Abortion law would give fathers a say...

[tobefirst]

http://www.recordpub.com/news/article/2327981

As written, the bill would ban women from seeking an abortion without written consent from the father of the fetus. In cases where the identity of the father is unknown, women would be required to submit a list of possible fathers. The physician would be forced to conduct a paternity test from the provided list and then seek paternal permission to abort.

Claiming to not know the father's identity is not a viable excuse, according to the proposed legislation. Simply put: no father means no abortion.

Discuss.

[PlaceofDis]

i don't like it.
i think its a horrible idea.
doesn't help father rights at all, just hurts things more i think.

[srf4real]

>Simply put: no father means no abortion.<

Well, that's good. At least Jesus would be exempt.

[gauchogolfer]

I didn't read the article, but does it make exceptions for rape or incest?

Edit: evidently the woman would have to produce a police report proving it was due to rape or incest. I'm sure that will be a deal-breaker for a lot of people (me included).

[tobefirst]

I didn't read the article, but does it make exceptions for rape or incest?

Edit: evidently the woman would have to produce a police report proving it was due to rape or incest. I'm sure that will be a deal-breaker for a lot of people (me included).

Yes, with "appropriate" documentation.

In addition, women would be required to present a police report in order to prove a pregnancy is the result of rape or incest.

[leekohler]

This is just plain wrong.

[XnavxeMiyyep]

Great, another way to take away people's right to do what they want with their own bodies.

The logic behind this makes no sense. If a fetus is just a fetus, then you can get rid of it. If you think it's really a child, then it would always be wrong to kill a child. No where in this does anyone but the person whose body the fetus is in become involved.

If you want to give fathers a say, allow them to opt out of child support well before the child is born. However, they shouldn't get to control what goes on inside someone else's body.

[leekohler]

I just noticed that this is taking place in my former home state of Ohio. How unsurprising.

[dswoodley]

I'm a very pro-life person, but I think this measure is taking the wrong approach. I'm very torn on this.

[calculus]

This is just plain wrong.

Couldn't say it any better really. Some ideas are so ridiculous that the only sensible response is a short sharp one.

[j26]

How paternalistic and degrading - once again men get a veto over womens bodies.

[imac/cheese]

Didn't Gov Casey try this in Pennsylvania years ago?

I personally am very pro-life, but I think this is going to be a very bad law that is extremely hard to enforce. How do they do a paternity test on an embryo? I didn't think that was even possible. I think that the pro-life crowd is simply trying to make inroads against the existing abortion laws and I do not really believe that this is the best way to do that.

[imac/cheese]

How paternalistic and degrading - once again men get a veto over womens bodies.

I don't think that it is the woman's body is what is man is vetoing but the decision to kill the unborn child that he made. If I were a father of an unborn child, I sure wouldn't want the mother to kill it. But I still think this law is not the way to go about it.

[srf4real]

It was ten years ago when I got myself in this situation, me and the girl riding the party train when her pregnancy became an issue. I was prepared to do the right thing and support her baby, did not want abortion. >crackhead that i was< My mom concieved me out of wedlock, so I shudder to think what might not have been had she chosen to abort me in the late 6o's. It was a hard decision for her, but it worked out ok.;):eek:

I hate to admit it, but I thank God that I didn't have a say in the matter of my party girlfriend's choice. She was wise enough to know how screwed up that baby would be with all the drugs we were doing and the lifestyle I lived - dooming another miserable child to our miserable world... in spite of the fact that I believe abortion is killing a baby, it seems best left in the hands of a woman, her counsel, and her doctor imop. I see potential problems with uncooperative fathers forcing mothers into seeking out unsafe alternatives, back to the dark ages.

[johnee]

Previous supreme courts have ruled that putting up unwarranted/unnecessary barriers to obtain an abortion is unconstitutional (the case I'm thinking of is 1991/92).

However with the current supreme court, previous decisions will have no bearing.

Amazingly, Ohio is one of the few states that could adopt this as law. The South Dakota initiative was voted down by the public as the health of the mother was overruled by her unborn child in that law, and the people didn't want that.

[j26]

....I see potential problems with uncooperative fathers forcing mothers into seeking out unsafe alternatives, back to the dark ages.

No potential problems, real problems. In addition how many blokes will be roped in to pretending to be the father for the purposes of giving consent, despite the fact he has nothing to do with it.

The only situation this will deal with is where the father doesn't want an abortion (for whatever motive - moral or vengeful). In the majority of other cases fathers of convenience will be found.

[Lyle]

doesn't help father rights at all, just hurts things more i think.Could you expand on this claim a little bit? How does this hurt the father's rights, in your opinion?

The proposed legislation reminds me of similar laws having to do with biological fathers' rights in adoptions (although that varies greatly from state to state).

[leekohler]

Amazingly, Ohio is one of the few states that could adopt this as law.

Not amazingly. Ohio is pretty backward. I grew up there and fled as soon as I could. From what I'm told it's getting worse, not better. Every time I visit my family there I get the willies. It's such a negative, defeatist place.

[dswoodley]

Previous supreme courts have ruled that putting up unwarranted/unnecessary barriers to obtain an abortion is unconstitutional (the case I'm thinking of is 1991/92).

However with the current supreme court, previous decisions will have no bearing.

Amazingly, Ohio is one of the few states that could adopt this as law. The South Dakota initiative was voted down by the public as the health of the mother was overruled by her unborn child in that law, and the people didn't want that.

Well, if this a state law, then it will the highest court in ohio that has to measure it against the 1991 ruling by the SCOTUS. Interestingly if the law were to pass, and assuredly challenged in Ohio's highest court, whoever the loser is can appeal to the SCOTUS. Whichever side lost will then be willing to claim that the 1991 SCOTUS ruling is behind violated. Like laws, Court Rulings are just a tool to achieve an end.

[Ugg]

This is wrong in so many ways it's not even funny.

What if the child has encephilitis or any one of a multitude of problems? Will the woman be forced to carry to term a piece of lifeless flesh?

What if the woman is unable to afford health care? The lack of prenatal care is linked to spontaneous abortions. Would she then be charged for murder if she spontaneously aborted because she had no health care?

Would they lock her up so that she couldn't travel to another state to have an abortion?

Will every pregnant woman be forced to disclose the father of their fetus? What about married woman who are fooling around? It sounds like this would lead to more than a few divorces?

This is so unconstitutional that it's simply not going to ever become law.

[MacNut]

What about married woman who are fooling around? It sounds like this would lead to more than a few divorces?
Thats a joke right?

[Lyle]

Thats a joke right?Unfortunately, I don't think it is.

[MacNut]

I would hope that the divorce rate would go up if that was the case. Why should a man allow his wife to cheat on him and have another mans baby without knowing it.

I know I would want to know if my wife was sleeping on the side.

[mariahlullaby]

I know I would want to know if my wife was sleeping on the side.

By legislation?

[MacNut]

I would hope she would say something before I found out she aborted some other guys kid.

[Ugg]

I would hope that the divorce rate would go up if that was the case. Why should a man allow his wife to cheat on him and have another mans baby without knowing it.

Some studies have concluded that ~25% of children are not the offspring of the man their mother was married to at the time of conception.

Is such a mother were to have an abortion, would both men be involved in the decision if it were found out that there was no biological connection?

As it stands now, the man the woman is married to is the legal father but if the legal father and the biological father are not the same, what then?

[Ugg]

I would hope she would say something before I found out she aborted some other guys kid.

If it's not your biological child, this law might give you no say whatsoever. All she'd have to do is provide proof of paternity and the other guy's consent and you'd be out of the picture.

[KristieMac]

This is a terrible idea.

In a perfect world, there'd be no need for abortion. In a slightly less perfect world than the previously aforementioned utopia, a man and woman would decide together that they won't keep a child. Reality is completely different.

A woman determined not to bear a child will find a way around these ridiculous laws, with great potential harm to herself. It's insane to think that you could or should force a woman to carry a baby to term.

[swingerofbirch]

Great, another way to take away people's right to do what they want with their own bodies.


I think your point would be very true if it concerned any routine medical procedure, but the issue is complicated by virtue of the fact that there are two bodies involved when a woman is pregnant. The woman's body is host to another body. The body inside the host has no choices to make. The woman certainly does have choices to make, as do all of us as other human beings. I should preface by saying I know as a liberal that my position on abortion is very unusual and controversial. I believe abortion to be not a healing path of peace. And I choose to say it that way because I don't think anyone who has had an abortion is wrong or evil or anything bad. I just don't think that abortion solves people's problems. And it ends the life of another person who had he or she lived, might have been quite glad at the chance to live. I consider myself to be progressive: I vote Demorat, and I am far to the left of most Democrats. I am against corporatism, and I am for fighting poverty, hunger, economic disparity, discrimination against gays, and I am for ending war as a tool. I am even strongly opposed to routine neonatal circumcision (called by some male genital mutilation). And as difficult as it is to admit, given my political leanings, I am also against abortion. I don't consider abortion to be progressive. To me it seems like an act that is the opposite of progressive. I just think we can do so much more. And having said all this, I don't support Republicans who have pro-life talk. For one thing, I don't think abortion will ever be illegal in this country, and I don't think criminalization is the answer to abortion. I think that condoms, condoms, condoms, and more condoms, along with sex-ed, and more and more sex-ed, and the widespread availability of the morning after pill are the crucial tools we need to curb the number of abortions. To me, that seems like a goal that everyone should be able to agree to work toward. Because who has ever run for office in support of abstinence only pro-life policies and actually decreased abortions? Condoms, sex-ed, morning after pill, and nationalized adoption procedures and standards that make it easy and safe for a woman to give her child for adoption are needed.

And yes, I do think fathers should have their input listened to in terms of abortion, but again I would not make it a law.

[solvs]

I see potential problems with uncooperative fathers forcing mothers into seeking out unsafe alternatives, back to the dark ages.

In addition how many blokes will be roped in to pretending to be the father for the purposes of giving consent, despite the fact he has nothing to do with it.
Not to mention rape charges more than likely increasing as women will have to claim it to be exempt from the law. Ridiculous in and of itself, but it's like no one thought of the practical issues this could bring up. I fully expect it to die a quick death, just as most other attempts at this type of thing eventually do.

[Markleshark]

If women can go through the courts to get the man to pay for a child the man maybe doesn't want, then why shouldn't a man be able to have the child he wants but maybe the woman doesn't?

Aside from the physical factors (Which yes, I understand are huge for the woman and not so far the man) the emotional side is surely much the same?

Obviously this isnt the way to go about it, but its the principle that I'm getting at.

Thats the problem, we have rules for when it suits.

[iBlue]

Absolutely unreal. :mad:

I can't understand how a place so preachy on human rights would be so willing to enforce emotional blackmail and control of the cruellest kind. Oh, that's right, republican men are in charge. Silly me.

Save the fetus! :rolleyes: Once it's born, where's all the concern then? Some of these dicks really have no idea the implications of forcing a woman to have a child she doesn't want.

Also, where's daddy when he's forced this woman to have his child? Is the child then his responsibility? Will the government enforce that too? They should.

[PlaceofDis]

Could you expand on this claim a little bit? How does this hurt the father's rights, in your opinion?

The proposed legislation reminds me of similar laws having to do with biological fathers' rights in adoptions (although that varies greatly from state to state).

i'm totally for father's rights. but i think this would be a hinderance for many reasons. for one its just asking for animosity between the parents. its law that has potential to screw things up even more between the parents. this doesn't help create the perspective and necessary rights that fathers need.

[Queso]

Ridiculous. What do they want, back street abortion butchers and women throwing themselves down the stairs? That's exactly what will start happening if this legislation comes in.

[atszyman]

I am pro choice and think this is a relatively insane idea but if they are going to try to push this through, I want to know what responsibilities are forced onto the father during the 9 months that the mother carries the child? and after the birth of the child?

The only way I could see this as being remotely fair is if for the 9 months of pregnancy the father becomes responsible for all healthcare costs and living expenses of the mother (and some reasonable amount of fitness cost, because, let's face it, getting back in shape after pregnancy is not always that easy), and after the birth the mother gets to simply walk away and pay child support (if a guy has to pay child support for a child he didn't want that was conceived in a one night stand, I don't see why the mother should be exempt in this situation) with the father having all of the responsibility of physically raising the child or taking care of the adoption process.

If the father simply gets veto power over the abortion, without assuming any responsibility during the pregnancy I can't see how anyone can argue that this promotes fairness and equality. I do think that the father should have the opportunity to talk the mother out of an abortion, but since they don't have to deal with the 9 months of being pregnant they do not get an equal vote so he cannot veto an abortion.

[jng]

If women can go through the courts to get the man to pay for a child the man maybe doesn't want, then why shouldn't a man be able to have the child he wants but maybe the woman doesn't?

Aside from the physical factors (Which yes, I understand are huge for the woman and not so far the man) the emotional side is surely much the same?


I agree with you there.

I had a great debate with a friend about this. A father has a right to a child, despite the fact that he doesn't bear the child for 9 months.

I think that the law, however, is going about it entirely the wrong way. If they were to introduce a paternal rights law, they should leave things mostly in the status quo with the exception that a man can contest the abortion of his child and file some sort of petition.

It's a touchy subject. But I do think that men should have rights too.

[MacNut]

Haven't you heard, fathers really don't have any rights.:rolleyes:

[Markleshark]

Haven't you heard, fathers really don't have any rights.:rolleyes:

It would seem not, due mainly to the fact they we're not chosen by whoever/whatever to carry the child. Shame really.

I wonder if Sea Horses have this problem in reverse...

[Queso]

I wonder if Sea Horses have this problem in reverse...
This penguin still thinks it's harder on the lady :cool:

[imac/cheese]

If you want to give fathers a say, allow them to opt out of child support well before the child is born. However, they shouldn't get to control what goes on inside someone else's body.

I have heard this argument many times before that a father should have the ability to opt out of paying child support before the child is born. I really feel that this is a horrible idea. What deadbeat father is not going to opt out of child support? Even if the father doesn't want the mother to have an abortion, he could say so in order to avoid child support. I believe that if a man is "man enough" to create a child he should be man enough to support the child. The opting out of paying support only hurts the child (the only innocent one in the whole situation).

[MacNut]

So if a father should not be allowed to opt out of child support why should he not have a say in the child's birth. Both sides go into making a child and both sides should be responsible for the outcome.

[RacerX]

Sadly, the abortion issue is often handled by people distinctly disconnected from the people it actually effects directly. I don't think that men should really have a say in the final decision.

:rolleyes:

That having been said, I'm more than happy to make my opinion on the matter known. :D

I think your point would be very true if it concerned any routine medical procedure, but the issue is complicated by virtue of the fact that there are two bodies involved when a woman is pregnant. The woman's body is host to another body. The body inside the host has no choices to make. The woman certainly does have choices to make, as do all of us as other human beings...You are right, there are two bodies involved, but we should (when using this point) address all two body scenarios.

Should the government be able to force people to use their bodies to save others?

If it is found out that I could save someone who needed a kidney, part of my liver or even my blood, should our government be able to compel me to under go whatever risks might be involved in an attempt to save the other person?

My feelings on this are that life is life from start to finish, but that can not be a compelling factor in forcing people to use their bodies to support another person's life against their wishes. Women should not be forced to be incubators if they don't want to be anymore than I should be forced to provide the use of my body to save someone else.

Contrary to popular belief, pregnancy is risky to the health of the woman. Having a foreign body growing inside someone (no matter how natural we take it to be) still entails risks that could take the woman's life in the end.

Quite frankly, unless a woman is freely and willingly consenting to the use of her body this way, no one else should be involved in making that choice.

Some of the most beautiful and important people in my life are women, and there is not one of them I would be willing to sacrifice for a perfect stranger... even if that stranger is a baby.



Lets now address the usual argument brought up to this... But the woman may have done something (had sex) to start the pregnancy, doesn't that make her responsible?

Again, we should remove the specifics and make this a more general question, such as... If you have an accident that injures another person, should you be forced to provide your body to help save the life of that other person?

A yes to the first question should imply that you also agree with the second question... which is not restricted to females. In this way, abortion arguments reframed to be all inclusive (effecting both men and women, in similar life or death scenarios) make for a more honest debate... which is something that has been sorely lacking in the public exchanges on this issue.

[swingerofbirch]

Sadly, the abortion issue is often handled by people distinctly disconnected from the people it actually effects directly. I don't think that men should really have a say in the final decision.

:rolleyes:

That having been said, I'm more than happy to make my opinion on the matter known. :D

You are right, there are two bodies involved, but we should (when using this point) address all two body scenarios.

Should the government be able to force people to use their bodies to save others?

If it is found out that I could save someone who needed a kidney, part of my liver or even my blood, should our government be able to compel me to under go whatever risks might be involved in an attempt to save the other person?

My feelings on this are that life is life from start to finish, but that can not be a compelling factor in forcing people to use their bodies to support another person's life against their wishes. Women should not be forced to be incubators if they don't want to be anymore than I should be forced to provide the use of my body to save someone else.

Contrary to popular belief, pregnancy is risky to the health of the woman. Having a foreign body growing inside someone (no matter how natural we take it to be) still entails risks that could take the woman's life in the end.

Quite frankly, unless a woman is freely and willingly consenting to the use of her body this way, no one else should be involved in making that choice.

Some of the most beautiful and important people in my life are women, and there is not one of them I would be willing to sacrifice for a perfect stranger... even if that stranger is a baby.



Lets now address the usual argument brought up to this... But the woman may have done something (had sex) to start the pregnancy, doesn't that make her responsible?

Again, we should remove the specifics and make this a more general question, such as... If you have an accident that injures another person, should you be forced to provide your body to help save the life of that other person?

A yes to the first question should imply that you also agree with the second question... which is not restricted to females. In this way, abortion arguments reframed to be all inclusive (effecting both men and women, in similar life or death scenarios) make for a more honest debate... which is something that has been sorely lacking in the public exchanges on this issue.

To answer your question in short, I would like to think I would donate that part of my body that was needed to make amends for the accident I caused. But I cannot say for sure.

In some ways though you could make it even more analogous by using the following hypothetical:

An 8 year old girl will die if she does not receive a new kidney and her mother is the only one who can provide it. Should the mother be obligated to give a kidney to her daughter?

The reason this is more analogous is that the life of a fetus is not dependent on the general public to survive, but on one woman, from whom the child came to live.

The other question to ask is: what about abortion past the point that a fetus could be extracted from the mother and reasonably be expected to survive on its own?

I have to admit that I really struggle with these issues. I wonder--when did a human first think to abort a child? I grew up in a feminist era where my family and most people I knew strongly supported a woman's right to chose, and it wasn't until I was older that I ever considered how I actually felt about it. I try to imagine being on a deserted island never having been influenced by society. If I were there with only one other woman on Earth and impregnated her and saw in her the baby growing--would the idea of abortion ever occur to me if it hadn't been introduced to me by society?

In other words, how was it first thought up?

My last point I want to make is that I know people who were adopted. And they are wonderful amazing people and are amazing in the lives of the people they know. Steve Jobs was adopted! What would have happened if their parents had aborted them instead of putting them up for adoption? Why is adoption not a good option for people who don't want a child?

[RacerX]

To answer your question in short, I would like to think I would donate that part of my body that was needed to make amends for the accident I caused. But I cannot say for sure.We aren't talking about willingness, we are talking about government compulsion. You wouldn't have a choice, the government had made it for you.

In some ways though you could make it even more analogous by using the following hypothetical:

An 8 year old girl will die if she does not receive a new kidney and her mother is the only one who can provide it. Should the mother be obligated to give a kidney to her daughter?

The reason this is more analogous is that the life of a fetus is not dependent on the general public to survive, but on one woman, from whom the child came to live.Sorry, until cloning comes about, it still takes more than one woman from whom a child came to live.

But are parents currently obligated by government compulsion to make themselves available for that type of thing? And you brought up adoption, are birth parents who have no contact with their offspring currently obligated by government compulsion to make themselves available for that type of thing?

We are talking about the law here. As the law currently stands, it is the choice of the individual to decide what to do with their bodies. But some people would take away that choice and introduce government compulsion.

I have to admit that I really struggle with these issues. I wonder--when did a human first think to abort a child? I grew up in a feminist era where my family and most people I knew strongly supported a woman's right to chose, and it wasn't until I was older that I ever considered how I actually felt about it.It is a fine option for any women willing to risk full term pregnancy. But anyone not willing to risk possible death shouldn't be forced... and in the end we are talking about forcing women into this.

I try to imagine being on a deserted island never having been influenced by society. If I were there with only one other woman on Earth and impregnated her and saw in her the baby growing--would the idea of abortion ever occur to me if it hadn't been introduced to me by society?It might have occurred to you if she dies because of that pregnancy... leaving you without her and you left as the primary cause of her death.


In the end, no one (man or woman) should be forced by the government to use their bodies as live support for another person against their will.

The absents of this important factor in your reply shows you aren't seeing the dangers of this issue and ware it could lead for everyone (like a government notice telling you to show up at a hospital to provide organs for someone becoming as common as jury selection notices).

The path you seem to be favoring is a slippery slope that could effect what rights any of us have to our bodies.

:rolleyes:

In an ideal world women wouldn't have to use their bodies as incubators to have children in the first place. If the pro-life people put as much money into research on how to bring children to full term without a human host as they do their political fight, this would all be academic... abortion clinics would become transfer clinics.

Of course that doesn't answer the question of what happens to the unwanted children, but at least it removed the parasitic aspect of the debate (and the government compulsion part too).

[Sobe]

Of course the flip side of the coin is that if fathers have zero say then why should they have to pay child support.

[pseudobrit]

Of course the flip side of the coin is that if fathers have zero say then why should they have to pay child support.

Of course they had their say when they impregnated the woman.

[Sobe]

If the act of impregnation were determined solely by male choice then your opinion might have some merit.

[pseudobrit]

If the act of impregnation were determined solely by male choice then your opinion might have some merit.

He chose to engage in an act that he knew could lead to impregnation. What more choice should he have had?

[Ugg]

I have to admit that I really struggle with these issues. I wonder--when did a human first think to abort a child? I grew up in a feminist era where my family and most people I knew strongly supported a woman's right to chose, and it wasn't until I was older that I ever considered how I actually felt about it. I try to imagine being on a deserted island never having been influenced by society. If I were there with only one other woman on Earth and impregnated her and saw in her the baby growing--would the idea of abortion ever occur to me if it hadn't been introduced to me by society?

In other words, how was it first thought up?



Not too hard to imagine the circumstances under which a woman would want to abort a fetus. Starvation would probably be a good place to start, too many other children, dead or absent father, rape, incest, etc, etc.

Everyone wants to play up the "moral" aspect of it but in all reality, abortion is mostly a matter of economics. A woman's ability to work is decreased, her ability to care for other children can be impaired, her health can be very seriously impacted, etc, etc.

It's easy to say that such concerns don't apply to us but given the phenomenal costs of raising children in our society, the lack of health care, the lack of maternity/post-natal leave, it's probably surprising that abortion is considered as rarely as it is.

[Sobe]

He chose to engage in an act that he knew could lead to impregnation. What more choice should he have had?

Well for starters just take the scenario of a couple who decided not to have children and they decide to use whatever birth control they choose from the pill to the shot to the condom.

No method is 100% effective.

This is a shared risk/benefit situation.

Nothing wrong with women having all of the rights in the decision, but there is a necessary tension between rights and responsibilities in life. And where one has no rights, it is rather silly to impose responsibilties.

[pseudobrit]

Nothing wrong with women having all of the rights in the decision, but there is a necessary tension between rights and responsibilities in life. And where one has no rights, it is rather silly to impose responsibilties.

A man always has the right to keep his pecker in his pants. If he's not using that 100% surefire method, he then assumes any responsibilities produced by waiving his rights.

I'm not sure why this seems so hard to understand.

[Sobe]

A man always has the right to keep his pecker in his pants. If he's not using that 100% surefire method, he then assumes any responsibilities produced by waiving his rights.

I'm not sure why this seems so hard to understand.

It's not difficult to understand, it's just a false argument that relegates women to sexual naifs who are incapable of deciding whether or not to allow themselves to get pregnant.

There may have been a time when that was true, and it may still be true in some cultures, but it certainly isn't the norm in western civ.

[pseudobrit]

It's not difficult to understand, it's just a false argument that relegates women to sexual naifs who are incapable of deciding whether or not to allow themselves to get pregnant.

There may have been a time when that was true, and it may still be true in some cultures, but it certainly isn't the norm in western civ.

The woman decides for herself too, and certainly bears the responsibilities of any outcome. I don't know what point you think I'm trying to make, but you're reading way too much into this.

[Ugg]

Well for starters just take the scenario of a couple who decided not to have children and they decide to use whatever birth control they choose from the pill to the shot to the condom.

No method is 100% effective.

This is a shared risk/benefit situation.

Nothing wrong with women having all of the rights in the decision, but there is a necessary tension between rights and responsibilities in life. And where one has no rights, it is rather silly to impose responsibilties.

If they both made the decision then hopefully they both decided beforehand what they would do if a pregnancy did occur.

You're also being somewhat hysterical since you simply can't claim that men have no rights when it comes to their offspring. It's extremely silly to claim that a father has rights to a fetus. More than 25% of all pregnancies result in spontaneous abortions. Some of those, I'm sure are due to poor choice's on the mother's part.

Once you start assigning a man right's to a woman's body, where does it stop? Could a man force a woman to not drink, smoke or skydive while she was pregnant? Could he force her to stay at home in bed for the duration of the pregnancy?

A fetus by definition is an integral part of a woman's body. Separating a fetus and the body its inside of is physically impossible and morally reprehensible.

Once the fetus becomes a living, breathing human being, it's another story altogether.

[Sobe]

If they both made the decision then hopefully they both decided beforehand what they would do if a pregnancy did occur.

You're also being somewhat hysterical since you simply can't claim that men have no rights when it comes to their offspring. It's extremely silly to claim that a father has rights to a fetus. More than 25&#37; of all pregnancies result in spontaneous abortions. Some of those, I'm sure are due to poor choice's on the mother's part.

Once you start assigning a man right's to a woman's body, where does it stop? Could a man force a woman to not drink, smoke or skydive while she was pregnant? Could he force her to stay at home in bed for the duration of the pregnancy?

A fetus by definition is an integral part of a woman's body. Separating a fetus and the body its inside of is physically impossible and morally reprehensible.

Once the fetus becomes a living, breathing human being, it's another story altogether.

You're skirting past the point.

I am not arguing that men should have any say over what a woman does or does not do.

All I am suggesting is that the responsibility of the man should be proportional to his rights to make the decision.

If he has no legal standing to decide whether to abort or carry the baby to term then he shouldn't be required to support the child.

And actually, although this has nothing to do with my point, there is a lot of evidence that the relationship between a fetus (or embryo or unborn baby or whatever one wishes to call it) and the mother it is more of a parasite-host relationship. That doesn't mean it's not the woman's body, but it certainly is very interesting to hear about the relationship at the biochemical level.

There is quite a biological battle going on there. It's fascinating reading if you're interested in the topic.

[pseudobrit]

If he has no legal standing to decide whether to abort or carry the baby to term then he shouldn't be required to support the child.

He knew what boinking could entail, and that the decision to have the baby or not would ultimately be the woman's choice. You keep trying to skirt around the simplicity of this, but simple logic just keeps popping up in the way.

[Sobe]

He knew what boinking could entail, and that the decision to have the baby or not would ultimately be the woman's choice. You keep trying to skirt around the simplicity of this, but simple logic just keeps popping up in the way.

Repetition of circular reasoning does not enhance it.

[solvs]

Repetition of circular reasoning does not enhance it.

Indeed.

His responsibility isn't proportional to his rights. That's just the way it is. During pregnancy and after birth. A Father can be forced to keep paying for the child even if he loses all rights to it after it's born. Same with while the Mother is pregnant. Full responsibility even with limited or no rights. There are some exceptions of course, but that's the way it is. This really isn't that hard.

If you don't like it, just be careful who you have sex with.

[Sobe]

Indeed.

His responsibility isn't proportional to his rights. That's just the way it is. During pregnancy and after birth. A Father can be forced to keep paying for the child even if he loses all rights to it after it's born. Same with while the Mother is pregnant. Full responsibility even with limited or no rights. There are some exceptions of course, but that's the way it is. This really isn't that hard.

If you don't like it, just be careful who you have sex with.

When did I get into Neverland?

Of course it's not that hard because all you're doing is saying what the status quo is, something I might have considered (don't you think?) when I made the initial observation?

The point is to perhaps comment on the nature of the disparity, why it exists, if it is moral to do so, and if so on what grounds...you know an actual discussion.

But hey if "that's how it is" gets you through the day, then well done all around.

[solvs]

But hey if "that's how it is" gets you through the day, then well done all around.

What do you propose as an alternative?

[janey]

Condoms, sex-ed, morning after pill, and nationalized adoption procedures and standards that make it easy and safe for a woman to give her child for adoption are needed.
Nothing, not even using condoms with the pill on top of spermicides and the morning after pill, can guarantee 100&#37; effectiveness. Short of abstinence, that is. And we all know how well abstinence-only education is..and how much most people like that idea. :rolleyes:

There are also women who cannot for whatever reason go through with a pregnancy. Adoption is great...but you have to understand, some women would rather abort a month or two into a pregnancy than give birth to a child for WHATEVER reason...not ready, health issues, rape, father isn't your husband...

I have heard this argument many times before that a father should have the ability to opt out of paying child support before the child is born. I really feel that this is a horrible idea. What deadbeat father is not going to opt out of child support? Even if the father doesn't want the mother to have an abortion, he could say so in order to avoid child support. I believe that if a man is "man enough" to create a child he should be man enough to support the child. The opting out of paying support only hurts the child (the only innocent one in the whole situation).

Even though it's unfair that when a woman decides to go through with a pregnancy, the father is expected to pay child support...the woman raises the kid. So if this ridiculous law is actually ever seriously considered, it's only fair that if such a (whatever this was) was passed, that the father have full responsibility for raising the child, paying the bills related to pre/during/post-birth medical and general necessities for the mother, and that the mother only have to pay child support. And there seems to be nothing in the proposed or current law that does all of the above. But to make this an actual law is preposterous in that you get to force someone whose body plays a bigger part in this equation into doing something potentially unwanted.

I honestly wonder how many women will harm themselves and call it a miscarriage..or just get an unsafe abortion, or find some loophole that enables her to get a safer abortion...or gets one anyway by lying about the father, because it seems they don't do paternity testing if you only come up with one name.

If they both made the decision then hopefully they both decided beforehand what they would do if a pregnancy did occur.
Unfortunately, people change their minds for whatever reason. It's one thing to decide beforehand, it's another thing to actually be in that situation.

Once you start assigning a man right's to a woman's body, where does it stop? Could a man force a woman to not drink, smoke or skydive while she was pregnant? Could he force her to stay at home in bed for the duration of the pregnancy?
Thank you. Entirely correct.

All I am suggesting is that the responsibility of the man should be proportional to his rights to make the decision.
The responsibility of the man should be proportional to the part he plays in the entire situation. And well, when you're not actually the one being forced to give birth, enough said.

If he has no legal standing to decide whether to abort or carry the baby to term then he shouldn't be required to support the child.
I do not disagree, but that's unfortunately not the case in Ohio, if I remember correctly.


I'm all for being against this law, and I'd rather propose that there should be a system in place where a father who wants a woman to give birth instead of having an abortion NOT necessarily be informed (huge privacy issues right there, if you even knew who the father was..teenagers get privacy even from their parents regarding reproductive health services, so should adult women), but have the ability to notify the woman that he's willing to compensate her and raise the kid etc. like I've mentioned above that this proposed law should have. Or whatever agreement both parties decide on. Something that doesn't give the guy full control over whether or not a woman can have an abortion (which is a sick and twisted idea to begin with), but something that would legally bind the guy into fulfilling certain obligations should the woman reconsider her decision to have an abortion. That's in addition to requiring that men need not pay child support (among other things) should a woman give birth to a child the man did not want. Only fair it goes both ways.


And is nobody here concerned about the whole dr/patient confidentiality thing? I don't see how it's really the guy's business unless and until I feel like including him in the decision, as it really should be between me and my doctor(s), not between my doctor and some guy I slept with, when it comes to an abortion involving my body.

Personally, I just can't believe someone thinks this is a good idea. Abortion's always been a last-resort option only after all others have failed for me. I'm indecisive about having kids, but leaning towards not wanting any, but there's probably no way in hell I can convince any doctor to tie my tubes at 18..or even probably 10 years into the future either. And you can be sure I use multiple forms of birth control, if I even sleep with a guy.

As for being forced to give birth to a kid I don't want because some ******* I slept with thought I shouldn't have an abortion...if mental health doesn't qualify as a medical exemption, it should, because I would ****ing flip out bigtime. I would seriously try every single option I could think of, including trying out every single abortifacient known to humankind, before giving birth. That includes out-of-state trips and unsafe backalley abortions (leaving out the obvious of what you could do with the whole "rape" aspect..). If it kills me, so be it. And like I said..good luck finding a doctor that will sterilize an 18 year old no questions asked. And well, hitting on other women isn't as easy, and abstinence is something I don't prefer or like in any way, and I'm sure a lot of you would agree :D

[Sobe]

The responsibility of the man should be proportional to the part he plays in the entire situation. And well, when you're not actually the one being forced to give birth, enough said.

No one's forcing anyone to do anything.

The original post was commenting on this potential bit of legislation or whatever it's called that might give men more rights concerning abortion.

Now if we assume that it's properly rejected, then (to me anyway) it raises the question of why we would reject it.

And we reject it because we recoil at the idea of someone's reproductive freedom being dictated by someone else. But if we accept that, then it must necessarily follow that those rights should never be exercised in such a way to force someone else to pay for that choice.

That is why the status quo is untenable and why people will continue to think up idiotic potential laws like the one detailed in the original post.

It is only when men have no responsibility regarding the choice that women make for their reproductive choices that the right is properly affirmed.

[solvs]

It is only when men have no responsibility regarding the choice that women make for their reproductive choices that the right is properly affirmed.
But they do have a responsibility. To the child, not the Mother. If you have sex with a woman, and it produces a child, you have a responsibility to care for that child. Even if you have no right to it. There are some situations where the Mother can release all responsibility, or where you can argue in court against it. But otherwise, there were 2 responsible parties involved in it's creation. The Mother then decides what to do, since it is her body. It would be nice for her to let the Father have some input, but his responsibility is a given either way, while his rights aren't guaranteed. If the Mother wants to abort, the Father is no longer responsible. If he wants to help still he can, or if he disagrees, he can try to change her mind and offer to take care of her, but it's not his body, so he can't force the woman to go through with it. And the gov shouldn't be able to either. Because, as I said, that's the way it is and that's the way it has to be because the alternative is not viable.

If you don't like it, the only alternative is to be careful with who you have sex with.

[janey]

No one's forcing anyone to do anything.
I know I didn't make a clear distinction in my post above, but the current proposed law effectively gives men the right to force women to give birth if the man does not want her to get an abortion...after all, that is the opposite of not having an abortion. So short of miscarrying (or rather, "miscarrying" in some situations) or getting an abortion through potentially dangerous and/or illegal means, you'd have to give birth. And because the woman wanted an abortion..that's effectively a forced birth.

And yes, while this proposed law gives men more "rights", it is only after sacrificing all sorts of rights for the woman. There are also all sorts of situations that are not taken into consideration that should be.

The current situation is not fair to men, I give you that, but like I said, sorry, men don't give birth. There really isn't any other way except this route to ensure that men have a say the same way women do now. And clearly there is some strong opposition to this potential law because it reduces women to mere baby-carriers. And if men didn't oppose the idea of women making the final decision alone, this kind of idea would never have been dreamt of.

There is no nice way to split a decision like this 50/50 purely based on the whole idea of "you chose to have sex". After all, except in cases of rape, it was the choice of both the man and the woman to do so. But not only does that cause an issue because no one would have a bigger say in the situation, but also because it is completely ignoring that the woman is giving birth, and it is skirting around the issue of child support for both people involved.

[solvs]

the current proposed law effectively gives men the right to force women to give birth if the man does not want her to get an abortion
And, it could be argued, might lead to men trying to say if it's up to them, they shouldn't have to pay for the child if the woman doesn't want to get an abortion.

And yes, while this proposed law gives men more "rights", it is only after sacrificing all sorts of rights for the woman.
In other words, my rights end where yours begin.

And yes, it does suck for men, but that is how it is. For better or worse. Again, there is no viable alternative.

[janey]

And, it could be argued, might lead to men trying to say if it's up to them, they shouldn't have to pay for the child if the woman doesn't want to get an abortion.

In other words, my rights end where yours begin.

There's only four basic situations arising from a man and a pregnant woman deciding what to do:
1. Man wants, woman doesn't. Man has no say in the abortion.
2. Man doesn't want, woman does. Man has no say in the birth.
3. Man wants, woman wants. Give birth and figure out the details, win-win situation.
4. Man doesn't want, neither does the woman. Get an abortion, win-win situation.

For the first two situations, it sucks for the guy, who still plays a part, albeit not as big, in the whole thing.

I'm all up for the idea of not forcing women to go through unwanted pregnancy. At the same time, I'm all up for both sides in both situations 1 and 2 to come to an agreement along the lines of "you decided to have the kid so you raise it, so I shouldn't have to support you in any way" for men to women, and "you wanted the kid so you raise it, I should be compensated for having to give birth (in terms of missed work, medical costs, etc.), and I shouldn't have to support you in any other way" for women to men. Probably not a very popular suggestion, but without sacrificing anyone's rights, that is the only way to be as fair as possible to both sides that I can think of, because neither the current situation nor the proposed bill is fair. That still leaves the possibility that the woman be able to make the final decision regarding the abortion so it doesn't trample on all sorts of reproductive/privacy rights, but that kind of thing may sway some women into giving birth knowing that they don't have to end up taking care of it and what have you.

[miloblithe]

There's only four basic situations arising from a man and a pregnant woman deciding what to do:
1. Man wants, woman doesn't. Man has no say in the abortion.
2. Man doesn't want, woman does. Man has no say in the birth.
3. Man wants, woman wants. Give birth and figure out the details, win-win situation.
4. Man doesn't want, neither does the woman. Get an abortion, win-win situation.

Where does, "man wants, woman wants, fetus is badly deformed and has no chance of survival outside the womb" fit into this scheme? Or "man wants, woman wants, carrying the pregnancy to term has a 70% chance of killing the mother?"

[imac/cheese]

There's only four basic situations arising from a man and a pregnant woman deciding what to do:
1. Man wants, woman doesn't. Man has no say in the abortion.
2. Man doesn't want, woman does. Man has no say in the birth.
3. Man wants, woman wants. Give birth and figure out the details, win-win situation.
4. Man doesn't want, neither does the woman. Get an abortion, win-win situation.

For the first two situations, it sucks for the guy, who still plays a part, albeit not as big, in the whole thing.

I'm all up for the idea of not forcing women to go through unwanted pregnancy. At the same time, I'm all up for both sides in both situations 1 and 2 to come to an agreement along the lines of "you decided to have the kid so you raise it, so I shouldn't have to support you in any way" for men to women, and "you wanted the kid so you raise it, I should be compensated for having to give birth (in terms of missed work, medical costs, etc.), and I shouldn't have to support you in any other way" for women to men. Probably not a very popular suggestion, but without sacrificing anyone's rights, that is the only way to be as fair as possible to both sides that I can think of, because neither the current situation nor the proposed bill is fair. That still leaves the possibility that the woman be able to make the final decision regarding the abortion so it doesn't trample on all sorts of reproductive/privacy rights, but that kind of thing may sway some women into giving birth knowing that they don't have to end up taking care of it and what have you.

I am completely against the idea of letting mothers or fathers opt out of their financial responsibilities for their children because they claim they did not want the child in the first place. Regardless of who gets to decide whether or not a child is born, both parents should be financially responsible for that kid's well being.

A father telling a mother that he will not financially support the child they created will lead to more abortions as more mothers will be worried about being able to support the child on her own. Many fathers will simply state that they do not want the child to be born (whether or not it is actually true) just to avoid paying child support. This also creates a situation where more and more single mothers are on their own. This only ends up hurting the child and the parent trying to raise that child.

Just because you do not want your child, doesn't mean you shouldn't be responsible for your actions that created that child.

[Ugg]

I am completely against the idea of letting mothers or fathers opt out of their financial responsibilities for their children because they claim they did not want the child in the first place. Regardless of who gets to decide whether or not a child is born, both parents should be financially responsible for that kid's well being.

A father telling a mother that he will not financially support the child they created will lead to more abortions as more mothers will be worried about being able to support the child on her own. Many fathers will simply state that they do not want the child to be born (whether or not it is actually true) just to avoid paying child support. This also creates a situation where more and more single mothers are on their own. This only ends up hurting the child and the parent trying to raise that child.

Just because you do not want your child, doesn't mean you shouldn't be responsible for your actions that created that child.


There's another side to this that I think you need to consider.

What if a woman doesn't want a child yet is forced to give birth and raise it? What chance of a decent life is that kid going to have, knowing that its birth was forced on the mother? I can imagine the mother might well have a great deal of resentment towards the child.

I've known more than a few women who have chosen not to have children because they felt they wouldn't be good mothers. Unfortunately, I've known more than a few women who have children who aren't good mothers.

If we truly are a compassionate society, we need to acknowledge that women and for that fact men, just because they are able to reproduce, doesn't mean they should.

It's one thing taking responsibility for a mortgage and entirely another taking responsibility for a child.

[pseudobrit]

Repetition of circular reasoning does not enhance it.

The biologically inequal circumstances surrounding a pregnancy dictate how society best deals with trying to create a fair and just system for all concerned at every stage. Ultimately this system has to conclude that a child's best interests are their primary motivation for action. Another primary consideration is given for the woman's discretion to control what occurs with her body. A father's rights will always be subordinate to either of the previous concerns.

Sometimes things in life aren't exactly fair or equal. You don't like the simple truths of nature and society and can't cope with it. I'm sorry you can't seem to come to terms with that and need to get so snippy and frustrated with those who can.

[solvs]

The biologically inequal circumstances surrounding a pregnancy dictate how society best deals with trying to create a fair and just system for all concerned at every stage. Ultimately this system has to conclude that a child's best interests are their primary motivation for action. Another primary consideration is given for the woman's discretion to control what occurs with her body. A father's rights will always be subordinate to either of the previous concerns.

Or in other words, one must live with the consequences of their actions. Thought that was a big thing with conservatives, that way the gov doesn't have to get involved. Oh, and, don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

[janey]

Where does, "man wants, woman wants, fetus is badly deformed and has no chance of survival outside the womb" fit into this scheme? Or "man wants, woman wants, carrying the pregnancy to term has a 70&#37; chance of killing the mother?"
In the context of this thread about the proposed law, which does not apply when there is a medical necessity, there would be four broad cases, and perhaps I should add a couple more options, like have the kid anyway because someone believes it is morally wrong to have an abortion..give up the kid for adoption after birth...etc. Otherwise, in the unusual cases you've outlined and more, that's something the couple should decide for themselves with the appropriate medical counseling.

Just because you do not want your child, doesn't mean you shouldn't be responsible for your actions that created that child.
So, the father should have no legal right to prevent an abortion because he could have been more responsible about the whole thing and not have sex in the first place. :)

That being said, to address your actual concern, all sorts of situations could arise from something like that, including the mother having an abortion cause she doesn't want to raise a kid despite the father's ineffective protests. Women have the final say in what happens, and men are effectively powerless in this situation and someone in Ohio really hated that - it's not fair, but the mother's rights and privacy can't be ignored. I'm just throwing out a suggestion.

And sometimes, you don't have to be responsible (as much)..giving up a kid for adoption or something..

What if a woman doesn't want a child yet is forced to give birth and raise it? What chance of a decent life is that kid going to have, knowing that its birth was forced on the mother? I can imagine the mother might well have a great deal of resentment towards the child.
Raise it? You mean, if some women don't surrender the babies at hospitals first..or, like you occasionally hear on the news, leave them in the dumpster for dead. Or if she doesn't miscarry somehow, or if she doesn't get an abortion somewhere else. Forcing someone to go through an unwanted pregnancy is inhumane and unbelievable on so many levels that I can't believe there are people supporting this particular proposal, on top of having the burden of proof of rape being on the woman, which is pretty twisted in itself.

[imac/cheese]

There's another side to this that I think you need to consider.

What if a woman doesn't want a child yet is forced to give birth and raise it? What chance of a decent life is that kid going to have, knowing that its birth was forced on the mother? I can imagine the mother might well have a great deal of resentment towards the child.

I've known more than a few women who have chosen not to have children because they felt they wouldn't be good mothers. Unfortunately, I've known more than a few women who have children who aren't good mothers.

If we truly are a compassionate society, we need to acknowledge that women and for that fact men, just because they are able to reproduce, doesn't mean they should.

It's one thing taking responsibility for a mortgage and entirely another taking responsibility for a child.

I think you misunderstood me. I wasn't arguing for this Ohio law in anyway. In an earlier post I already stated that I thought this law was a bad idea. What I was arguing about is the right of a father to opt out of child support if the mother decides to have the child against his desires.

That being said I will now proceed to give you my opinion about your post. You have argued that a compassionate society should allow women who do not think they would be good mothers and do not want a child to abort that child because the kid will not have a chance at a decent life. I think this is absolutely the worst argument for abortion that anyone could come up with. Are you saying that you are protecting a child from a less than ideal life by killing them? I am very familiar with kids living less than ideal lives (I am a foster parent and have seen first hand the kind of people that shouldn't have kids) but I do not think that any of those children are worse off than if they had been aborted. We simply would have never known them so our sorrow for them would be a lot less.

I can understand a lot of arguments for abortion such as forcing a woman through an unwanted pregnancy is horrible and creates a lot of other problems (as Janey stated in her last post). I can also understand that a lot of people do not believe that a life has been created until a certain point during pregnancy. But I do not think we are being compassionate to euthanize the unborn because they will have lives that you do not consider "decent". They are not stray kittens, but people.

I still think this law in Ohio is bad. It is just a way for pro-life people to weasel their way into the law books by making the fetus something other than part of a woman's body. Though I agree with that idea, this law creates way to many other problems that other pro-lifers aren't considering.

[kainjow]

Not amazingly. Ohio is pretty backward. I grew up there and fled as soon as I could. From what I'm told it's getting worse, not better. Every time I visit my family there I get the willies. It's such a negative, defeatist place.

I'd be interested to hear more on what you think is backwards about Ohio.

I've been living here my entire life, and the only thing going backwards is people's driving abilities ;)

[Chef Medeski]

I agree Fathers should get some say but this is the worst way ever. This will just add an undue burden and lagresse to the process. I think fathers should have a veto vote. And all a father has to do is say he is the father. A mother could protest with a paternity test.

[imac/cheese]

I agree Fathers should get some say but this is the worst way ever. This will just add an undue burden and lagresse to the process. I think fathers should have a veto vote. And all a father has to do is say he is the father. A mother could protest with a paternity test.

Does anyone know if they can even do a paternity test on an embryo or fetus?

[Sobe]

The biologically inequal circumstances surrounding a pregnancy dictate how society best deals with trying to create a fair and just system for all concerned at every stage. Ultimately this system has to conclude that a child's best interests are their primary motivation for action. Another primary consideration is given for the woman's discretion to control what occurs with her body. A father's rights will always be subordinate to either of the previous concerns.

Sometimes things in life aren't exactly fair or equal. You don't like the simple truths of nature and society and can't cope with it. I'm sorry you can't seem to come to terms with that and need to get so snippy and frustrated with those who can.

Please lease don't confuse my ability to cope with an issue with my taking issue with the illogic of a situation.

It just makes you look silly for attempting to marginalize with derogatory labels that which you cannot dismiss with logic.

Your philosophy seems to be to shrug your shoulders to the sky and say "oh well sometimes life is unfair."

Others of us hold our society to higher standards so forgive me if I don't join you in your apathy.

[teflon]

Does anyone know if they can even do a paternity test on an embryo or fetus?

I don't think so. At least on Maury, when they have cases where women with unborn baby says the man is the father, they always say we'll give you the update when the baby is born and a paternity test is taken. I don't think a fetus, much less an embryo has developed enough for such tests to be accurate.

[mactastic]

I don't think so. At least on Maury, when they have cases where women with unborn baby says the man is the father, they always say we'll give you the update when the baby is born and a paternity test is taken. I don't think a fetus, much less an embryo has developed enough for such tests to be accurate.
I'm guessing it has more to do with access to the fetus than it does with development. Doctors typically are very reluctant to do anything that they don't absolutely have to do when the fetus is in utero. There's no reason to put the health of the fetus at rist for a test that can simply wait a few months.

IOW, the DNA is there for the testing, it's just to risky to try to take a sample prior to birth.

[Sobe]

amniocentesis or chorionic villus sampling

These are the same samples that are taken to determine if the baby is genetically healthy.

I used to work in a cytogenetic lab in a hospital and we would take amnios and CVS all the time for karyotyping to determine if a child had chromosomal anomalies.

[mactastic]

amniocentesis or chorionic villus sampling

These are the same samples that are taken to determine if the baby is genetically healthy.

I used to work in a cytogenetic lab in a hospital and we would take amnios and CVS all the time for karyotyping to determine if a child had chromosomal anomalies.
Those both involve carefully inserting a needle through the stomach and puncturing the placental wall, correct? And carry a risk of harming the fetus?

[Sobe]

Those both involve carefully inserting a needle through the stomach and puncturing the placental wall, correct? And carry a risk of harming the fetus?

everything is a risk, but amnio is a pretty low risk procedure and is done routinely purely for diagnostic purposes.

There is a difference between paternity and establishing the presence or absence of some disorder, though, so they are hardly equivalent, although one could argue that establishing the presence of a genetic disorder with an eye to abortion isn't exactly a benefit to the fetus.

The best case scenario would be where an amnio was going to be done anyway and paternity testing was done in addition to other tests.

[solvs]

Your philosophy seems to be to shrug your shoulders to the sky and say "oh well sometimes life is unfair."

everything is a risk

I'm sorry, but for some reason that stuck out to me.


On topic, I don't think that was what pb was trying to say.

[atszyman]

So if a father should not be allowed to opt out of child support why should he not have a say in the child's birth. Both sides go into making a child and both sides should be responsible for the outcome.

There is a big difference here.

In the early stages of pregnancy (before the fetus is viable outside of the womb) the primary concern should be the health (both mental and physical) of the mother. Since it is her body playing host she gets the final say.

Once the child is born the concern shifts to the health and well-being of the child. At which point both parents have a responsibility.

I'm not against giving fathers a chance to talk the mothers out of an abortion and/or coming to some financial agreement to compensate for the pregnancy difficulties. However in situations where the father takes custody of the child the mother should be responsible for a similar child support payment.

[mactastic]

everything is a risk, but amnio is a pretty low risk procedure and is done routinely purely for diagnostic purposes.

There is a difference between paternity and establishing the presence or absence of some disorder, though, so they are hardly equivalent, although one could argue that establishing the presence of a genetic disorder with an eye to abortion isn't exactly a benefit to the fetus.

The best case scenario would be where an amnio was going to be done anyway and paternity testing was done in addition to other tests.
Sure, but that was my whole point. Paternity isn't going to be affected any by waiting until the child is born. Thus it would be a very irresponsible of anyone to incur any risk whatsoever at that stage. Even if it is a low risk, as you say, it's still riskier than doing nothing and waiting for the cotton swab method.

Can paternity testing be done in utero? Yes. I am not disputing that point. Only whether it SHOULD be done or not.

[-::ubermann::-]

I think TO have a baby people should must have both parents consent