoid this risk: don't have sex! Unless the mother is holding a gun to his head, he is choosing to risk an unwanted pregnancy.
The one exception to this would be a married couple that has agreed that if the woman becomes pregnant they will keep the child. In this case the mother has already thoughtfully taken on the risk, as has the father. Both have agreed to take on the responsibility of any child their union produces.
Is this an argument against having premarital sex? Absolutely not. This is an argument for men taking on part of the risk for an activity that brings them enjoyment, knowing that there is always a chance that a pregnancy will occur. In a sense, this is really no different than accepting that driving while drunk could end up with an involuntary manslaughter conviction. It is called assumption of the risk.
When a man chooses to have sex with a woman, he is doing so with the knowledge that if a pregnancy results this will occur in the woman's body, an area over which he has no control. Until we have a law that requires men who father children they don't want to have a vasectomy, we can only see the father's rights movement as another example of men believing that their wants and needs are more important than a woman's.
Learn more about this author, Frances Simon.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Of course fathers should have a say in whether or not a woman aborts. It is his child too. Think about this, a father who does not want the mother of his child to abort is then on the hook for child support anyway, should she decide at the last minute to not abort or adopt. This is his right. If a mother wants to abort anyway, then she is selfish and is only looking out for her own interests. Birth control is always an option for couples who do not want children, for whatever the reason should have that choice. Father, or potential fathers have only 2 options for birth control, either no relations or a condom which is pretty unreliable to start with as they can and do break quite frequently. But a woman's options for birth control is almost unlimited: depo provera, the pill, spermicides, jellies etc. But if a man wants to be a father and wants to be a part of the child's upbringing, then yes , he should have the right to say no to an abortion. He can be granted custody of the child, if the mother does not wish to be a mother. Many children are raised by their fathers alone and do much better academically and socially and go on to lead productive lives. Children raised by mothers alone typically, according to real facts and figures do much worse: teen pregnancy, drug and alcohol abuse, and a myriad of other social problems result. If a potential mother does not want to be saddled with motherhood, she has options:abort, adoption but with father's consent and agreement in writing, and not trying to hide the fact from the father that she wants to adopt out their child to another family to raise, and there is in some states, a safe haven law where a mother can take a newborn up to two weeks old to a hospital and leave them there with no penalty under the law. Why shouldn't fathers have the same rights and responsibilities to parent when they are ready, willing and fit people to raise a child? Until this disparity is addressed, nothing will change. Fathers are constantly maligned and distrusted in society to even be around children, much less parent them constantly is looked at as weird or socially unacceptable. A father's loving support can make all the difference in the world to a child.Children have always needed both parents to grow up happy and well adjusted and have a right to be free from abusive behavior. What I consider to be abuse, to another person may consider acceptable. Joe down the street may think that spanking is totally evil, but Karen across the street thinks its ok as long as it is used sparingly and with a loving hug after that is intended for the well being of the child later in life. Personally, I think it is up to individual families to discuss how they will raise their children before getting married is the best way, so the future children will know that they present a united front. A united front on discipline in the household is the most important gift that parents can give to their children. Consistent discipline and meaning what you say is far more important to a child, than whether the discipline involved time out or loss of priviledges or a simple old-fashioned spanking is what is called for if their behavior warrants it. And yes, some kids do need a spanking every now and then. As long as it administered with a review of the rule broken first and afterwards. Readers, do not take this article as permission to spank willy nilly for every little infraction, no this is wrong, and yes the state will take your children from you if they think that your spanking them is abusive. Whether it is fact or something the state workers make up out of thin air. Be careful fellow parents, its a jungle out there in parenting world.
Learn more about this author, Jennifer Foster.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.