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?

MadHatter wrote:
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.

There is no level playing field. it takes two to make a baby and two to care for it, but the space in between is a burden borne by the woman alone. Which is why the decision is hers.

Now, you can sign away your parental rights, and I believe that with that, child support is no longer payable (not 100% sure on that though, and I think it requires prolonged legal intervention). But remember, child support is not to benefit the custodial parent, but to support the child that two people agreed to potentially make by having sex.

Leah Starspectre wrote:

MadHatter wrote:
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.

There is no level playing field. it takes two to make a baby and two to care for it, but the space in between is a burden borne by the woman alone. Which is why the decision is hers.

Now, you can sign away your parental rights, and I believe that with that, child support is no longer payable (not 100% sure on that though, and I think it requires prolonged legal intervention). But remember, child support is not to benefit the custodial parent, but to support the child that two people agreed to potentially make by having sex.

As far as I know signing away your parental rights does not stop the duty for child support. The courts view the rights of the parent different than the duties that the parent has to the child. So the only way the child support obligation stops with the termination of parental rights is if the child is adopted.
So in light of that do you think it would be fair for a father to be able to HAVE the right to sign paperwork to terminate parental rights that also terminates the duties to child support? Which is pretty much my suggestions.
Also, I hope I was clear that I do not think a man should have a say in the abortion process. My only caveat is that this being the case they should have an out on parenthood as well.

MadHatter wrote: So in light of that do you think it would be fair for a father to be able to HAVE the right to sign paperwork to terminate parental rights that also terminates the duties to child support? Which is pretty much my suggestions.
Also, I hope I was clear that I do not think a man should have a say in the abortion process. My only caveat is that this being the case they should have an out on parenthood as well.

There is no such thing as an "out" on parenthood, though. And I say that as someone with a biological child that I have no legal rights for. Legally, I have no responsibilities to him as he was created through in-vitro for surrogacy for someone else, BUT I still need to be aware that I may have a moral or emotional duty to him in the future.

Since a child is created equally by two people (something the child had no say in), it has the right to be supported equally by two people (at least!) once it's born. That being said, the fact that women are the sole carriers of life between conception and birth, that makes the playing field intrinsically uneven. There is no such thing as "leveling the playing field." By having sex, a man is agreeing to an unwritten contract of potential fatherhood. A woman's choice to keep a child or not is his only chance at an "out" - and it's up to her.

Sometimes, life's not fair.

Leah Starspectre wrote:

MadHatter wrote: So in light of that do you think it would be fair for a father to be able to HAVE the right to sign paperwork to terminate parental rights that also terminates the duties to child support? Which is pretty much my suggestions.
Also, I hope I was clear that I do not think a man should have a say in the abortion process. My only caveat is that this being the case they should have an out on parenthood as well.

There is no such thing as an "out" on parenthood, though. And I say that as someone with a biological child that I have no legal rights for. Legally, I have no responsibilities to him as he was created through in-vitro for surrogacy for someone else, BUT I still need to be aware that I may have a moral or emotional duty to him in the future.

Since a child is created equally by two people (something the child had no say in), it has the right to be supported equally by two people (at least!) once it's born. That being said, the fact that women are the sole carriers of life between conception and birth, that makes the playing field intrinsically uneven. There is no such thing as "leveling the playing field." By having sex, a man is agreeing to an unwritten contract of potential fatherhood. A woman's choice to keep a child or not is his only chance at an "out" - and it's up to her.

Sometimes, life's not fair.

Whelp we are not going to agree here then. Because if a women can opt out of having the child and thus the responsibility of raising the child a man should have the same ability. Simply because a women has control over her body it should not prevent a man from having as close to even options as we can provide. The child at the time frame I put forward would not be born and not even be legally a person. So if you opt out at that timeframe I fail to see how it differs from abortion. Further sex is not a contract to potential parenthood. Not if a women has an out and not if steps are taken to prevent it. You, in fact, may have done everything reasonable to prevent it. If a women has yet one more chance to not be a mother a father should get the same option. Life not being fair is not an excuse for legal inequity. Otherwise we would say life is not fair if the father just walks off and refuses to pay.

I'm going to agree with MadHatter on this. A part of aborting a baby is removing future responsibility to said baby. If we are going to argue that a mother has a right to do that then so should the father. Only in the father's case he has no say in aborting the baby only in his future involvement with and responsibility to it.

Do I think a person should do that? No. I think you should face the consequences of your actions. However, I believe that everyone should get the same choice.

Please don't think that I'm saying that the two decisions are exactly the same. For a man it's "good bye forever, all I do is sign a form" and for a woman it's major surgery, but in so far as it can be even it should be.

Goken wrote: I'm going to agree with MadHatter on this. A part of aborting a baby is removing future responsibility to said baby. If we are going to argue that a mother has a right to do that then so should the father. Only in the father's case he has no say in aborting the baby only in his future involvement with and responsibility to it.

Do I think a person should do that? No. I think you should face the consequences of your actions. However, I believe that everyone should get the same choice.

Please don't think that I'm saying that the two decisions are exactly the same. For a man it's "good bye forever, all I do is sign a form" and for a woman it's major surgery, but in so far as it can be even it should be.

Pretty much my view exactly

Goken wrote: I'm going to agree with MadHatter on this. A part of aborting a baby is removing future responsibility to said baby. If we are going to argue that a mother has a right to do that then so should the father. Only in the father's case he has no say in aborting the baby only in his future involvement with and responsibility to it.

Do I think a person should do that? No. I think you should face the consequences of your actions. However, I believe that everyone should get the same choice.

And I'm saying that until men can carry a fetus, there is no such thing as the "same choice"

Leah Starspectre wrote:

Goken wrote: I'm going to agree with MadHatter on this. A part of aborting a baby is removing future responsibility to said baby. If we are going to argue that a mother has a right to do that then so should the father. Only in the father's case he has no say in aborting the baby only in his future involvement with and responsibility to it.

Do I think a person should do that? No. I think you should face the consequences of your actions. However, I believe that everyone should get the same choice.

And I'm saying that until men can carry a fetus, there is no such thing as the "same choice"

This again is where I think you are wrong. The same choice is the choice not to be a parent. The choice not to raise a child or pay for the raising of said child. The difference is that if men had the right the women would still have the right to raise the child if they wanted. So no its not totally the same choice and gives more freedom to the women in all cases. However as we cannot ethically mandate total leveling here making it as level as possible is only right.

This is why guys should tell their sons to get vasectomies. Until the artificial womb becomes a reality surrogates do a perfectly fine job, it's a lot more money than what women have to pay for a sperm donation, but not as much as what post-walls spend on IVF, which means it too could be tax-payer funded. It's pretty much the only way a man can have a child with the same rights, choices and risks a woman does.

They say "her body her choice" but it literally isn't her body. What they should say is "her life her choice" and you should make sure your sons get the same choices in their lives.

All I have to say is condoms are cheap and good judgement is free.