Fathers having say?

As long as the man is willing to carry the pregnancy...oh no...hang on!

But the baby couldn't have gotten there without the dad, you know? So where does his choice come into the equation?

Ok, I have another scenario....

What if a couple split up, and the female later finds out she is preggo. The papa wants to keep it, but the mama doesn't. What do you do then?

As Jules said, no way in heck am I going to carrying a baby because someone else wants it. I don't care what the situation is, but in any case, I've always made it 100% clear whether or not I'll carry on with an unwanted pregnancy. I don't think this is about what the father wants as it's the woman's body. He can obviously discuss this, but really, she's the one going through 9 months for absolutely nothing then.

Edit: How do you propose it becomes 50/50? One wants an abortion, one doesn't, should they just take out half the baby? I don't understand how this would work.

Why should a woman be forced to continue to be pregnant because the father wants the baby? He does not own her nor her body, and it's disgusting to even imagine he should have the right to force her to remain pregnant against her will. Women are not incubators for a man's sperm nor breeding machines for a man's offspring. If a man wants a child, he should create one with a woman who is willing to bear one for him.

Well, as soon as the sperm donor also has equal risks of all the medical problems and health risks that go with it, we could consider it. Until then, if he doesn't want an abortion, he should double-bag the pointy end or not have sex at all.

Giving the man the right to use a woman's body like that is no better than legalizing rape. You must also consider that if men are given the right to force women to bear children for them, they must also have the right to force women to abort pregnancies that they don't want.

Why should we go back to males having all of the reproductive say with none of the reproductive risks? The DNA might be 50% his but the pregnancy is entirely hers. To give the partner whose only part in the process consisted of an orgasm would be tyrannical. Considering that there are men out there (just like there are women) who would sabotage birth control because they want children when their partner doesn't, this would literally allow males to claim women's bodies as their property just because they shot their load into them.

If such a thing were to happen then I believe women should have the right to press criminal charges of attempted homicide and domestic abuse, because the men would be forcing them to endure a condition that permanently changes their bodies and can cause severe health problems or death.

Ideally, it would be great it if were a mutual decision. Unfortunately, biology just doesn't allow for it.

The baby may be wanted but certainly not by her. There are women who give up their bodies and some of their freedoms for 9 months to provide children for those who can't. They get paid thousands of dollars. If someone asked me to do that for nothing (and yes, it is for nothing as I get nothing out of it, in fact, it's a physical and emotional burden) I'd tell them where to go. No woman has to the right to force the sperm donor to father her child (as in do anything besides provide payment) just like no man has the right to force a woman to mother (whether it be by taking care or even giving birth to a child) his child.

The man can decide when it's HIS body going through the trauma of gestation and childbirth.

Many, many more men want the woman to HAVE the abortion than the other way around. If you ever got your wish and let men have a 50% say, you'd see a lot more abortions.

I have to agree with Birch. These are things that should be discussed before the relationship becomes serious. If both parties does not agree on whether the relationship is strong enough to bring children into this world (or not), you seriously reconsider being with that person.

So I guess if the baby is half is, he's allowed to demand abortion.

He should have a say.

Look at virtually every reply its focus is on the woman, and that is why men dont have any say, not because it will change the focus on to men or both men and women, but it will actually change the focus to the unborn child. The Father wants the child, is willing to sacrafice his life for the chlid, the mother wants to kill the child, what do we focus on here, the rights of the woman or what is best for the child, that is why its important not to let men have any say.

So if the father wants to keep the child, the mother should be forced to continue the pregnancy. But what if the father wants the child aborted? Should the mother be forced to abort the pregnancy?

The father isn't pregnant. The father isn't carrying the child. The father isn't at risk for gestational diabetes, placenta previa, high blood pressure, severe nausea and vomiting, invasive abdominal surgery and DEATH. The father doesn't have to alter his diet or cease his favorite habits.

Thank God this isn't the old days, where a woman was property. Thank God men can't exercise control over women simply because she was bartered to him or because she said "I do". He does not own her or her uterus. The very idea that he should be legally allowed to force her to do something against her will is comparable to rape.

You may think the mother is just being selfish, carelessly throwing something precious away when someone else is willing to care for it. You're not seeing a huge piece of the puzzle though. She is not tossing aside a newborn. If she were, I would absolutely agree with you that he has every right to step forward and claim his child if that's his wish. But this is not a newborn. This is a developing embryo that can not survive outside of her body. To demand its survival, you also demand for the woman to remain pregnant and to assume all the risks, discomforts and trauma of pregnancy and childbirth.

If you've ever gone through a pregnancy, labor and delivery, you know firsthand how intense and overwhelming it is. It can also be a beautiful thing... but imagine the same scenario if it were forced on you. I know that I would personally be traumatized, and I was lucky enough to not have complications. Tack those on and it's nothing short of cruel.

The father does not own the mother's body, and it's absolutely right that he should not be able to force a pregnancy on her. I can sympathize with his desire, but that's as far as I go. It's an unfortunate situation, but the power and rights must stay with the mother where they belong.

Gaust, I have tremendous respect for you because of your convictions. (I hardly ever agree with you - but I still respect you. Lol) Your post reminds me of a case we had here in South Africa (abortion weren’t legalized back then) where the mother didn’t want the child that she was carrying, and the father, Laurie Fraser, wanted his son so bad that he went to the supreme court to try and get his own flesh and blood adopted.

The court ruled against him, he appealed, and then thousands and thousands of Rands later he managed to have the law changed to having fathers having the first option to adopt the baby once it is born. Unfortunately it wasn’t back dateable and he still had no rights to his son. Later he kidnapped his son, and was jailed for it. Although he will loose 18 years of his son’s life, at least it was all over the papers - headline news- so he can prove to his son one day that he tried everything in his power.

But on the flipside - it was a full term baby - and I have to side with AyaMiyaki. She raised a couple of very good points here.

I agree that if the mother is going to give the child up for adoption the biological father should have first say - as long as no questions are raised in relation to his character. If he's scum, he doesn't deserve the child. If the woman says "One of the reasons I'm giving it up is because I don't want it raised anywhere near him" then he probably shouldn't get it.