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.