Sex Differences in Reproductive Rights

There have been many discussions on abortion. Regardless of whether you're pro-life or pro-choice, at this time the law of the land (at least in the US) leans in favor of a woman's right to choose whether or not she wants to go through with a pregnancy. The fetus, or unborn child, or whatever term one wishes to use for it, has no say in the matter -- nor could they. But there are others involved, too, who do not have any say: prospective fathers. A father's consent to the termination of a pregnancy is not required in most places, and ultimately his choice, desires, or thoughts are made to be completely irrelevant. The prospective mother doesn't have any obligation, legally, to even tell her partner that she has become pregnant; she can choose at any time she wishes (depending on the local law) to have an abortion.

This seems to me to be rather unfair. With all due respect to women who have to carry the burden during pregnancy, and whether the fetus is a person or not, whatever is growing inside of the uterus is not solely the creation of the mother. It requires both male and female reproductive cells, and from that combination of cells it grows. Hardwired in the DNA of the growing child, or mass of cells, are the traits of both the father and mother -- it is the genetic legacy of both, and contains (literally, physically) part of each parent. And so I don't think that the sole responsibility for making the decision of whether to abort or not should be solely on the mother; the child is only half hers, only half of it contains her DNA, and it is pragmatically impossible to separate the halves so that both parties can be happy with the outcome in every situation.

But I have been told by some that my opinions are invalid because I'm not a woman. Somehow the presence of male genitalia removes me from any conversation on the topic of abortion or reproductive rights, as if the male partner was completely irrelevant in conception and child rearing. I have been told that those things are outside of my experience, so I have no right to comment on them. But I am a diabetic, and I'm very happy that non-diabetics have worked on blood testing meters and insulin injection systems; without non-diabetics working on the illness, very little progress would have been made and many people would suffer as the result. I don't think that the line of argumentation which says that a person must fit into category (x) before their words have value is accurate or helpful. Still, it is commonly accepted among my peers that a man has no say in issues of reproduction.

It is not my will to make this a discussion about abortion itself, but about sex differences in reproductive rights. My commonsense answer is that it should be discussed between the prospective parents, but no precedent exists which requires any such discussion, and many abortions have been performed without the knowledge of the male partner. Should a man have a say in whether or not the inheritor of his genetic legacy is born or dies, or is it purely a woman's decision? What's the general consensus about this like in TOTJO?

I'm not going to tackle the actual issue of whether abortions are right or not - I think you're right that's a whole different can of worms.

I also think you're right that, ideally, the parents should talk about it and come to the outcome together. I've been in the situation, and it's a difficult choice regardless. But ultimately, I believe the responsibility rests with the woman.

I think if you really think of what nine months of pregnancy is like for the woman - really think about how hard it is, and what your body has to go through - and then the actual birth - and then the 20+ years of having to care for another individual, you will realise that the woman has a lot more skin in the game. We "donate" what is essentially a cell that you can't even see with your eye. If I scraped your skin you with my nail, I'd have more of your cells under my fingernail, than you would have contributed to that baby.

There's also the whole thing about how men are able to bail during the pregnancy - women need a lot of support, and I'm not saying you would, but you could, and I think that means that you have to consider that they have a lot more to loose than you. After the baby is born, of course, is a different story - I know a couple of dads who were left with the baby.

My personal opinion is that 25 weeks is way too long to allow an abortion to happen, but then you get into the whole conversation about when does a baby "become" a baby. My answer would ideally be before 5 weeks - I think after that it's less a ball of cells, and more a living, breathing person.

I hope it doesn't sound like I'm attacking you, I'm about your age and gender, so I can completely understand where you are coming from.

Philosophically and ethically I agree a father should have a say in the life of their child. However, the issue is that if a father could refuse the abortion this would give him control over the body of the mother as well as the child. This would be unethical. So the father having a yes or no say legally would just not work. So the only way I can see to grant any even remote level of even rights in such a case is that a father has the same amount of time as the mother to walk out with no legal repercussions. Meaning during whatever the state limit on the timeframe for abortions is the father can sign some papers and be just as able to have no part of the pregnancy as the mother could if she chose to abort. Is it ideal? No, not really but its the only way to even remotely level the playing field that I can see.

Yes, ideally the Mother and Father should discuss the options and come to a combined consensus. However the woman should have the ultimate say. It is her body and her life intertwined with the situation. No law should breach that.

JLSpinner wrote: Yes, ideally the Mother and Father should discuss the options and come to a combined consensus. However the woman should have the ultimate say. It is her body and her life intertwined with the situation. No law should breach that.

Yes, I agree however people do argue that it not just her body that a choice is being made for. Meaning that fathers once the child is born have a say over the life of the child so why not here too? ( Not my argument just a common one I am aware of.) So what is your response to that? My response is that you cannot deny someone a medical procedure anymore then you can force them into one. As an example, you can't force a mother to die to save the life of a baby by denying surgery that would kill the baby if that surgery would save the life of the mother. In short, when it comes to medicine ethically and legally the choice is the person undergoing the procedure.

So my only solution to the uneven rights in the life if the child was posted above to level the playing field somewhat.

I heard it put an interesting way recently.

Until a man can carry a fetus (or gestation can be done 100% in vitro), the woman's opinions matter more - though the man should be part of the discussion. But since, at this point in time/technology, a woman is responsible for an uneven share of the burden of gestation, her opinion should carry an uneven share of the weight when it comes to the decision to keep the child or not.

When a man can physically take 100% responsibility for the care of a fetus, THEN he can make the decisions.

Leah Starspectre wrote: I heard it put an interesting way recently.

Until a man can carry a fetus (or gestation can be done 100% in vitro), the woman's opinions matter more - though the man should be part of the discussion. But since, at this point in time/technology, a woman is responsible for an uneven share of the burden of gestation, her opinion should carry an uneven share of the weight when it comes to the decision to keep the child or not.

When a man can physically take 100% responsibility for the care of a fetus, THEN he can make the decisions.

But a man is responsible for the care of the baby like it or not once the baby is born. So what do you think of my solution to level that? Further, what do you think of the statement that a father can be forced to be financially responsible for the child they get a say? Frankly, my opinion is that the solution I posted is the answer but I am curious to hear differing views.

MadHatter wrote:

JLSpinner wrote: Yes, ideally the Mother and Father should discuss the options and come to a combined consensus. However the woman should have the ultimate say. It is her body and her life intertwined with the situation. No law should breach that.

Yes, I agree however people do argue that it not just her body that a choice is being made for. Meaning that fathers once the child is born have a say over the life of the child so why not here too? ( Not my argument just a common one I am aware of.) So what is your response to that? My response is that you cannot deny someone a medical procedure anymore then you can force them into one. As an example, you can't force a mother to die to save the life of a baby by denying surgery that would kill the baby if that surgery would save the life of the mother. In short, when it comes to medicine ethically and legally the choice is the person undergoing the procedure.

So my only solution to the uneven rights in the life if the child was posted above to level the playing field somewhat.

I don't want to come off cold here...but I probably will. Haha. In view of law, the fetus isn't a baby. It's part of the Mother. It's systems are synced. I cannot fathom a reason for anyone to have a say in that woman's private medical affairs.

I agree with most things that people have typed above. But remember, the dad should have a say too. It is also him, who is going to take care of the child (if they both so choose). And of course anything life-threatening should be considered first, naturally.

JLSpinner wrote:

MadHatter wrote:

JLSpinner wrote: Yes, ideally the Mother and Father should discuss the options and come to a combined consensus. However the woman should have the ultimate say. It is her body and her life intertwined with the situation. No law should breach that.

Yes, I agree however people do argue that it not just her body that a choice is being made for. Meaning that fathers once the child is born have a say over the life of the child so why not here too? ( Not my argument just a common one I am aware of.) So what is your response to that? My response is that you cannot deny someone a medical procedure anymore then you can force them into one. As an example, you can't force a mother to die to save the life of a baby by denying surgery that would kill the baby if that surgery would save the life of the mother. In short, when it comes to medicine ethically and legally the choice is the person undergoing the procedure.

So my only solution to the uneven rights in the life if the child was posted above to level the playing field somewhat.

I don't want to come off cold here...but I probably will. Haha. In view of law, the fetus isn't a baby. It's part of the Mother. It's systems are synced. I cannot fathom a reason for anyone to have a say in that woman's private medical affairs.

Agreed. From my VERY limited knowledge at the legal time frame for abortions, the fetus is not what I would consider a baby or human life. It might look like a baby but there are key things lacking in the development that prevent it from truly being so. Again that is from my very very limited knowledge. Further again from what little I know most abortions are far from being at the edge of that timeframe so the fetus is even less developed most time.
However, what are your thoughts about the whole child support argument? That if men can be forced to care for a child they do not wish to or are not ready for that women should be too?