terminations: in what circumstances does the male have a right to a voice

Vegan Girl...You make a good point. I forgot to add that. We can not give a third party (the man) veto power over the bodies of women who they just so happened to impregnant. The fact that their sperm just happens to be in her body does not give a man ownership of that body.


When we take away FULL OWNERSHIP of ones personhood away from women, based only on their condition of pregnancy, we devalue them as human beings, and turn them into slaves of the whims and oppinions of others.

BTW Vegan Girl where in Ohio are you located??? I am in Cleveland. It's always nice to see veggies in the area there are so few in my part of town...you can begin to feel a bit isiolated when everyone you meet(including your own family) has such a diffrent life view...sigh.

 

Adoption, anyone?

 

Then why should a man be responsible at all except to spew some sperm all over. Men are just as responsible for creating babies. You act like it is just the woman involved in the whole thing. Thats why they say you are carring so and so's baby. Why as a father should I have to just let my child die if I am willing to take care of it and support it on my own. It may be a womens body that delivers the baby but the child is carrying both parents genes. Without the man there is no baby.

There are many methods of birth control prior to pregnacy for both men and women. They are not full proff though so yes, a bit of grown up responsibilty is involved. You are not telling me women and men don't know the consequences before the act. If pregnancy occurs then neither parent should be able to force termination on their own because the baby involved does not belong to one or the other solely. If the child is born it is the mans child as well. If the child is killed in the womb it is the mans child has well.

 

As for the transplanting of the baby, I agree with you. If they had some kind of procedure to transplant then thats fine. Until then, women carry the babies but that still doesn't mean the baby is not a BIG part of the father as well.

 

Here is a hypothetical question then - say I had a million dollars to spend on this, and used it to hire a surrogate carrier for the baby. Does the father of the moral right to stop the abortion and transfer the embryo to the surrogate woman?

 

Concerning the hypothetical question, if they can do a transplant, I think that would be okay.

My question is, say the man wants the baby and the woman doesn't. He makes her carry it to term and then it turns out not to be his kid. What then? That would be pretty shitty. "I know I made you carry a baby you didn't want and now I'm going to give him up for adoption, because it isn't mine. Oops."

 

By the way, I'm from the Columbus, OH area!

 

Can't they do DNA testing in the womb? It wouldn't matter much anyway because people don't get DNA testing done on their kids for the most part. How many fathers do you think there are out there raising kids that are not theirs but never know? I would say quite a few. I know my kids have never been tested and I would think that is the case 98% of the time.

I think so.

 

Adoption requires the termination (volinatry or otherwise) of BOTH parents rights. Free from a complete third party adoption....in which BOTH parents give up their equal rights and responsibilities to said child...there is no "opting out" for any 1 single parent.

Adoption requires that both parents agree.....not that one parent is allowed to leave, sigh off his rights, and let the other parent take on the financial and pyhsical burdon.

Adoption...in which neither parent has a legal responsibility...can not be compared to "financial abortion" where one parent is allowed to legally abanone the child and leave the other parent with his/her share of the responisibility. Financial abortion does not = adoption. Sorry.

 

No, the fetus has to develop and be born. And, BTW, many men do request DNA testing before they pay child support, and if a man insists a child isn't his, the courts will do it, and then charge him, if the baby is his.

 

In Oregon I had several friends who were required to dna test their children in order to get child support through the court. and in those cases the fathers weren't even questioning it! It's not at all uncommon.

 

Once you transfer sperm into another's body through a consensual act, you relinquish ownership of that sperm. It is then the woman's; her body is responsible for the processes that ensue. The fact that the child bears your genes are of no relevance. Would you also have ownership (and ownership implies the right to extermination) over your children AFTER birth since they bear your genes? What about when they turn legal age?

Again, sheer nonsense. Let's say you get an implant of some sort. Does the doctor who performed the action have some degree of ownership over your body? What about the inventor of whatever form of apparatus you have? Let's say I donated a kidney. Should I be able to demand the removal and subsequent return of that kidney from its recipient for whatever arbitrary purpose? Or is the recipient the rightful owner since I, by all means, relinquished ownership of the kidney? By engaging is sex and ejaculation in sexual intercourse, you essentially give away some of your sperm and genes.

 

Why would ownership imply a right to extermination? Parents do "own" their children from birth until they reach adulthood. If the child runs away they would be returned against their will to the parents thus conveying ownership to a degree. That is why they are responsible for their childrens actions. I would say it is less about ownership and more about responsibility though in the context of my arguments.

Her body still wouldn't produce shit if the father hadn't been there. It takes male and female to reproduce.

No, because when the baby is born it is not just the mother who is responsible by law. This would lead you to believe that there is responsibility in passing on them genes right? I would say that the oppisite is true; when a woman exposes her egg and genes for insemination(her choice) then the combined egg and sperm are no longer just a part of her but a part of them. Both parents genes merging in the creation of life. Both parents are responsible, that is how it should be. Women go on and on about equal rights but where are the equal reproductive rights of men? Women want in on all the mens issues and you can't have a double standard when it comes to men getting into traditional womens issues like childbirth.

 

Equal reproductive rights would mean both men and women being able to control their own bodies and both having the same freedom to use and availablity to contraceptives. Equally being able to control their own reproductive processess. Carrying pregnancy is not part of a man's reproductive system. No one said life is fair, women are the one who carry pregnancies and that's just the way it is.

A man trying to have some control over a woman's reproductive organs and how they are used is the exact opposite of equal rights.

If you think it's a double-standard then consult mother nature. Us women can't help it that we're the gender that carries pregnancies.

 

You could use that same argument to defend a patriarchy. It simply isn't valid.

 

Why don't you explain how?

How does men being naturally physically stonger than women mean they should have legal and economic or any power over women? How does it make my argument invalid? Mine is about women having control over their own bodies - incuding the natural processess that belong only to females. Patriarchy is about male social control over women becuase they are naturally the physically stronger of the sexes. I don't see how you can use the same argument to say that patriarchy falls under equal rights for a man.

 

You might want to be more careful when using absolutes.
The only absolute I'm aware of is Death.

You really haven't a clue how things work in R/L in many cases.
What you wrote is basically coffee shop/ forum talk.

Same comments to you and the others fairy tale believers -
talk to the folks (it's called 'family' law round here)
that deal in these matters on a daily basis...

Been there, done that...... seen way too much...


Almost forgot to ask - how's the sand?

 

Well, aside from the fact that this is a medical impossibility, you would spend more ON hiring a surrogate than you would on years of child support. (Surrogates often get in excess of $100,000, and often more than this.)

Even if it WERE possible, you would still need consent of the pregnant womyn to perform ANY medical procedure on her, whether it was an "embryo removal" or not, and as no one can force you to donate a kindey or part of your liver or blood or anything else, she could always say NO.

 

I think that one gets a more accurate picture of how things are if one avoids the family law courts.

Courts are for the unusual circumstances.

One doesn't judge the health of a community by looking in the hospital; one walks down Main St. and counts how many folks are coughing.

 

MikeE, you are a wise wise man. Glad to have you here, dude.