Interesting op-ed: A Man's Right to Choose
 

I saw this op-ed in the New York Times yesterday. The writer feels that, when a woman becomes pregnant, the man should have some say in whether or not she may have an abortion.

Snippet below. It's a bit long - my apologies - the full article is quite long. You have to register to read the full article, but registration is free.

Discuss... I have some strong opinions on this, but will hold them for now.

<snippet>

MANY liberals who oppose Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr.'s nomination to the Supreme Court focus on his (losing) position in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, a 1991 case about a Pennsylvania law that would have required women seeking abortions to notify their husbands. "Pennsylvania has a legitimate interest in furthering the husband's interest in the fate of the fetus," is the most widely quoted part of his opinion in that case.

There may be many reasons to oppose Judge Alito's nomination - including the possibility, as highlighted in documents released yesterday, that he would seek to nibble away at Roe v. Wade - but his Casey opinion is not one of them. Rather, Judge Alito's thinking about the role of men in reproductive decision-making is in keeping with how legal thinking needs to evolve in this age of readily available DNA testing. Nor is his position contrary to national sentiment: a majority of Americans feel that the husband should be notified about an abortion.

His only problem was not going far enough, relying only on the marriage contract to legitimate men's claims to a role in the reproductive decision-making process.

Bear with me here. About a decade ago, my girlfriend became pregnant. It wasn't planned, but it wasn't exactly unplanned either, in that we obviously knew how biology worked. I desperately wanted to keep the baby, but she wasn't ready, and there were some minor medical concerns about the fetus, so she decided to terminate the pregnancy against my wishes. What right did I have to stop her? As it turned out, none. It was, indeed, a woman's right to choose.

Not surprisingly, we broke up. And my desire for fatherhood was eventually fulfilled by two wonderful children. But every so often I think back to the fateful decision, and frustration boils up. I am particularly reminded of it now, as I counsel a friend who finds himself in a parallel - but reverse - situation: when he broke off his engagement, his girlfriend told him that she was pregnant and was going to have the child no matter what.

That is her right, of course, and nobody should be able to take that away. But when men and women engage in sexual relations both parties recognize the potential for creating life. If both parties willingly participate then shouldn't both have a say in whether to keep a baby that results?

</snippet>

I'll agree to keeping him from having those rights if these stupid women agree to men never having to pay child support anymore.

-Rudey

No, they don't both have a right until men can carry babies to term. Until then, STFU and wear a condom.

In an ideal world, both parents of the baby would have input.

Problem is, we don't live in an ideal world, so my initial reaction is to agree with Sistermadly!

I agree. That's why I always smile knowing there are poppas who don't send checks to mommas for their kids.

-Rudey

I don't know. There are definitely situations in which I feel like the men need to STFU, but in a "normal and healthy" relationship I feel like it should at least be discussed between the partners.

My boyfriend and I have very different opinions on abortion. Solution: be really careful with birth control.

I think it is sad that women get all the power in these types of situation...if you dont want a kid the simple thing to do is to keep your legs close...period...there is only two situations where I consider abortion an option, one is when there are problems with the pregnancy that threaten both the mother and the child...the other is in cases of rape. I know if I ever accidently got a women pregnant, I would do every thing in my power to make sure she kept the baby...I really do not know if I could live a happy life if someone killed my child because they didnt feel like putting up with it.

Isn't it wonderful for you that you won't ever have to make the choice to have an abortion, since you can't get pregnant?

Its just as simple for a man to NOT have sex with a woman as it is for a woman to NOT have sex with a man. Yet most men that I've spoken with feel like not having sex is like living without your head...its just impossible.

Someone in another thread made a great point: A woman can use every form of birth control known to man at the same time and she can STILL get pregnant, since NOTHING is 100% effective except ABSTINENCE. You men want a choice? CHOOSE to keep it in your pants, and then you won't have to worry about having to pay child sipport.

Are abortions accepted in Islam?

-Rudey
--Serious question

I'm sure that you could do the research on that, if you really want to know.

But that question really had nothing to do with anything that was in my previous post.

co-sign

It's the woman's body. She's the one that has to physically go through either the abortion or the pregnancy and birth. My whole feeling is once it's in my body, it's my say. If the guy wants to have a say, the time to speak up is before his little swimmers venture out.

Has anyone had an Abortation on Site?

How do You know how it feels if You havent?:rolleyes:

so basically it is the mans fault if the women gets pregnant...but after the fact he has no rights...what happened to equal rights for everyone??? but I guess people only want everyone to be equal until they have the advantage

It seems to me that the man's inability to get pregnant sort of places him at a disadvantage when it comes to decisions about abortion and pregnancy in general. I don't think it is fair for women to always automatically take the position of "hey, its in my body, so screw you. I'm gonna do what I want when I want and how I want". The guy cannot help the fact that he can't get pregnant. He is. however, equally responsible for the pregnancy and the fact that he cannot get pregnant does not mean that he loves or cares about the pregnancy or the prospect of HIS child coming into the world any less than the woman. His inability to get pregnant often restrains a man from being active in decisions that are just as important to him as they are to the woman and THAT isn't fair to me.

I don't know that I would support mandatory consent from the man prior to having an abortion, but I also don't support a "forget about you, its my body and, therefore, all about me" attitude either.

Co-sign



Since the article is talking strictly married couples I'll deal with that...

I really think it depends on the relationship the spouses have. If they are a solid couple and the pregnancy was an "oops", then yeah they should be discussing it (in a perfect world).

But to me it seems like if your relationship is solid you would be talking to your husband in the first place.

It seems like this would only really take into account those relationships that are in complete and utter disarray. (spousal abuse, drug abuse, extramarital affairs, etc...).

I mean if the wife is getting the shit beaten out of her every day and she gets pregnant, yeah I can understand why she wouldn't want to bring a child into the relationship and she would want to have an abortion.




Abortion is so complicated in the first place and then add the whole "father" and "mother" rights into the equation and it gets even more complicated. Then the federal government trying to sanction what a woman can and cannot do, makes it even a bigger mess.

I think this is one of those instances that makes the issues of abortion like 200 times worse.

There's a whole lot of generalizations in there, and some unfair characterizations. As a married, faithful husband, it would be beyond my comprehension why I shouldn't have some choice in my wife's pregnancy.

I can see situations (abusive significant others) where it would work the other way - but can't you understand situations where the husband should have the right to choose as well?

You have no choice.

If you have sex with a girl and it results in a pregnancy, she has the right to end that pregnancy.

If you have a child, the judge and courts can give full or main custody to the mother. You have no rights. Check out dadsrights.org

If the mother decides to keep the child and you're no longer in the picture, she will also take money from you for child support.

You have NO rights, priviledges, but only a hefty responsibility.

-Rudey

"-that would have required women seeking abortions to notify their husbands." (Emphasis mine.)

I've stated elsewhere that I don't agree with abortion, but where it is a choice that someone has already made, I agree with this proposed law. It's not saying, "that requires women seeking abortions to notify their partner." Being in the context of marriage, it is unreasonable to tell the man to zip it up or wear a condom - it's his wife, and subsequently, his child.
Actually, (and let the flames begin), I think all women seeking abortions should notify their partner (with the exceptions of rape or incest). I've known a few men (not many, mind you, but a few) that would have gladly taken over care of the child and let the mother sign away rights, not even accepting child support.

Child support is a funny thing. I'm working for my dad's law firm right now -- we're one of the bigger players in the family law game here in town, so I see a lot of child support cases (one of our cases was in the national media just recently). In my time here, I've observed that men and women at think of child support very, very differently.

Women tend to see it as a right, something that they're owed, something that the man pays -- I've even heard a woman who just lost custody on a motion to modify custody exclaim "Child Support?! I thought that was a man thing!" -- no shit.

I've never seen a woman offer to forebear on collecting child support in exchange for custody -- not ever -- or at least not without the man terminating his parental rights (in Oklahoma, you can't agree to not collect child support, but many try to make deals anyhow).

Men see it as an obligation to pay the woman, and 9 times out of 10 they will GLADLY offer to refuse child support in exchange for custody.

Those are my observations based on a pretty significant caseload in central Oklahoma :)

But on the flip side...

How would you feel if you got pregnant by accident and you wanted an abortion and you were told you couldn't have one and you were forced to carry out the pregnancy, even though you were willing to sign your rights away?

9 months is a long time.

To tell a woman they must continue with a pregnancy, whether they are giving their rights up or not, is just not cool in general.


Like I said, in some relationships this is something that needs to be discussed, but for someone to force something upon the other is just not cool.

To force a women to continue with a pregnancy she doesn't want to is just as bad as forcing her to get an abortion.


Just my opinion :) Feel free to disagree. :D

It seems that a lot of the females here are all about 'me, me, me'. I guess it's pretty convienent to forget about a life in the face of a little adversity. Speaks a lot of the caliber of some of the women out there.

Are you kidding?

You can't judge someone else's life, cause you aren't perfect either.

I hope you'll kindly note that this point has interesting consequences for arguments (such as Rudey's) attacking the current child support system.

This argument, as stated, takes a relatively sound argument ("you don't have to carry the child") and turns it into something flaky (almost an argument of inconvenience).

I'm not a fan, needless to say.

In any married/committed relationship, this needs to be talked about BFEORE it happens. I've never had sex with any of my boyfriends without making it clear that if I were to get pregnant at this point in my life, there would be a strong possibility that I would abort it. If he doesn't like that, he doesn't have to have sex with me. But it's not like the result is going to be a surprise to him.

You shouldn't be first approaching the topic of "What would we do if we got pregnant?" AFTER the pregnancy test has already confirmed you're knocked up.


That said, I don't agree with the way the current child support system is set up, either.

Honestly, I would be completely devastated if I were to get pregnant by accident at this point, but I know before I have sex that it is a possible consequnece, and would accept the 9 months and delivery as a consequence. I had the fun, I can't escape consequences simply because they are undesirable.

Actually MTSU, you can... That's what's being discussed here :D

What I mean by I can't escape consequences:

I see it as highly irresponsible to to not accept the consequences of my actions and therefore consider it inexcusable and not an option. Pregnancy is always a possible consequence of sex unless you are unable to have children or your partner is unable to father them. And, I really believe that as cliche as it might sound, it is not just the woman's child and the father should have a say.

I agree, but if this were to be allowed, what other restrictions would you think would be permissible to place on women seeking abortions?

How about the case of a man wanting to compel a woman to have an abortion? What then?

What if he didn't want to have the kid and doesn't want to be on the hook for child support for the next 18 years?

The way I see it, there are always going to be inequities as long as women are the ones carrying the kids around for 9 months. The best way that I know to cure the inequity is to change the test for custody -- in other words, place the child with whichever parent is best able to care for them, and reject the premise that women are necessarily the better caregivers (an untrue stereotype).

We'd have a whole new ballgame if women who decided to carry the child to term against the wishes of the father would also have to face losing custody and ending up being stuck with the child support payments.

I said that I believe the man should be notified. I don't see that as a restriction on the woman, but the guaranteed opportunity for the man to have input, for lack of a better word.

Oh well. That's HIS consequence. No one said they were restricted to the woman.

I agree with you. I live with my cousin, who has custody of his 2 children because he is the better parent for them to be with. I agree that the assumption that women are always the better caregiver is completely untrue and that our system needs to be rid of that bias.

I know of one. Two friends were getting a divorce, because she stopped taking her pills and oopsed her then husband. He tried to convince her to have an abortion, since it was in their prenup that there would be NO KIDS. Since she had the "baby rabies" she refused. He signed away his parental rights, and refused child support.

After the divorce, he got a high paying (6 figure) job at Xerox.

She's stuck raising a brat on welfare.

It couldn't have happened the other way.. If he had switched her birth control with placebos and got her prego, she could have easily opted for the abortion.

As far as the pre-nup, an agreement not to have children? I'd be surprised if that held up in court.

But she did do the right thing in allowing him to sign away the parental rights. Few women would do that in my experience. Most are interested in getting the child support.

Oh, no, she fought not getting child support and his waiver of parental rights, she also fought the divorce, saying that "He'll grow to love a baby."

A pre-nup is a contract, just like any other. Having a baby clause in the pre-nup is just like having an affair clause.

And I misread your post for some reason, I thought you were looking for a male that didn't want children.

And yes, it isn't fair that if the man was the one with the baby rabies, the woman could easily resolve her condition. I believe that since a man doesn't have the option of forcing an abortion, he should always have the right to forgo custody, and in forgoing custody, he shouldn't have to pay.

It's good that you agree that men should have that right, but it's not enough. We demand payment for our semen.

-Rudey

As a mother, I find your word choice revolting. I am not supporting this woman's decision to trick her husband, but a woman wanting a baby does not constitute "rabies." Furthermore, I think she is raising a child, not a brat. I won't even go into to the welfare part.

No, her child IS a brat. It is by far the most obnoxious child I have ever met.

And most mothers don't get "baby rabies." The term is referring to when a person has the overwhelming desire to breed, we're not talking someone's biological clock went off, not talking about someone just wanting to have a baby, but talking about someone who wants a baby come hell or high water and will not stop until they have one. It's almost like they have an obsession.

She chose the welfare life, unlike most people who need welfare, and she's proud of it. She says things to the effect of, "well, it's not like I have to pay for it, the taxpayers do."

Sure Rudey.

LOL

Like Ron Burgundy, we'll have to agree to disagree - but in fact I'd guess case law disagrees. Can you see why?

Even I don't agree, and I hate the current child support system more than almost anything.

A man does not get to choose unless he can carry the baby inside his body and give birth to it. Why should a woman be saddled with his choice for 9 months and have to make concessions that will effect her body for years to come?

I think if a woman gets pregnant, it should be her decision whether or not to carry to term. If a man wants a baby, go hire a surrogate. The changes in your body, the careful monitoring of lifestyle and diet, the doctor's visits, changes in your routine, the pain and healing... just so a man can have a choice? What does he do for the next 9 months while the woman's body and lifestyle go through hell?

A woman's biological purpose is to breed, but God also gave us free will. Not for me, thanks very much. Sorry if I sound selfish, but marriage, pregnancy, babies and child rearing sounds about as appealing as being covered in leeches.

I'm sorry. I missed the part where preganacy is a random act, with no cause to it's onset. It's like cancer, we don't know what the cause of it is, so there's no way to prevent it. So if you just happen to get the pregnancy disease, there's a cure for it, so you can have it taken care of. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I'm sorry, can you tell I'm pro-choice:
You have the choice to have sex.
You have the choice to make him wrap it up or say no.
You have the choice to take the Pill.
You have the choice to participate in the other 100 methods of BC.
(I realize that nothing is 100% effective, but no one made you take that risk)

Yes, I am a woman, and I believe that a father should have the choice NOT to have his baby killed. But then again, I don't think the mother should have a choice TO have her baby killed. Your choice ended when you CHOSE to have sex.

ETA: Ready for flames, you won't bother me.