Pennsylvania abortion verdict

Remove all ads!

Hoping he doesn't mind, I'm quoting Aldeth's reference to Pennsylvania's Supreme Court's abortion verdict:

Basically, the father has no claim on the foetus. According to the verdict, it has nothing to do with him. However, when the foetus is carried properly and child is born, the man suddenly starts to have much to do with it and has to pay for the child.

What's more, the father has to pay for the child even if he had wanted it to be aborted.

When he doesn't want to have his child killed, however, he can't do anything to prevent abortion.

This logic is astonishing.

Helpful lecture:

Roe vs Wade

Planned Parenthood of S.E. Pennsylvania vs Casey

The latter link is to the US Supreme Court ruling that deemed the requirement of spousal notification unconstitutional.

 

Chev,

I totally agree with you on this one. I am a happily married dad so I don't have these problem. I know of some single dads and the courts have made their lives living hells. One day someone will take up the cause of father's rights.

 

For once I am agreement with you as well chev. Abortion is the decision of both parents. Sadly the final choice must rest with the mother but the father has every right to know and consensus should be reach as far as possible. I do think however that any decent chap would support his lady whatever choice she makes. Someone has to make the choice and too often two people cant agree.

Actually leaving it with the woman probably leads to less abortions than say if the man had final say. Too often a callous man who only wanted sex from a woman has no inclination to paying childsupport and thus wants to remove the featus.

 

It figures that this happened in my state The man should have a say in the matter, but it is ultimatley up to the woman.

 

Absolutely - and believe it or not, this also often holds true in cases where they're married to each other!

IMO, the woman should always have the final say. She is the one who would carry the baby to term, with all the consequences that entails, not the male. If these single "fathers" want their babies so badly, they should have first married the woman in question!!!!

 

Well, what if they are married and she wants to abort a pregnancy, be it for economic reasons, or simply a lack of will to raise a child? Does your viewpoint change any in that case, Sojourner?

I'm sort of divided on the subject. On the one hand, I have to respect a woman's legal (and, in my mind, moral) right to have the final decision on what happens with her body. On the other hand, the father very well should have a say in the fate of his offspring. Fathers seem to have so few rights with regards to children nowadays that it really hurts those capable, loving fathers who actually want to be a part of their child's lives. I understand that the mothers should be protected from deadbeat fathers impregnating and abandoning them, but if a father wants to actually have a child, then he should have as much a say in cases of abortion as she should. If she wanted to have it, and he didn't, then not only would she be able to have it, but he'd be responsible for chid support payments as well, and yet when the roles are reversed, he has no say whatsoever. That doesn't seem right to me.

 

And yet the situation inherently lacks equality. It is the woman that has to go through nine months of pregnancy and a painflul labour in order for the child to be born. I cannot help but think that this does give her the right to decide on the fate of the foetus. I can think of no way you could force someone to go through this without their consent.

Once the baby is actually born, however, the inherent inequality of the situation essentially disappears, and I am surprised by how little rights the father has...

 

I fear we'll soon fall into a discussion of abortion in general, but.. the foetus is not a part of the body of the mother. It is a separate body and a separate entity that required alien element (spermatozoon) for creation. Therefore, it is no way to be treated the same way as liver or lungs or kidneys or whatever internal organ.

I find your lack of logic disturbing...

Marriage is a willing union, it requires consent. It's not like you want to marry someone and it happens. You have to convince the other person and some such.

Also, so far as it isn't a rape, non-marital intercourse still requires two consenting unmarried individuals, so the female is equally to blame for the situation.

As I said in the beginning, the baby isn't part of the mother's body. First, it's a separate entity. Second, it comes from both the mother and the father.

I would prefer to see some polls before making my mind on this one.

Next, no one advocates the father's right to request the mother to have abortion. We only speak about situations in which the mother wants to abort the baby and the father wants it to live.

The practice of denying the father any right to decide here is especially outrageous in a legally recognised marriage with all tax and other benefits that are granted for the sake of the family and children whose upbringing incurs heavy expenses and not just two people who have chosen to live together and have sex on exclusive terms.

 

First, I have no problem with Chev using my post - it is a topic worthy of discussion. However, I do have to point out one thing. My quote evidently was somewhat wrong. I wrote that the the decision of the State Supreme Court in PA, was unanimous. However, the article clearly states it was a plurality. It doesn't change the fact that the father's right to know is excluded from the decision, but I did wish to point out that my original quote wasn't entirely accurate.

 

But it also depends completely on the body of the mother for its suvival - so cannot really be considered 'separate'. If you agree that the mother could not be forced to have an abortion then surely by that same logic she could not be forced to carry the baby until birth. In both cases it would ask the woman to do something rather drastic to her body without her consent?

 

Pregnancy is a natural state. Abortion requires human ingerence. Therefore, there is no analogy between letting the man demand abortion and letting the man demand non-abortion.

 

Well, gangrene is a natural state as well and all medicine requires intervention of humans.

I am not saying it's fair that fathers should have no say in the fate of the foetus, but 'demanding non-abortion' means demanding a woman to make her body available for a purpose she does not want for nine months, not to mention the permanent changes a pregnancy would bring about.

Since the start of this thread my sympathy is with the father (probably because I am male and thus easier to imagine myself in similar circumstances), but I cannot think of any practical solution in this situation other than letting the mother's decision be final (unless it is directly opposed to medical advice).

 

There is a difference between disease and natural functions of the body and you well know it. As I said in the previous post, pregnancy is related to reproduction, which is a function of organism and not disease, contrary to what some people might insist.

Pregnancy being a natural result of having sex, the woman can abstain from sex if she doesn't want to lend her body to that purpose for nine months. It's a matter of having a cake and eating it.

 

Oh quite, and more to the point she could have(and should have) used some form of contraception. However the comment is not terribly helpful - 'you should have thought of that sooner' isn't a viable court ruling. The question here was whether the father should be able to stop the woman having an abortion. Well, I certainly feel that his opinion should be heard but I cannot even imagine what set of circumstances would have to occur for the woman to not be let to decide what to do with her body?

(and while I agree that pregnancy isn't a disease it can have some similar effects: nausea, pain, discomfort even death in some cases. The man has to go through none of those - talk about having cake and eating it too...)

And even in purely pragmatic terms, what is the alternative?? Keeping her under guard for nine months???

 

This just like the other abortion thread all boils down to a persons thought about abortion in general. All Chevalier is doing is bringing up problems which occurs when abortion is legal.

If abortion is legal, which it is in most of the enlightened world then the mother must have final say in whether to have one or not. That is not ideal but there is no other way to have it. Hopefully a woman who considers one will talk with the father and her family and listen to their opinions. However if the mother and the father strongly disagrees then final say has to lie with the mother. Where else could it lie? It sure would suck majorly for the father if he wanted to keep the child but it works both ways you know, all too often the father tries to pressure (and too often he succeeds, just because someone thinks that abortion should be a legal option doesnt mean one thinks it should be used at leisure) the mother into having an abortion often simply because he doesnt feel like taking neither parental nor financial responsibility.

 

Well, yes, and I agree with that statement. But I really disagree that it is an OK means of birth control to abort an unborn baby. There is something really wrong with the whole idea of "abortion on demand."

Also, in a situation where the father is willing to take the child and raise it himself, then I think a case can be made that he should have a say in the matter. If the guy wants the mother the carry the child and then to raise the child, then he's really nothing more than a sexist pig, IMO.

 

Just a little side-note; but aren't there plenty of court rulings out there that legally prevent women from drinking alcohol while pregnant; either at the legal pressuring of the father or whatever?

If that's the case, then I don't see why courts shouldn't be allowed to deny women the "privilege" of an abortion.

If that's not the case though; then this entire post is pointless...and please everyone disregard it.

 

While I am not entirely set on my opinion for this, I do have a few ideas.

Firstly, if a woman needs or wants to get an abortion, she better have a damn good reason. Like applying to have your animal put down. (Pardon the bad comparison)

Secondly, if the father-to-be is willing to sign papers and everything, and pass certain criteria (salary, time available, criminal record check, ect.) saying that he will take full responsibility of the child when it is born, then the mother should not be allowed to get an abortion, after my first point of course.

The mother did consent to fornication, in my opinion agreeing to accept responsiblity of the outcome.

In short, if she didn't want kids, she shouldn't have had sex.

 

Chandos, if the guy would be able to do that it should be able to work both ways ie that if the father dont want the baby he would be able to foreswear all responsibility and let the mother raise the child herself without any sort of support from the father, and I think we would agree to that it shouldnt. It is a two edged sword. As I am someone who thinks abortion should be legal I see a world of difference between a born baby and a three week featus and for me giving away a born baby is more traumatic than aborting the possibility of a baby.

Again and again we just come back to whether we consider abortion murder or not. If you consider it murder then we really dont have a problem cause then we should just ban abortion and all problems would disapear right? But if we allow abortion then we will encounter this kind of problem. Even if the father would be willing to take and raise the child on his own the mother still have to carry it for nine months until it truly is a child and bear it into this world. To give it up then is a whole other issue for many people than an abortion. Again we are back to ones basic opinion of the legality of abortion though.

 

Mmmmm... rather a lot of people here seem to equate sex and pregnancy. While I agree that you need the former in order to have the latter, it is actually possible to (and this might be quite a concept) have sex and NOT get pregnant. In fact, I hear that a sort of rubber-thingies called condoms are quite freely available...

Seriously folks, that's my problem with abortion - because it is relatively easy to obtain, people might be tempted to forgo contraception.

But, back on topic - is anyone here seriously advocating forcing women to remain pregnant against their will? Look, the process is inherently asymmetrical biologically and requires rather more from the female than the male. So it is asymmetrical legally as well. As long as abortion is legal it has to be the decision of the woman.