Rights of the Father/Parents

[bytor2112]

Let' say a couple engages in sexual intercourse and the result is pregnancy. The female doesn't want to have a child.....the encounter was a mistake and the end result unwanted and wants to terminate the pregnancy. However, the male feels strongly that abortion is immoral and asks the female to have the child...his child....and he will adopt. Should he have legal rights to the child? Certainly there are plenty of instances where women have babies and the man wants nothing to do with them or the baby and yet they have to pay support...and rightly so I might add.

Also, what about parental notification? Should minors be allowed to have abortions without parental consent. Would you let your daughter have any kind of elective medical procedure without your consent?

[Canuck Mormon]

Let' say a couple engages in sexual intercourse and the result is pregnancy. The female doesn't want to have a child.....the encounter was a mistake and the end result unwanted and wants to terminate the pregnancy. However, the male feels strongly that abortion is immoral and asks the female to have the child...his child....and he will adopt. Should he have legal rights to the child? Certainly there are plenty of instances where women have babies and the man wants nothing to do with them or the baby and yet they have to pay support...and rightly so I might add.

My personal feeling on this is that unless the mother is in physical danger from having this child, she should carry it to full term and let the father adopt it.

Also, what about parental notification? Should minors be allowed to have abortions without parental consent. Would you let your daughter have any kind of elective medical procedure without your consent?

Never. If she/he is under the age of consent (18) then I should be notified of any elective procedure that she/he wants done.

Just my thoughts on this.

[zookeeper]

It would be nice if we all would keep our legs together 'til marriage...just avoid all this guck.

[Truegrits]

Should he have legal rights to the child?

My opinion...Absolutely.

Also, what about parental notification? Should minors be allowed to have abortions without parental consent. Would you let your daughter have any kind of elective medical procedure without your consent?

I would not want my daughter OR son having any medical procedure without my consent.

[checkerboy]

Let' say a couple engages in sexual intercourse and the result is pregnancy. The female doesn't want to have a child.....the encounter was a mistake and the end result unwanted and wants to terminate the pregnancy. However, the male feels strongly that abortion is immoral and asks the female to have the child...his child....and he will adopt. Should he have legal rights to the child? Certainly there are plenty of instances where women have babies and the man wants nothing to do with them or the baby and yet they have to pay support...and rightly so I might add.

Also, what about parental notification? Should minors be allowed to have abortions without parental consent. Would you let your daughter have any kind of elective medical procedure without your consent?

I believe he should have rights. But sadly our society puts the choice of a woman above whatever the guy involved wants. If it wasn't for him she wouldn't have gotten pregnant. I am afraid legally he wouldn't have a leg to stand on though, which is so sad.

[Hemidakota]

[1] Let' say a couple engages in sexual intercourse and the result is pregnancy. The female doesn't want to have a child.....the encounter was a mistake and the end result unwanted and wants to terminate the pregnancy. However, the male feels strongly that abortion is immoral and asks the female to have the child...his child....and he will adopt. Should he have legal rights to the child? Certainly there are plenty of instances where women have babies and the man wants nothing to do with them or the baby and yet they have to pay support...and rightly so I might add.

[2] Also, what about parental notification? Should minors be allowed to have abortions without parental consent. Would you let your daughter have any kind of elective medical procedure without your consent?

1 - He has the legal rights to adopt the child.

2 - Parents should be notified of the abortion. This is where I totally disagree with the state or federal restrictions given to minors.

[MarginOfError]

Let' say a couple engages in sexual intercourse and the result is pregnancy. The female doesn't want to have a child.....the encounter was a mistake and the end result unwanted and wants to terminate the pregnancy. However, the male feels strongly that abortion is immoral and asks the female to have the child...his child....and he will adopt. Should he have legal rights to the child? Certainly there are plenty of instances where women have babies and the man wants nothing to do with them or the baby and yet they have to pay support...and rightly so I might add.

I think it would be wonderful if the father could declare his desire to adopt and then the mother carried it to term and the child went with the father. The complication in this process is that trivial 9 month period we call pregnancy. Can we justify requiring a woman to go through an entire pregnancy on the declared intent of the father? If a woman says, "I don't want to endure pregnancy," is it fair to coerce her because the father wrote a letter of intent and/or signed a contract to adopt the child? I'm not sure I'm comfortable telling a woman that, and I think we'd get into a lot of ugly details, sort of like what surrogates go through. In my opinion, we're better off with the current status quo.

Also, what about parental notification? Should minors be allowed to have abortions without parental consent. Would you let your daughter have any kind of elective medical procedure without your consent?

It's ludicrous that parental consent isn't already required.

I believe he should have rights. But sadly our society puts the choice of a woman above whatever the guy involved wants. If it wasn't for him she wouldn't have gotten pregnant. I am afraid legally he wouldn't have a leg to stand on though, which is so sad.

I think I see what your point is. I might point out that without herself, the woman wouldn't have gotten pregnant either. Presumably, the two made a mutual decision. But I agree, with both equally involved in the initial decision, it makes it that much harder to determine which opinion should matter more in the follow up. Ultimately, I just can't get comfortable with the idea of a man saying, "I want the child" and that requiring the woman to carry it.

[countrygirl66]

Let' say a couple engages in sexual intercourse and the result is pregnancy. The female doesn't want to have a child.....the encounter was a mistake and the end result unwanted and wants to terminate the pregnancy. However, the male feels strongly that abortion is immoral and asks the female to have the child...his child....and he will adopt. Should he have legal rights to the child? Certainly there are plenty of instances where women have babies and the man wants nothing to do with them or the baby and yet they have to pay support...and rightly so I might add.

Also, what about parental notification? Should minors be allowed to have abortions without parental consent. Would you let your daughter have any kind of elective medical procedure without your consent?

1 - I think (I know many won't agree) that the father should have rights, but the child should go for adoption. I know it is hard for me knowing that the day I was born there were curses (no shouts of joy). I was a mistake (or a product of sin). Children have a right to have the opportunity to be raised in a family with two parents. I do feel that the father should have say over the abortion as much as the woman. (there were both there and they will both have to pay if she keeps the child)

2 - It is amazing that I have to be fully notified if my minor child breaks traffic laws, sluffs school, is arrested, needs glasses etc. It is idiotic that people think a minor should be able to have an abortion without parental consent.

[hordak]

Let' say a couple engages in sexual intercourse and the result is pregnancy. The female doesn't want to have a child.....the encounter was a mistake and the end result unwanted and wants to terminate the pregnancy. However, the male feels strongly that abortion is immoral and asks the female to have the child...his child....and he will adopt. Should he have legal rights to the child?

Absolutely. But abortion is seen as a womens choice. So if he is forced to go along with whatever she chooses.

Certainly there are plenty of instances where women have babies and the man wants nothing to do with them or the baby and yet they have to pay support...and rightly so I might add.

Actually i have heard(not sure if it is accurate) that a father can sign away his rights which keeps him from being forced to pay child support.

It's funny when a man walks away from his responsibility he is attacked and told to be a real man and take care of his kid, When a women walks away from her responsibly with an abortion she is seen as exercising her rights.

I believe after conception there should be a contract.

Also, what about parental notification? Should minors be allowed to have abortions without parental consent. Would you let your daughter have any kind of elective medical procedure without your consent?

Can't stop it. My wife has had to chaperon a pap on a 14 year old girls with herpes while her mother waited outside.Then the girl lies to her mother and says she just has a UTI and my wife can't say anything.It would be a HIPAA violation to say anything

[Guest SisterofJared]

bytor2112, you do like to stir things up, don't you? LOL. It's great fun!

I believe abortion is murder.... so no abortion should be allowed. If a woman decides to have sex, she deliberately risks pregnancy. So suck it up and have the baby. That said, the question is custody. Just because she doesn't want the baby doesn't mean it should be adopted out. The natural father would/SHOULD have rights to his own child. It isn't an adoption.... if he is the father, he doesn't have to "adopt" his child! He should just be given custody. And he should raise his child the same as he would if he had married and divorced the mother.

Under our current law-- since abortion is allowed... I agree with MOE... I don't like the idea of forcing a woman through pregnancy... I also agree that a contract should be made.... although not just after pregnancy, but I remember Ann Landers saying years ago that if someone was trying to get a woman into bed, she should demand a written contract detailing what would happen if.... This is actually a good idea. For men and women of virtue, a contract would bring them to an awareness of what they were about to do. For others, it would give a detailed plan of what their choices were if pregnancy occured. Never work though for most people... only for those who deliberately plan an immoral life.

If a doctor gave my daughter an abortion or anything else like unto it I would have a hard time not hurting that doctor. It would be devastating knowing your grandchild was murdered.

Sister of Jared

[SeattleTruthSeeker]

This is definitely an interesting question. According to the established laws of the land, a Father of an unborn child does not have any parental rights to that unborn child.

Out of sheer curiosity to find support for this legally (and no I am not a lawyer), I came across this Abortion and Father's Rights the link will take you to an excerpt and there is a link for the full article. I started reading it and what this author talks about is that if a Mother has the right to abort the unborn child to avoid "hardships" of childbearing and rearing, then the Father ought to have the right to "abort" the child if said child was indeed brought to full term. This is based on the logical presumption that a Mother and Father have equal rights when it is regarding a child. Essentially, what this means is that a Father could say "I abort" this child and have "moral" grounds to justify why because he finds that supporting and caring for a child is going to be a "burden" and "hardship" upon him - the same reason and argument that is used to support the woman's right to abort the child (save for the necessity of endangerment of the woman's life or the life of the child during the birthing process or pregnancy).

Definitely an interesting read and I will have to include this in a future blog article. Definitely, definitely interesting.

I just found this article as well: Dad's Sad, Mad: Too Bad - Why Dad's Don't count when it comes to abortion:

Edited November 19, 2008 by SeattleTruthSeeker

[OtterPop]

Men and women do not and cannot have equal rights in regard to pregnancy and childbearing. Men do not get pregnant and do not bear children. This is a fact -- whether natural or divine, it doesn't matter. The Supreme Court has extended the right to privacy (that they have found to exist in the 4th amendment) to include the right of a woman to make decisions about her own pregnancy. That's why men don't have rights to determine what happens in pregnancies, even if they are the father. Nor should they.

There is an interesting question I haven't seen anyone address: How do you know for sure who the father of the baby is? To determine that for sure, you have to do an amniocentesis, which carries some risks for the baby.

After a child is born, I think fathers and mothers should have equal rights and responsibilities. In other words, if the mother doesn't want to raise the baby, the father should not only have the right to raise the child (as he already does under the law), but the right to child support as well.

[bytor2112]

No say so before....but financial responsibility after?

[OtterPop]

No say so before....but financial responsibility after?

Yep. I didn't say it was fair. It isn't, and there's no way to make it "fair," because only women bear children.

I absolutely object to any law or policy that gives men formal control over women simply because of gender -- which is the case if men can decide whether a woman carries a pregnancy to term.

After a child is born, yes, I believe it has the right to financial support from both parents, regardless of gender.

It isn't "fair" that women assume all the risks and suffering of bearing children and -- still -- the bulk of child rearing. It isn't "fair" that men don't get to control whether they have a child after the act of intercourse.

But why should that bother you? You have no problem with requiring women to go through pregnancy just because they have sex.

[bytor2112]

But why should that bother you? You have no problem with requiring women to go through pregnancy just because they have sex.

Hmmm......thats's not really fair. Having sex doesn't always lead to pregnancy.....does it? From an eternal perspective.....is it better to have the child in the event of unwanted pregnancy.....yes. Is it always convenient? No. I look at things from the perspective that we are eternal beings...sons and daughters of God and all here for the same purpose.....ultimately to return to the presence of Heavenly Father. Abortion doesn't help us to return. It is not a Christ like action and I want everyone to return home. This world is full of distractions....full of deceptions. I know you disagree with me Otterpop, but my heavens 42,000,000 abortions per year and 93% Of them performed for social reasons and inconvenience.

Edited November 19, 2008 by bytor2112

[ADoyle90815]

The reason why parental notification laws have failed when put on the ballot is that it's often pointed out that some teens are raised in abusive homes, and risk severe beatings and even death if their parents found out about an abortion. In an ideal situation, a teen would go to her parents and admit she got pregnant, and then the family could handle the pregnancy, whether it's an abortion with the family's consent, or a better solution of putting the child up for adoption. Voters have allowed a ban on same sex marriage, yet because of understanding that some teens are abused at home, they don't pass parental notification laws.

[SeattleTruthSeeker]

Yes, the woman has a right when it comes to her body. Yet, when a child is concieved, it is concieved by the unification of the sperm (from the father's ejaculating into the woman's vagina) and the Egg of the woman. Therefore, while the mother's womb is part of her body and the child is growing inside her body - the reality is that the child is not just hers, but also the fathers. Therefore, if the Child is also the Fathers then the Father does have just as much right, regardless of the Mother carrying the child.

Why is this so? Because the Child is a product of the union of two people. Therefore, if the Child is the product of the union of two people in an intimate act, then those two people have the right to that child.

Look at it this way.

A woman carries a child to full term. She then abandons the father to rear the child on her own, against the father's will and decision. The mother, then, goes to court and with legal justification prevents the father from having any visitation and rights to said child. Yet, Mother, again, uses legal justification to force a father to financially provide for the said child. Not only financially supply for the needs of the child, but also provide necessary medical insurance as required by state laws and statutes.

Thus, Women have the right to hide behind the Legal right to abort the child with disregard to the right of the father to protest such right. A father, by law, can't force a woman to carry a child to full term. Yet, a Woman can carry a child to full term and birth the child and yet force the father his legal obligation to support the child but deny him his parental right to raise the child.

What do we end up having? Mother and the Courts denying the fathers right to the Child in either situation but stating he has a moral and legal responsibility to provide for the needs of the child because he is the father of said child.

Either way, men are screwed.

And, by the way, I have two children out of wedlock and am having a hard time (after last seeing my daughter when she was 2 - she will now be 11 in march). When I have attempted to file petition for my right to see these children, grandma who has them in custody packs up and moves away violating my rights and the laws of the land under the protection of the courts ability to grant her the right to raise the children and me the financial obligation to support them but not have any influence on them.

Yes, the courts still override, undermine and unconstitutionally violate the rights of the fathers under the fifth amendment. That is right, the Courts Our Judicial system violate the United STates Constitution when it comes to the fathers rights.

[OtterPop]

Hmmm......thats's not really fair. Having sex doesn't always lead to pregnancy.....does it? From an eternal perspective.....is it better to have the child in the event of unwanted pregnancy.....yes. Is it always convenient? No. I look at things from the perspective that we are eternal beings...sons and daughters of God and all here for the same purpose.....ultimately to return to the presence of Heavenly Father. Abortion doesn't help us to return. It is not a Christ like action and I want everyone to return home. This world is full of distractions....full of deceptions. I know you disagree with me Otterpop, but my heavens 42,000,000 abortions per year and 93% Of them performed for social reasons and inconvenience.

Bytor, my statement was completely fair. You disputed whether men should have financial responsibility for any children that they father whom they don't want to raise. I have pointed out that unchosen fatherhood is an assumed risk of sexual intercourse. You have made it very clear that, if you had your druthers, women would have to carry every pregnancy to term (except in cases of rape and threat to the mother's life). Why can't you apply that same logic to men? You have argued many times that pregnancy is a risk that woman assume by consenting to sex. There's a direct parallel here.

That's fine that you have your beliefs about eternal life, but you don't actually have an "eternal perspective." You are a mortal being living a mortal life, just like everyone else. As an American, you have the right to try to have your beliefs codified into law -- as do I. Just as surely as you believe fertilized eggs are people, I have no doubt that they are not. So of course we don't see eye to eye on abortion.

And, may I point out, allowing any parent to reject their financial responsibility toward their offspring is hardly a Christ-center value, either.

[Guest SisterofJared]

Yep. I didn't say it was fair. It isn't, and there's no way to make it "fair," because only women bear children.

I absolutely object to any law or policy that gives men formal control over women simply because of gender -- which is the case if men can decide whether a woman carries a pregnancy to term.

After a child is born, yes, I believe it has the right to financial support from both parents, regardless of gender.

It isn't "fair" that women assume all the risks and suffering of bearing children and -- still -- the bulk of child rearing. It isn't "fair" that men don't get to control whether they have a child after the act of intercourse.

But why should that bother you? You have no problem with requiring women to go through pregnancy just because they have sex.

I think that legally this is the only solution that makes sense... I say legally as in because our laws now allow abortion. Ideally there would be no abortion for anything other than health reasons, and then both the man and the woman would just have to deal with it. Assuming that these are reasonably informed people who understand the facts of life, they both knowingly took risks and once a baby is conceived, they have a responsibility that should not be avoided.

It is an interesting point that someone brought up earlier... the mother can adopt an unwanted child out... the father who doesn't want the child will still get stuck with child support responsibilities even if he doesn't want the child. (Unless both parents want to adopt the child out.)That is somewhat equaled out by the fact that the woman is the one who will carry and deliver the baby, and that doesn't change if she keeps it or not. So... there is an element of "unfairness" on both sides... and as someone pointed out.... it's not that it's fair or unfair... it just IS.

It would totally SUCK to be the father of a child that you wanted and the woman was determined to abort it. Or the father of a child the woman hid from you and then adopted out.

People can just be ignorant and ruthless.

Sister of Jared

[OtterPop]

Either way, men are screwed.

Loss of rights and flat-out sexism ain't so fun when you're the victim, is it? The courts do have a prejudice in favor of women it comes to parenting -- and I agree that's wrong.

Yes, the courts still override, undermine and unconstitutionally violate the rights of the fathers under the fifth amendment. That is right, the Courts Our Judicial system violate the United STates Constitution when it comes to the fathers rights.

You lost me here. The 5th amendment deals with due process, and is most well known for including the right against self-incrimination.

The right to abortion is generally grounded in the privacy rights that the Supreme Court have determined to exist in Constitutional law, mainly in the 4th and 14th amendments.

What rights of fathers do you think exist in the Constitution?

[bytor2112]

Bytor, my statement was completely fair. You disputed whether men should have financial responsibility for any children that they father whom they don't want to raise. I have pointed out that unchosen fatherhood is an assumed risk of sexual intercourse. You have made it very clear that, if you had your druthers, women would have to carry every pregnancy to term (except in cases of rape and threat to the mother's life). Why can't you apply that same logic to men? You have argued many times that pregnancy is a risk that woman assume by consenting to sex. There's a direct parallel here.

That's fine that you have your beliefs about eternal life, but you don't actually have an "eternal perspective." You are a mortal being living a mortal life, just like everyone else. As an American, you have the right to try to have your beliefs codified into law -- as do I. Just as surely as you believe fertilized eggs are people, I have no doubt that they are not. So of course we don't see eye to eye on abortion.

And, may I point out, allowing any parent to reject their financial responsibility toward their offspring is hardly a Christ-center value, either.

Whoa, whoa, whoa......please don't misunderstand me. I COMPLETELY agree with you. Men absolutely should be required to support there children...whether they are wanted or not....and if they don't, they should be jailed for the low lifes that they are. See my original post and you will find that I made that very clear. I was only asking if you thought it was fair......sorry for the misunderstanding. :)

And while I am a mortal......I am also eternal and I believe that my choices have eternal consequences. Eternal perpective is my belief that all my choices in this life should be centered on the fact that we are eternal......you too Otterpop.

[OtterPop]

It is an interesting point that someone brought up earlier... the mother can adopt an unwanted child out...

Generally, a father has to consent to an adoption, as well -- and he has the right to contest any adoption that took place without his consent.

[OtterPop]

And while I am a mortal......I am also eternal and I believe that my choices have eternal consequences. Eternal perpective is my belief that all my choices in this life should be centered on the fact that we are eternal......you too Otterpop.

I get that you believe you are an eternal being. I believe that as well. But believing it doesn't give us a perspective beyond our mortal minds, and I don't believe that laws of the land should be grounded -- or, more accurately, ungrounded -- in anyone's belief in the afterlife.

There is no evidence that your believe is correct, or that mine is correct, or that Judaism is correct, or that Islam is correct . . . you get the picture.

[SeattleTruthSeeker]

You lost me here. The 5th amendment deals with due process, and is most well known for including the right against self-incrimination.

The right to abortion is generally grounded in the privacy rights that the Supreme Court have determined to exist in Constitutional law, mainly in the 4th and 14th amendments.

What rights of fathers do you think exist in the Constitution?

I stand corrected, it is in the Declaration of Independence under the "Right to Life, Liberty and pursuit of happiness." I did think it was somewhere in the Constitution though and will have to research this further. But a Father has inaeliable rights as well as civil rights.

I just found it: nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property

It is in the 5th Amendment. Thus, according to the Fifth Amendment, the Judicial system denies the father the right to Life and Liberty if he is the father of a child and that child is aborted or the mother decides to negate his rights by the courts support.

Edited November 19, 2008 by SeattleTruthSeeker

[Guest SisterofJared]

Generally, a father has to consent to an adoption, as well -- and he has the right to contest any adoption that took place without his consent.

Sorry, I didn't explain myself well.

What I meant was the difference in this:

A woman has a baby out of wedlock and desires to keep it. The father, not wanting the baby, is required to pay child support. Because the woman wants the baby, he has to pay.

A woman who adopts her baby out, the man doesn't have to pay child support.

Of course, if the father raises the child, I think it's the same way.... the mother would have to pay child support. So I guess it is more equal that I was thinking.

But ultimately it is fair either way.... they both knew ahead of time what the consequences can be... play russian roulette, sometimes you take a bullet.

Sister of Jared