Please tell me why you believe (if you do)?

Question

that the father of an unborn baby has no say in the decision about abortion. If the father wants to raise the child and give him/her a decent life, why should the mother be allowed to make the decision to follow through with an abortion?

I get that it's the woman's body, but the baby growing inside that body is also the father's baby.

Answer 1

I have thought about this quite a bit over the years. The wide spread of opinions is incredible, matched only by the passion of the activists on all sides. This is an issue that few people are even able to have a civilized discussion about. Complicating it further is that there are few that hold a black-and-white view of the issue. The majority of people in the US see abortion as a giant grey area with varying degrees of abortion considered acceptable. Very few people hold the position of unlimited abortion access or no abortion under any circumstances. Below is the process I went through to come up with my position on the matter.

First, I asked myself the question at what point does a human being obtain "personhood" and as such gain all the legal and moral protections that status entitles them to? There are some who say that the point of personhood is 28 days AFTER birth, at which point you still should be allowed to abort. In fact, there is a professor of ethics at Princeton University that actively advocates this position. This is the position that spurred “Born Alive” legislation that says if a woman has an abortion and the baby survives, that doctors cannot withhold care and let the baby die on the operating table. Others say up to the point of birth. These folks, such as Barak Obama, would hold that this type of infanticide as well as partial birth abortion is a reasonable procedure. Or perhaps just before while the mother is in labor. Or 6 months of gestation or 3 months or three weeks. I wrestled with this for a long time.

Then I looked at the issue a different way. Does human life have an imputed value or an intrinsic one? If we say that it is imputed, meaning the value is derived from something else, some outside criteria, then any one of the above positions would be equally valid. We as a society would decide what criteria to select. My problem with this is what criteria do you use? On what basis is a baby at 6 weeks more valuable than a baby at 5 weeks? Is a baby that has not yet developed a heart still a baby? This hit really hard on my wife and I when we lost one of our children. Lynne had a miscarriage a few years ago. When people with strong pro-choice sentiments gave us their condolences, they referred to the fetus as a child, even though she (we named her Grace, even though we do not know for sure if she was a she or a he. It made it easier to explain to the children what happened and easier for Lynne and I to grieve our loss) was at the same gestational point, 9 weeks, that they believed abortion was merely removing some unwanted tissue of the mother. So, the criteria used is whether or not a child is wanted. If that is so, then why? The characteristics of an object of any sort are not contingent on another persons belief for perception.

By similar logic, if the value of human life is imputed, it can also be taken away, depending on what some person or group of persons believe that life is worth. So if you happen to be mentally retarded or black or Jewish, it would be perfectly reasonable for you to be killed off for the good of the community if they believe it. I have a friend who is paralyzed from the neck down and constantly in pain. There are some in the world who would look at her and say that she has no quality of life or that the money and effort to support her would be better used on others. They would have her die due to her handicap. But knowing her the way I do I find the notion that she is without a quality of life to be ridiculous on its face. She is a writer, a painter, a social worker, and heads up an international charity. I’d call that a pretty good quality of life. So would her husband who married her years after her accident put her in the wheelchair. Thus, the imputed value logic is shown to me to be completely arbitrary. Following any of the “prior to this point it is not human but at this one on it is” positions is likewise arbitrary and does not answer the question of personhood.

But consider the proposition that human life has an intrinsic value. That it is valuable simply because it is human life and no other reason. No measure or quantification of the value of it, it is and that is enough. It is sort of like gold. Gold is valuable because it is gold, not because we as a society stood up one day and said, “we are going to make gold valuable”. Gold has an intrinsic value as opposed to an imputed value, such as paper currency. Paper currency is worthless in and of itself. It has value only because we say it has a certain value.

This position then would support a clear line between human life and not human life. With this position, you are a human at the point that you have a unique genetic code. In other words, at conception. Prior to that, there was no “you”. The male and female reproductive components in and of themselves are not a unique genetic code, but merely parts of the donors. It is only when they combine to create new life do “you” begin to be a person.

The notion of intrinsic value also carries forward throughout life. My mother-in-law was on dialysis for several months before diabetes finally took her life. There are many who would have said that she should just die and not burden the rest of us. If those persons held the position that human life has imputed value, I can understand. I however, believe that human life is intrinsically valuable and worth preserving and protecting for as long as possible. Thus, we should protect life at the beginning and at the end and at all points in between. That is why we continued to get her to dialysis until the day she finally passed away.

So, we come full circle back to the question of abortion. Should it be outlawed? My answer, since I believe in the intrinsic value of human life, is that for the most part it should. Why only “for the most part”? Because there are times when you have to weigh the life of two humans and pick one to live and one to die. My sister-in-law faced such a problem once. She got pregnant from her husband and it turned out to be a tubal pregnancy. Had the child been allowed to grow inside of her, it would have killed her before the baby would have been able to survive on its own. Thus, in weighing these two lives, one would have to conclude that the baby would have to die in order to save the mother’s life. What about cases of rape or incest? I have 5 daughters (yes, that was no typo) and the thought of one of them being raped is always lurking in the back of my mind. Statistically speaking, at least one of them will be before they graduate from college. If one of them should get pregnant as a result, the hard decision would be to let that child live. Pregnancy is not the extremely dangerous event of the past. Rarely do people die from giving birth. Many more die as a result of complications after an abortion. But the bottom line is that the child is innocent of any crime, so why punish it? It is a human being of intrinsic value. I’m not saying it is an easy choice and I can certainly sympathize with those who have had to make it. Perhaps they even made the wrong choice. But, God is a loving and forgiving God, who can even forgive the taking of a human life. Which is what abortion is.

Answer 2

my body

my stretch marks

my morning sickness

my choice

when they can form outside a womans bod..then men should have equal say in the matter...til then though...

Answer 3

Because the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in 1988 that a woman can't be forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term.

The Supreme Court was not interested in the spermdonor, or his "potential prodigy" (Supreme Court of Canada Ruling, 1989).

Answer 4

I agree. They can use the it's my body argument all they want but they all seem to forget 1 important thing. IT'S HIS SPERM that fertilized her egg in the first place.

Answer 5

Let's look at this from a different angle:

Is it fair to force feed a man cheeseburgers and milkshakes, placing him at risk for heart attack?   The key here is forcing or insisting that he do it against his will.  

If he CHOOSES to take that risk, well, that's acceptable, because it was his choice.

Can you extract a kidney from a man or woman without their consent, in order to save another person's life? Of course not... the donor must consent to the risk of surgery.

These are examples that lay the foundation for not forcing a woman to undergo the risks of pregnancy if she does not WANT to.   The people in the above examples have a choice about how much risk they are willing to endure.  A pregnant woman has the right to the same choice.



I know it seems unfair to the father, but honestly, when two people are going to have s*x, they really should discuss the possible outcomes in advance.   That way there are no surprises.

Answer 6

I agree with that to a certain extent- like you said it's the woman's body...it's a tough situation. The man definitely gets the short end of the stick.

Generally speaking I don't believe in abortion. With certain exceptions of course (medical reasons, molestation...). So I really wouldn't be supportive of any woman who was in that position.

Answer 7

Note that in most cases, women choose - were not forced (Rebel F) - to have s*x.  The baby didn't get that choice, so why does the baby have to be punished?  

If a woman chooses to have s*x and gets pregnant, then neither the father nor mother should have a choice; the baby should be allowed to breath air and go on to growing up.

Its called dealing with consequences of your actions.

Answer 8

If the roles were reversed I would be quite distressed if my partner chose to abort our baby because it was HIS body.  There would be international outcry from females if men were able to abort without consideration to what the female thought. The baby is, most certainly, also the father's baby and he should have equal rights in determining the fate of his child.

Answer 9

How dare you use logic?  Don't you know how those women felt?  It hurt them.

Answer 10

You know how mad I get from hearing this. It's because the father isn't going to be carrying an infant for 9 months and then giving birth to it. So if the women doesn't want to do this she doesn't have to. You can't win either way.

I am against abortion.

Answer 11

straw man argument rebel.. no pro-lifer ever said women are incubators, pro-choicers did when some politely pointed out that perhaps the fetus is a resident with rights as opposed to a part of her i.e. no rights.

Furthermore I don't see how it's about either the mother or the father, it's about the life as far as I'm concerned (unless the mother's life is under imminent threat in which case it's self-defence). A fertilised egg which is not attached to the uterus has no right to life since it could easily be flushed out as part of natural processes. Once it's attached its gonna become a baby because it grows unlike a rock or "unchanging blob" which is the analogy pro-choicers attempt to make

edit: yes I see what you mean. IF one has claim then the other probably should too. Though this is a tricky moral issue with difficult practical applications since there are obviously many men who want to have nothing to do with the issue of pregnancy

edit: interesting point Kris. That also pretty much transcends moral evaluations since the will to survive is an inherent empirical fact. Morality comes in when you get people arguing BUT WHAT IF she was raped? Point is, not all raped women would inherently try to abort which is why it stands as a problematic issue.

edit @ rebel. If like I'm suggesting you are misrepresenting our reasons for being against abortion, that's straw man. If you're not saying that then its merely irrelevant. I for one am against it because I value life itself, not because I don't respect someone's choice. In the end NO ONE can force her, and to suggest that someone can is absurd. Heard of the clotheshanger cases? Basically this is not about whether one could, its about whether one should

Answer 12

I believe women know the risks when they have s*x. Therefore, by opening their legs, they should LOSE some rights of reproduction. I agree 100% with you that if the man wants it, the baby MUST be born. Its only fair. But feminists don't really care about fairness if its not in the best interest of women.

As for the "its her body argument". I don't see feminists fighting to legalize pot and other illegal drugs. I don't see feminists fighting to legalize prostitution. That SAME agrument can be used in those cases.

Answer 13

She spread her legs; his sperm fertilized the egg; he should have had a say. Because from what you're saying she certainly didn't suffer a horrible rape; a horrible rape is a good reason for an abortion; not the c**p she pulled.

Answer 14

This is not an easy question.  The debate will go on for years.

Too bad he didn't love his future children enough to insist on s*x with a condom and a diaphragm.  Too, too bad.

Answer 15

It's as much his baby as hers. If i want my kid then I don't give a d**n about her body. Rebel's argument is about the dumbest thing I've ever seen. If one parent, no matter which, wants the kid then the other should have no say in the matter. The women here are acting as if the women do the more important job but they do not. I woman needs a man just like a man needs a woman. It's half and half not 9/10s and 1/10. They should have equal say in the matter and men currently have ABSOLUTELY NO SAY. It shouldn't be that a man can want the kid but gets screwed over when the kid is killed. It's 100% bull.

Answer 16

It isn't his "baby".  It's a fetus which has the potential to be a baby, if the mother gives it permission to inhabit her body for the full nine months and then gives birth to it.  

Her right to control what happens to her own body is more important than any right he might have to that fetus.  Women aren't incubators, and nobody has a right to FORCE them to remain pregnant if they don't want to.

ETA:  

Master_B, it isn't a straw-man argument.  The idea that a woman's body can be used against her will to gestate offspring is, quite literally, making her into an incubator.  

dbernard, and others--having s*x does NOT constitute willingness to be pregnant and have a child, nor does it constitute an obligation to have a child should one be conceived.  It constitutes ONLY the willingness to have s*x, and nothing more.  Legally obligating a woman to gestate any fetuses that may inadvertently be produced is utterly stupid.  It's not women's fault that men can't give birth to their own babies, therefore women can't be obligated to give birth to a man's child just because HE wants it.

Mike T -- Most feminists are liberals.  Most liberals support the legalization of many drugs and other things which conservatives find inappropriate.  Just because legalization of pot isn't a big issue on the "feminist agenda", doesn't mean many feminists don't support it.

ETA:  

Ryan:  

FORCING her to incubate a fetus that she does not want to incubate IS domination

Nik_NYG:  

No, it's not half and half.  All men have to do to create a baby is ejaculate.  Women have to carry it for nine months, have their lives uprooted, suffer from morning sickness, have a fetus feed on her nutrients, and probably suffer a dramatic impact to her health and appearance.  Going through a pregnancy can have radical negative changes on a woman's life.  I don't care how much you want your "kid" (a silly thing to say, since it's hardly even a kid yet), you don't have a right to force her to go through that if she doesn't want to.  YOUR arguments are the ridiculous ones, not mine.  

Once the child is born, if you want it, you can fight in court for it.  But while it's in her body, she can do what she wants with it because it is HER BODY on the line.  ALL pregnancies have the potential to be life-threatening, she doesn't have to go through that just because you might want a kid.

Answer 17

If you have seen pictures of aborted children, you will probably have this question, the state sees a child that has not been born yet as inhuman, this means that the "object" is property of the mother who has the right to kill "it".

Although by moral standards it is the fathers child, however by the standards of state, an unborn child is not a human, so until its born the mother has ownership.

Its just another excuse for justifying sucking a child out of its mother with a sharp ended straw. Or if you got attached to your child, you can simply use saline poisoning then you can feel it kick one last time as it dies.

Answer 18

Incubation doesn't mean domination.

The constitution grants right to life. When life begins is a question that will never be answered, but the potential of life should be protected.

It takes two to create a life. To deny a pro-life man a say in the future child denies him the right to equal protection of the laws. There is no equality in the area of reproduciton.  If the woman doesn't want the child after it is born, she can let the father have it. Incubation doesn't mean domination.

Legal abortion promotes wreckless behavior. To finish the rant, s*x ed belongs in family rooms, not class rooms.