Should the father of an unborn child have rights?

Kelly - posted on 03/15/2010

"what happens if that same man rapes the women and she can't bare to carry and birth that child. does that man have the right to tell her she can't have an abortion?"
No, he would not have the right because she did not submit to having sex with him thus she didn't have the choice as to whether to GET pregnant or not, so her choice is after the pregnancy.

Tamara - posted on 03/15/2010

when i was younger i fell pregnant after getting a lil too drunk i guess and having sex i wanted to keep the baby but was forced by the father to abort, or be killed basically, i now have over an 80% chance of never falling pregnant and then when i have i've lost the baby all at various times of my pregnancy. i've now lost 7 babis(two sets of twins) and buried a child because of this. what people don't understand i guess is what an abortion does to a womens body. in some ways yes i do believe that a man has a right but then what happens if that same man rapes the women and she can't bare to carry and birth that child. does that man have the right to tell her she can't have an abortion?

Isobel - posted on 03/14/2010

I guess I just see this entire topic as immensely frustrating...you can't win for losing.

If a pro-life woman gets pregnant, and the man is allowed to walk, then she is being held responsible and he isn't. If a pro-choice woman gets pregnant, and the man has a say, then she is being forced to carry an unwanted child with the future of all unknown. If a pro choice woman gets pregnant on purpose, and the man doesn't have any options then his paycheck gets raped for the rest of his life because of one mistake.

While the system we have now is not perfect, I think that it is, unfortunately, the best that it can be.

Patricia - posted on 03/14/2010

I agree Kelly, as a mother myself, I would have more guilt for the rest of my life with the decision of abortion than I would giving my child a happy healthy home.

Kelly - posted on 03/14/2010

Oh, and for the record, I am Pro-life. I just think illegalizing abortion wouldn't help in this day and age, and I am not one to picket abortion clinics or judge women who have them. If a woman can live with her decision, so be it.

Kelly - posted on 03/14/2010

I don't necessarily think abortions need to be illegal, and I don't think I ever said that anywhere. I just think there is a double standard. I guess in some places it IS possible for a man to give up his rights to a child and not pay support, but I think most states are not so willing to do that anymore since the women end up on Govt. support. (I will have to research that a little) I don't think a man should have more rights than a woman, just equal. It's a two sided coin, and courts everywhere back up women every day who choose to keep their kids. I think that is wonderful, but I would like to see men have that same option if THEY want to keep the kid. As far as women making money from support, I know that doesn't happen unless your baby's daddy is P Diddy or something. I was responding to Laura's comment that many young women would choose abortion if they were guaranteed no support from the dad. That to me means they were only having the kid for the money they would get. Why else would child support be the only deciding factor in whether you aborted or not?

My point with the one night stand, is that realistically the guy will only ever find out about a pregnancy when he gets sued for support. Is that fair? The OP is should the father of an unborn child have rights. Many have said no. I am just trying (maybe failing) to show what I feel is complete hypocracy in how custody and support issues are largely handled.

Jess - posted on 03/14/2010

Patricia, Im 100% with you on this one. This guy wasn't just a "sperm donar" he was the dad ! Why should he have to wait until their born before he gets a say. Im not Pro-choice, and if your big enough to have sex, your big enough to give birth. How selfish of her to take 2 innocent lives because it didn't suit her to have them. She didn't even need to keep them ! Abortions make me really angry !!!

Kerry - posted on 03/13/2010

i think the man should ov had been allowed 2 keep the children if the woman didint want kids she should ov used protection. them kids lives have been took by a spiteful woman if she had had the balls 2 just carry them 4 9 months they now could be living and having a wonderful life they wasnt even given a chance. people on here r saying that the man would bail thats just stereotyping men not all men r like that and there r a lot ov single dads who r doing an amazing job

Sapphire - posted on 03/13/2010

Ya know I was thinknig about this thread and it reminded me of a story in Phoenix a few years ago. I tried to locate a news link, but I couldn't find anything. A 15 or 16 year old girl got pregnant, and wanted an abortion. The father of the baby was against it, and then got the girls parents involved on his side. So the girl was forced to go through an unwanted pregnancy, but ended up committing suicide when she was about 7-8 months along. She left behind detailed journals and diaries that showed her despair & depression over the unwanted pregnancy and being denied her right to an abortion. So instead of terminating a pregnancy, she killed herself. I can't think of anything more devastating.

Kelly - posted on 03/13/2010

No, I think that since abortion is legal and the woman can walk away from the pregnancy if she likes, it should also be legal for the man to walk away from the pregnancy if he likes--equal rights.

I think abortion should be illegal so NEITHER parent could walk away from the pregnancy until they make sure the baby will be cared for (I know making it illegal would not solve any problems, and I would never fight to make it illegal, I just feel it should be).

Essentially, I think that if the woman can walk away from the pregnancy, then the man should have the same rights.

I know several men and women who have signed away rights to their children. Perhaps they did get the other parent's permission, but it is also possible to do without permission from the other parent (in my state). I can't imagine any situation where a woman who was told by the father to get an abortion would prohibit him from signing away his rights--why would she want him in her child's life?? I'm sorry, but no amount of $$ would be enough to subject a child to that kind of hatred, and with child support, comes visitation.

Isobel - posted on 03/13/2010

I, for one (granted I was married to their father) get a whopping $450 per month for two children...and it's about to be lowered because he works in the automotive industry. That covers their extra-curricular activities.

Diana - posted on 03/13/2010

Kelly, your views on child support confuse me. I, personally, don't know any single mothers whose children's fathers are rich enough that both the child(ren) and the mother live off of the support. In fact, I've seen it quite the other way around-mothers have all sorts of trouble getting the child support and if they do get it then it's barely enough to cover half of the child's expenses-or in some more affluent cases, most of the child's expenses. But never enough that the mother could profit from that money. I don't get the logic that women are making money from it. I fail to see why that one night stand from the bar doesn't deserve some help from the person who helped create the child if she chooses to raise it-let's not forget that he went to a bar and picked up a one night stand, so he's also a "slut" and it's probably uncomfortable for her, too, to think of raising the child of someone she barely knows. If that man doesn't want to stand up and do what he has to, then he can to through the legal avenues available to absolve himself of parenthood-which IS possible.

Isobel - posted on 03/13/2010

Kelly, I'm sorry...I think I must be missing something. You believe that abortion should be illegal AND men shouldn't be forced to pay child support if they don't want the child? That means they have the choice but women don't?

13322 - posted on 03/13/2010

thank you! now i have a total of 4 now and im married and happy so i look at it if you become angry and bitter over this at takes over your life and it does spill in to your kids life to and if you live a positive life good things come to you which has happen to both my son and myself.

Kelly - posted on 03/13/2010

Danielle, you kind of just proved my point. Not all single moms are in it for the money, some (like you) love their kids and would have them anyway. And I agree, one loving parent IS better than an abortion.

Kelly - posted on 03/13/2010

I don't know Laura, that is an interesting thought. Would there be more abortions if the women knew they couldn't rape someone else's paycheck for 18 years? And then talk shit about the guy to the kid because he didn't want to be a part of the kids life? Now of course I am not saying ALL single mothers do this, but the ones that do IMO would be the ones that would be getting abortions. I don't believe in abortion in any circumstance, I just also think that I can't force my beliefs on others. (I don't want to pay child support to them either!) So having said that, I'll get a little "Ann Coulter" and hypothetically say those women are better off getting abortions anyway if the only reason they were going to have the child was for the money. I don't think almost EVERY young mother would be doing it though. Some actually choose to go forward with their pregnancy for the right reasons, because they are in love with their kids from the moment they know, and they wouldn't consider killing them.

It would be interesting to have a study done asking single moms with kids out of wedlock if they would have aborted without the child support as an option.........

13322 - posted on 03/13/2010

its ok to force a man to be a dad even if he doesn't because its the woman's choice . he has to pay or he will be a dead beat and the we have jail time. then on the other hand the woman can say no you have no rights to having this baby. i dont understand this. i had a baby with a guy who just wasnt ready so instead of me being the one saying i want child support or jail time i let it go. he wasnt ready so why force some one now if that man wants those babies then yes they have a soul so let them have a right to live and have a parent that wants them. one parent is better than an abortion.

Isobel - posted on 03/13/2010

That was kind of my point Kelly...it can't go one way and not the other. I actually kind of agree with you (on the letting men walk issue, not the others ;)). I just think that almost every young mother in the world would end up getting an abortion if they were guaranteed to have no help from the father...that would be slightly counter productive, no?

Kelly - posted on 03/13/2010

I was mainly referring to the part of your post where you said "intentionally causes harm." Drinking, smoking, doing something to intentionally cause a miscarriage or kill a baby (which is how I see it) yes, deserves punishment of the highest. In some states, if you kill a pregnant woman you are charged with 2 counts of murder. So should we only call it murder if the baby is wanted by the mother? Again, that is a double standard in my eyes. I don't know, nor do I expect you to share the details of your own situation Sharon. Maybe you knew that a miscarriage would definately happen, maybe not. I do feel sorry for your husband if he wanted you to continue the pregnancy and you would have been able to, but again, that is YOUR situation, not mine. If you purposefully drank, smoked, threw yourself down a flight of stairs, hired someone to beat your belly (all things that people have done) to try to get rid of your fetus, then yes, I think you should be charged with a crime. Obviously by your statement that you let your body do its thing, I come to the conclusion that you did none of my above examples. I think it is sad, but I will reiterate one more time, that is for you to handle and deal with. If you are fine with it, so be it.

And yes, paternity is a time consuming process. But my opinion is, either the woman would bring up the question of paternity to try and circumvent the rights of the father, or because she is a complete whore. Either way, the man deserves to know. My guess is that no man would necessarily want to keep a child from a one night stand, just as he wouldn't want to pay child support to some slut he picked up in a bar one night. However, if he did want it, shouldn't he have that right? He sure doesn't have a choice when it comes to the child support......

Sapphire - posted on 03/13/2010

Charging for premediated murder? Seriously, that's overboard and don't think there are any legal statues that one could be charged. What's the crime? Not taking care of your pregnant body? Intentionally causing a miscarriage? I could say the very same thing about myself. After 3 miscarriages, my doctor was able to determine the cause of the pregnancy losses and was able to keep my son's pregnancy. In Oct. 2008, I became pregnant again. I knew I did not want any more babies, so I let my body naturally do its thing. I won't lie, my husband was sad, but I was not in the least bit broken up over it. Gonna charge ME for premeditated murder because I chose to not save the unwanted pregnancy? INSANE!



Paternity testing is a time consuming process, at which time a legal abortion may not be an option. Then you have disgusting situations of back-alley abortions.

Kelly - posted on 03/13/2010

In my opinion, if someone did that intentionally, they need to be tried for premeditated 1st degree murder. And if paternity is such an issue, run a test.

Sapphire - posted on 03/13/2010

My initial reaction questions the paternity of the fetus. How do we know 100% who the real baby daddy is? Secondly, I do agree with Jenny when she says "No, it sucks but a man's right to his potential children does not trump a woman's right to her body. It is very unfortunate and I hope he finda a good woman to share a family with him in the future." Yes, it does suck for him. But here's something to think about: Suppose this woman agrees to continue the unwanted pregnancy. She could care less about the growing baby(babies) and continues to intentionally cause harm: drinking, smoking, lack of any prenatal care, etc. Then pops out a baby or 2, perhaps in distress and ill. Think the guy really plans to stick around? I have heard of nasty stories about women intentionally try to miscarry instead of an abortion- a legal medical procedure. Any woman who is forced to endure an unwanted pregnancy may end up taking her anger out on an innocent baby. So, yeah, it is better to terminate the pregnancy than to have a dead baby by the hands of an angry mother who never wanted it in the first place.

Kelly - posted on 03/13/2010

I just think there is a major double standard here. If a man has no say about keeping a baby, he should full well be able to walk away and not pay support if he doesn't want a child. I have a hard time thinking about it as a "potential" baby, yes it could not live outside the womb for a large majority of a pregnancy, but it is still a living being.

As far as the surrogate example, yes it is highly unlikely that would happen. But I am sure it has probably happened. I did a basic search, and came up with something else that was interesting. A case where the surrogate mom says she was pressured by the bio parents to have an abortion after she found out she was carrying twins.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/...

I also found this essay, which is quite interesting. One quote:

In the U.S. it is now commonplace for women in the early stages of pregnancy to have the fetus tested for Down syndrome or deformities for the purpose of aborting unwanted babies -- Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin was loudly applauded by Christian conservatives for her decision to carry such a pregnancy to term. Teenage girls, or young women in demanding professional careers, often unhesitatingly choose abortion for the specific purpose of killing an unwanted or inconvenient baby -- they would be horrified by the thought that they could terminate their pregnancy but would be required to do so by undergoing caesarian section and then paying for special medical care for the premature baby and for raising the child to maturity. Such cases make it abundantly clear that for many women abortion has little to do with controlling their own body and everything to do with killing an unwanted baby while it is still legal to do so (i.e., before it has been born). If a man who impregnates a woman in a moment of passion is forced by law to provide 18 years of financial support for a baby he never wanted when the woman refuses to have an abortion, then shouldn't a woman who chooses abortion also be required to pay for protecting the fetus, and for a surrogate pregnancy, plus 18 years of child support?

If you want to read the whole thing, here it is:
http://www.angelfire.com/big09a/Abortion...

As technology advances, should the woman be treated more like the man in a case of unwanted pregnancy? She wouldn't be forced to carry the child, but she would be forced to pay. How is this wrong when we do it to unwilling fathers every day?

Celia - posted on 03/12/2010

I would love to say yes but I have to say no.
I hate abortion unless the baby or mother is at risk and I would love a father who wants the child to have the right to be their father... but we would have abortion by coat hanger, pills, and bumpy roads if a law was passed to prevent abortion for a fathers rights and that would kill alot of babies and mothers. Thats why abortion is legal now, because if a woman dosent want to be pregnant she will find a way to rid herself of her child.

Jenny - posted on 03/12/2010

I do not believe in bringing children into the world as "a consequence" or as a punishment for having sex. If it's not on purpose and/or wanted than don't complete the pregnancy. We have reproductive options (at least where I live we do) and should be VERY thankful for that. Of course sex makes a baby but having a baby is 99.99999 times out of 100 not the purpose of sex.

Isobel - posted on 03/12/2010

I guess I should've made my self clearer. Men are NOT allowed to walk away from a baby without any responsibility right now. If a man wants to give away his rights, the mother has to absolve him of responsibility (and I could be wrong but I think she has to get the go ahead from a judge).

If men were allowed to legally say abort and then were legally allowed to walk away and never pay a dime I think you would have an epidemic on your hands.

Erin - posted on 03/12/2010

Why on Earth would a woman be a surrogate if she was going to abort the baby? WTF? That just sounds rediculous!

I also agree that sex=baby...you can't have a baby w/out sex! Just because you can take certain precautions to keep from making baby doesn't mean that it isn't possible! You know that if you steal you can go to jail...how many times can you get away w/it before the inevitable happens? Just because you can do it 100 times w/out getting in trouble doesn't mean that you will NEVER get in trouble! Maybe you have a rich dad and he'll pay off the police to keep it off your record (I'd equate this w/abortion :) ) Hell I don't eat chocolate to get fat, but if I don't keep up on exercise it'll happen! :) Soo many ways to go with this :)

On another note, I think that the biological father should have first dibs on a child if a mother puts it up for adoption!

Kelly - posted on 03/12/2010

In response to Laura, If he says to abort and she chooses to keep the child, he can sign off all legal rights and responsibility to the child (this can happen before or after the birth). Thus, she would be left to raise the child on her own, just like this father would be left to raise the twins on his own. It's not a double standard at all--they both have the same rights. Every father and mother have that right, it's just that few choose to exercise it (if both parents relinquish rights the child goes into state custody).

In response to Jenny, I guess that we just disagree on that point. Sex makes a baby. If you choose to have sex, then you should realize, birth control or no birth control, you could have a baby and you should be responsible enough to accept that consequence. My husband and I don't want another baby either, and we take precautions to keep from getting pregnant, but we know the possibility of pregnancy still exists.

Back on subject, if women have rights to their unborn children, men should have rights to their unborn children. What if it was a case of a surrogate mother who chose to abort another mother's baby. After all, it is in her body, right? Just curious as to your thoughts in a case like that.

Christy - posted on 03/12/2010

i think that men should have the rights to their unborn children, but then i am more on the pro-life side of the fence than pro-choice. i believe there are circumstances, such as rape or serious medical issues, where abortions are okay but i don't think abortions are acceptable as a form of secondary birth control. i think if a man wants to be a father that badly then he should have the opportunity. i get that he could bail after the child is born but she wouldn't be "stuck" with the baby, adoption is always another option.

all that being said i don't think men will ever get the legal rights to force a woman to continue to carry their baby. it's sad really because like was stated before, if a woman chooses to keep a baby that the man doesn't want, he's a dead beat dad but if the man wants the baby the woman can kill it anyway. IMO, that's totally not okay...

Cathy - posted on 03/12/2010

Morally wrong, legally unenforceable.

She could just argue that he's not the biological father. It then comes down to him to prove it .... and the only way is a test that puts the baby at a great risk of miscarriage.

It's a terrible double standard!

Isobel - posted on 03/12/2010

first of all, I agree with the idea that morally it should happen but legally it can't. Nobody else's rights trump mine over my own body...but there is a flip side to this coin. And this one is especially for the pro-life ladies...if we were to give this legal power over the unborn child partially to the father, what if he says abort and SHE says no? Does that excuse him from all parental rights and duties? One would think that if he had a legal say in the matter and chose to abort then the woman is left to care for this baby all alone with no help from the father in any way...would that be right?

Jenny - posted on 03/12/2010

Having sex is NOT a choice to make a baby. That doesn't fly with me. Regardless of the risk of pregnancy, when I'm having sex with my partner there has only been one time EVER that it was a choice to make a baby. We have always used birth control. If it fails that does not mean we should have to have a baby although it has once which brought us our daughter. I would not have another a baby if it failed again. There is a reason we were trying to not have one in the first place or we wouldn't use BC. I love my partner and I will continue to share non-baby making sex with him.

Also, she is not carrying his child, she is carrying his potential child. It has not developed enough to be considered a baby until it can survive outside the womb.

Kelly - posted on 03/12/2010

I think the man should definitely have legal rights. They are as much HIS children as they are her's; she couldn't create the babies without his sperm so if she didn't want to have them she shouldn't have had sex with him. As far as it being "her body, her choice" she chose what she wanted to do with it when she had sex. If you are going to have sex, you need to be responsible enough to become a parent because birth control does not always work.

She should have carried the baby to term and signed off on them. By doing that, she legally gives up all parental responsibility and he becomes the sole guardian and next of kin. Even if he does decide to run off and not be a dad, they are not her responsibility, it would be his responsibility to place them in foster care.

Sara - posted on 03/12/2010

I do think this is a problem, because I do think that men have rights as fathers to unborn babies. I mean, we want men to step up and take care of babies if we chose to bring them into the world, it's not really fair to say "You have to take responsibility if we chose XYZ, but not if we chose ABC". Seems hypocritical and wrong. But I'm afraid I don't know what the answer is since a woman has the final say in what happens.



Stop the presses!!! Kelly and I agree! :)

Patricia - posted on 03/12/2010

Very well stated Kelly! Amen sister

Kelly - posted on 03/12/2010

I see where you ladies are coming from, but I am having a really hard time with this. Yes, it's the woman's body. Yes, the baby couldn't survive without her. But to me, that baby is a life with a soul. It took two people to get pregnant, so why should it be only one person who gets to decide to end it? I understand that it's "her" body, I just have a hard time wrapping my head around it. As I have stated before in other posts, for myself I am absolutely PRO LIFE. For others, I really don't feel that I can judge their decisions. (other than that freak on youtube....) But if a man wants to raise a life that he helped create, he should be able to. This kind of to me opens up another question. There are so many "dead beat dads" out there, that it really isn't a shock anymore to describe someone as one. Is there kind of a double standard, something that would make this woman (or any other) feel like a horrible person for not wanting to be a mother to her children if they were to live? Do you think the stigma of "I abandoned my children" has anything to do with it?

Why is it that if it were the opposite, she wanted to keep the baby, and he wanted it gone, he would have no choice but to pay child support, and get labeled a "bad" dad because he wanted no part in the life? I just think that is wrong.

Lea - posted on 03/12/2010

Maybe the woman knew the guy wouldn't be a good father for some reason?

Diana - posted on 03/11/2010

I'm going to have to go with the women who say no. It would be an awful thing to be in this guy's position. However, as both Tah and Erin pointed out, he could bail and then she'd be in a position that she never wanted to be in, having to choose whether to raise two chlidren on her own or give them up for adoption. Also, as Jenny says-it is still HER body. She is the one who has to carry and birth the baby. She is the one who has to take responsibility for the babies' nutrition and well-being for the 9 months they are in her body. She is the one who has to go to doctor's appointments and endure giving birth. So if she doesn't want those experiences, and she doesn't want to take the chance that he might run, that's ultimately her decision, and it should legally be. It's awful that some men who really would be good fathers are put in that situation, but it's probably the exception and not the norm, and it doesn't change the fact that it's her body so it's legally her decision.

Dana - posted on 03/11/2010

I've always thought this question sucked because I do think it's unfair for men. Ultimately it's a women's body. The whole thing really stinks.

Erin - posted on 03/11/2010

This is difficult because the argument would invariably be that they created a life, but for women to have abortion rights the unborn fetus is not considered a life until AFTER the abortion period which would negate his right to the fetus... :( So if we could come up with an artificial womb then I would say GO FOR IT! You know, since he can't carry it himself ;)

Jenny - posted on 03/11/2010

It's not fair at all Sunny, she is a right bitch for doing that to him. Life blows sometimes. In my opinion, what a person does with their body is not up for outside input regardless of those circumstances.



As Esther said - morally a man should have input but legally, no way.

Chatty - posted on 03/11/2010

Lisamarie : " This is why they need figure out a way for a man to a baby!!! "........hilarious!

Esther - posted on 03/11/2010

Morally yes, they should have a say, but legally, no, I don't think they should. Ultimately it's the woman who has to bear this child for 9 months and has to give birth so I would have to agree with Jenny & Dana, a woman's rights trump those of the father. But I do think that any decent woman, with a decent partner, would at least take their wishes & feelings into consideration. SERIOUS consideration.

Rosie - posted on 03/11/2010

i have always been torn on this one. i sit there and think of a way that would work that he could keep the babies without her having to be responsible for them, but it always comes back to her body, her choice. it is sad, because i know if i had absolutely no control over someone killing my child, i would be completely heartbroken. i would try to do everything i could to make it not happen. these types of situations really sadden me.

Sunny - posted on 03/11/2010

I so think men should have a say, I have no idea how it could work but i dont think its fair on them now at all. I have a friend who was in a long term relationship with his than wife to be, they decided together to have a baby, we were all happy for them to find out she was pregnant then she got scared changed her mind and aborted the baby. They broke up over it and 2 years later my friend was diagnosed with testicular cancer and after treatment is now infertile. He is devastated that his one chance of being a biological father was taken away from him and he could do nothing about it and now his ex has a baby with her new boyfriend. How is that fair?

Lisamarie - posted on 03/11/2010

Not that I don't agree, Sharon, but you could same the same for her.

Sharon - posted on 03/11/2010

If he wanted kids, he should have kept it in his pants and waited till he found someone he felt the way he did instead of whoring around.

Sorry - but if I don't want kids, HE isn't having kids.

Tah - posted on 03/11/2010

Do you know how many guys talk the talk and then when the baby comes and tey get a teaspoon of responsibilty they keep on walking....Happens everyday.

Lisamarie - posted on 03/11/2010

This is why they need figure out a way for a man to a baby!!! I really don't know on this one, like Dana, I really want to say yes, I have never agreed with abortion unless for health or rape situations and my initial thought is that babies are his! He wants the babies! She CHOSE (9 times out of ten it's a choice) to get pregnant with this man!

But then you see that it is her body and she has to go through pregnancy and labour and have the possibility of daddy running at the last minute.

But for me, abortion is wrong, IMO. :)

Erin - posted on 03/11/2010

But what if after she has the twins then he runs and bails? So what if they signed something? That wouldn't matter and she would have to take care of the kids.

So no, I don't think they he or any other man should have the right to something that he can not physically hold.