Should there be a change in legislation that limits woman's rights to abort if the father wants the baby?

Question

Could that include other family members? How would that happen?

Answer 1

There should be a change in legislation and this is why...

Some will argue that it's a woman's right to choose. If she chooses to abort she is relinquishing her parental rights. If the male wants to keep the child, he should be allowed to force her to carry the baby to term. She has no other involvement with the child.

If you don't think this is fair, reverse the roles. If the woman chooses to keep the baby and the male wants her to abort it, he is responsible for the baby's financial care via child support for 18 years. Let him walk scot free or pay 9 months of child support while the baby is incubating. And then he has no other involvement with the child.

The bottom line is this: which is more important, the egg or the sperm? Current legislation obvioiusly favors the egg, however, without a sperm there is no baby. I think it's a 50/50 split. What good for one, is good for all. Change the legislation.

Answer 2

Suppose the child was conceived during rape.  Would the rapist be allowed to stop the abortion?   Suppose the conception took place during a wild weekend where the mother had s*x with multiple partners.  Would all the partners be allowed to stop the abortion?   These are real possibilities; perhaps remote but still possible.    

Then there is the sticky issue of family.  How closely related does a person have to be to stop an abortion?  Technically we can trace our DNA back to a few common ancestors.  

It is up to the woman whether or not she wants to be responsible for bringing a life into this world or not.   Lets leave it at that.   If you are opposed to abortion, fine; go and convince women not to abort their babies.   However, outlawing abortions is the dumbest thing a society can do.

The only way a family member could technically stop an abortion is to prove the woman is incompetent and be given power of attorney over the woman.  Then they would also have to monitor the woman 24/7 to make sure she does not try to abort the fetus herself.

Answer 3

I most definately believe that if the father wants the baby, he should be given that opportunity. My Girlfriens is currently with child and i would not ever allow her to have an abbortion. (she would never want to). Now youll have these womens rights people saying well its their body, thats bull ****.

edit: Ill modify this a little and say that this should be circumstantial. I definately do not think that if 2 people are together that one should she should be able to go behind his back. However in cases of rape, or abandonment, i do not think that the "father" needs to be located.

Answer 4

women have become too selfish, i am convinced that fathers have rights too.

Answer 5

No there shouldn't be a change in legislation. The right to have a baby is solely a woman's decision. Even if the father did want to keep the baby he's not the one to make that decision because he isn't that will have to carry a growing fetus for nine months. I personally believe that its solely a woman's choice whether to bring another human being into this world.

I'm not a feminist but I do believe that this is the best way to go.

Answer 6

There is the obvious stipulation of consensual s*x. Common sense dictates that a victim of rape who becomes pregnant as a result is the sole decision maker. The only problem with that is that there will be cases of fathers filing lawsuits against women whom they claim aborted their child without their consent. Obviously, the woman would have had to claim rape in order to carry out the abortion without a father's consent which causes a whole other mess of problems, not to mention abortion clinics having to "store" samples of DNA tissue from aborted fetuses for evidence! It creates a ton of new mess from a legal standpoint, but in my opinion, it would be worth it!

RickyRed makes an excellent point. If a woman gets to choose whether or not to be responsible for a baby, then the man should also have that right as well. He should be able to say, "OK if you want it, but I don't" and be able to walk away free of any support, financial or otherwise. Women want to argue that "it's MY body". Well, men ought to have the right to say "it's MY wallet"!

Another point in the "it's MY body" argument that seems often overlooked is that since a female can choose to remove a beating heart from her womb, then she should also have the right to remove her own beating heart, yet this is considered suicide! But wait- it's HER body, isn't it? How can it be suicide to remove her own beating heart from HER body and yet not be considered homicide to remove someone else's beating heart from HER body?

Pro- choicers are selfish, there's no way around it. It's NOT the end of the world to have a baby! There are plenty of people willing to adopt and no end to the rewards for raising the child yourself! Considering the options, abortion is akin to choosing amputation of limbs and replacing them with prosthetics because it's quick and easy and there's somewhere that you want to be RIGHT NOW even though modern medical alternatives could save the limbs with (9) months of surgery and physical therapy and still get you where you want to be later.

It's sad, really. Think of all the wonderful people that could have been walking amongst us today had they not been aborted...