Thucy you have conceded that rape is a "totally different issue"...
I think there is a spectrum of paternal rights that lies between two points. At one extreme (lets us say the Left) we have the rapist and the other we have the man who is an committed loving relationship with the mother (the right). The left extreme has no rights, and the right extreme has a high degree of rights. I don't believe there is an arbitrary line that says "on the left side you have no rights:" and "on the right side you have full rights" (I should say rights and obligations to be precise). Rather I would argue that those rights and obligations also lie on that spectrum.
The rapist does not have a right to even express his opinion. If we view this situation as analogous to a democracy the rapist is not entitled to vote. A little further down the spectrum to the right, we have the one night stand father. I would argue that maybe he has a right to an opinion and perhaps even limited voting rights, but the majority of votes lie with the mother.... and so on and so on until we reach the far end of the spectrum - the mother herself. With the most rights and the most votes.

I'm a big fan of spectrums, but not in this case. There's a very specific and easily identifiable line. Consent. If they both consent, then they would both realize that if a pregnancy results, an abortion would only happen if they both agree to one. So if one of them is not okay with that... they wouldn't have sex. That is why consent is so big.

Looking for a safe stance on abortion? Me neither.

Firstly I don't agree that having sex is an agreement to have a child... but that point aside..
What if the circumstances of the mother changes after conception. For example what if she develops a psychological illness, or the father abandons her, or she loses the support of her family.. Surely then it makes sense to reassess the situation. Why do we have to be locked into a contract. Especially as that contract might not be the best interests of any of the involved parties. I include the best interests of the potential child here.

Chatting among yourselves, how nice.

Too tired to write much tonight, but I have to say...

Spyman your continuum is dead on..

Thucydides, I'll get to your points tomorrow, perhaps you'll be back for a fifth?

PolishTeaParty - HA!

gn,

If the woman can prove to a judge or someone like that that she has been abandoned by the father, then she should/would be allowed to go ahead with the abortion on her own obviously.

What if the woman decides that the sperm donor will not make a good father? Maybe he is a bum or abusive. Is the net effect of that as bad as abandonment? Would she have to prove that to a judge as well?

Rather I should say "the net effect of a bum father" would be as bad or worse than abandonment.

Kudos to everything spyman said above. Clear, concise, brilliant. No need to reiterate.

@ giapeep, I have a story that exemplifies your scenario of how a mother who is forced to have a child against her will leads to a negative domino effect of future generations.
I am a methadone pharmacist (for those who don't know what methadone is...google it).
One of my more elder patients was a born around the time of WW2. Her mother was impregnated by a soldier @ 16 years of age. He later left, and her mother could not bear the thought of telling her parents she was pregnant for fear of being shunned and maybe even killed by her father. She tried desperately to cause a miscarriage, abortion was not an option at the time. She ceased eating, threw herself over fences, ran into tables with the sharp end hitting her stomach, you name it. My patient was born with osteoporosis and brain damage due to the fact that her mother did not ingest calcium or any required nutrinets during the pregnancy becuase she was trying to starve the fetus. She grew up with her mother resenting her and telling her the stories of how she tryed to abort her daily (can you say "low-self esteem?"). My patient needless to say grew up feeling unloved and traumatized. She entered into the first relationship with a the first man she could find (of course, he was abusive). He was a heroin addict. She became a heroin addict. They have a child. That child becomes an addict. She is now of the program, lives with exruciating pain (due to the OP), manages her addiction, and tries to keep her son alive (he is not on an addiction program). He commits crimes daily to support his habit, including stealing from and abusing his own mother. It is not a good situation. They are not happy. They are not productive members of society, in fact they are a major drain on society as they are all on assisted living. I am not saying their lives are any less valuable that yours or mine, only that had this mother had options all those years ago, things would have been a lot different today.

Spyman:

What if the mother would make a bad mother? Who gets to tell her that she shouldn't have a baby?

No one has the right to tell you may not have children. Especially not if you already have an unborn one.

Thuc, that's a moot. If we're going to give women the right to choose what is best for their bodies and future children (even the unborn ones), then we have to take the risk of bad mothers. Nothing new with that, bad mother's have been around as long as good one.

What is highly likely, is that by having the choice to abort a pregnancy, there will be fewer bad mothers.

Nothing makes some one bad at doing something more than being force to do that something against their will.

Persepherone, on of many of the tragic legacies of biased and ignorant social thinking. Racism being another...

@giapeep
I don't understand your comment to me.

Thycudides, I've been thinking if I can add to the wise spy, probably not.but there's a couple of perspectives that need consideration.

First is that the child in question in reality has no choice in parents, or being born for that matter. So our male and female oblige is to make sure that the conditions of their birth are as favourable as possible. The only way we can do this, given how the birth thing is set up, is to support the mother in her choice, and then the father in his obligation to choose. It really is solely the mother's job to protect it for it's first years of life. Yes, men can do it, but not until it's born and a lot of compensating would be needed to prevent the child from damaging effect of the mothers absence -- girls do not do well without a mother influence, in other words a daily female involvement, except perhaps in the presence of superior fathering, would would like include an awareness of the need for a female touch. Just the same as for boys and fathers, but in the early years all babies and toddleres are like girls in need of their mothers.

The father's role is the icing, protective and perhaps decorative on the cake of early life; in the first few years father care is of a different importance and that is just the way biology made it. But this makes it no less important, it does increase the child's odds of a successful life.

Here's the thing though, society diminishes the importance of the father role. Our patriarchs society, even our media does little to elucidate the effects of the absent father, or the importance of the present one. It can't be legislated much beyond the child support issue, abandoning dads abound and that is a failure of the collective male psyche.

Here's the other thing, there is no legislation on father care to the point of required daily care and involvement because care cannot be forced. So they cannot force father hood by making the male be present in a child's life, yet they do force mother hood every time her right to choose is blocked.

A child will adapt, better if it's mother loves it, better still if both parents do. It will adapt to either the neglect or the nurture, which ever is present.

A better quid pro quo, if we're going to consider it that way, is to say until all mother's have a right to choose all fathers must legally support in all ways possible. Attach those two together and I wonder how quickly the right to choose would become the more popular of the pro-choice vs anti-abortion debate.

One other thing, while *hate* is such a strong, and ultimately useless (hate begetting more hate and all that goes with it), I am glad you don't like the partisanship of my view is better than your view.perspective. Unfortunately, because it is all the time, it cannot be simplified into either or, which again you dislike, so you dislike all the side effects of partisanship. All the "isms" you listed are some how made unimportant to you when it becomes and "either-or" my way or highway discussion.

I agree, right fighting is as useless as hate, but you cannot dismiss all points due to our human propensity to choose side and hope that it's a winner.

What might be a better way to consider is a "both-and" way of looking at the (many) sides of the issues. In my thinking this allows for a consideration of the valid, the invalid, the discrepancies and what feeds into them. Both, many, sides already exist any way, we can't ignore even the bickering between sides, let alone the information every side provides. We will understand nothing of what we ignore and dismiss, only proving our own ignorance and leaving the choice to the one's who only play to win the game without an inclusive understanding.

In the mean time, more Dad's like this one please:

http://mlb.mlb.com/media/video.jsp?content_id=6663629

I'll give you that. In that sense I am fiercely partisan for my "neutrality-ism" if you will. But I just cannot abide by special treatment.

Your first paragraph is what destroyed your argument, whether you realized it or not:

"First is that the child in question in reality has no choice in parents, or being born for that matter."
Very true, unfortunately no child has the choice of their parents (damn shame for the ones that get aborted, you'd think they would probably have picked a different mother.)

"So our male and female oblige is to make sure that the conditions of their birth are as favourable as possible."

You nailed it. I agree. However, the least favorable thing you can do for the child is to abort it before it was born. How is that favorable for the child? If the mother or parents are worried the child will be in a bad environment, then you are right they have the obligation to do everything they can to improve the environment, and we see this all the time (I'm gonna quit smoking for our baby, I applied for the job we always talked about for the baby, I'm finally going to rehab for the baby... and so on.). Another way people often prepare, if they think they are stuck in a frankly awful environment, is to prepare to give the child up for adoption. A lot of people who care about nothing more than their child do that even while the pregnancy is taking place. Abortion is not on this list of things people do to make their child's life better. It's a cop out, in the sense you're using it. It improves no one's life but the parents'. In Persephone's story. Yes it's no accident the three generations of people you mentioned had awful lives. The mother TRIED and FAILED to abort. That's dysfunctional right there. What's more she was so bitter about it she TOLD her daughter. That is not a case of the mother trying to give her child the best life. To say that it somehow would have been better if the kid was dead, however... that's ludicrous.

"The only way we can do this, given how the birth thing is set up, is to support the mother in her choice, and then the father in his obligation to choose. It really is solely the mother's job to protect it for it's first years of life."

Supposedly yes it is the mother's job, but if she has suddenly decided that she is not going to protect the child's life, but rather END it, then I would think, as you put it, the secondary parent (the father) would have to step in and put a stop to that. If he would not, then unfortunately the abortion would go ahead. (Unless of course it was illegal, but we assume for the moment that it is not.)


"Yes, men can do it, but not until it's born and a lot of compensating would be needed to prevent the child from damaging effect of the mothers absence -- girls do not do well without a mother influence, in other words a daily female involvement, except perhaps in the presence of superior fathering, would would like include an awareness of the need for a female touch. Just the same as for boys and fathers, but in the early years all babies and toddleres are like girls in need of their mothers."

You have just revealed your prejudice. It is less than optimal for any child to have only one parent. But to say that the child is somehow better off if the one parent is a mother than he or she is if it is a father, to say that the father is just "icing" on the "cake" of motherhood... I really don't know what to say about that. If I am ever a father, as I hope to become one day, I hope the child's mother does not see my role as merely "icing," because I see it as the fulfillment of my life's purpose. If that's icing then... what the hell do I have to live for? It's no wonder men run off on women like that.

What your argument fails to account for is an admission that men are equal to men and should have equal rights. The implication would be that fatherhood is equal to and is just as valuable as motherhood, but you do not seem to accept that implication of equality.

All things aside though giapeep, I was impressed by your original challenge, and hope I am one day in a position to act on your challenge. I hadn't said anything about it yet, but I wanted to say that I think it is just the kind of "activism" I agree with. Small steps, little things, because you have to start somewhere.

^^ Especially to change a culture.

Sorry that i haven't been able to keep up with this thread. I do however have something else to relate.

I'm asusming that some of the stories here are about americans. (anecdots which while containing truth, and highlight specific problems, do not neccessarily contain the complete picture)

From my anecdotal evidence things are different among some groups of young women, girls, and tenagers in Ireland. As I stated previously the is some merit to suffering and challenge (though not particularily relevant to cases of neglect breding neglect) In Ireland there is a minimum level of social welfare provided by the government, having a child entitles a girl to 'child benifit' an extra payment (obviously designed to improve the quality of life of the, well two children in the case of a single-mother who has not yet reached adulthood) In these social groups most families grow up in council houses. Provided by the county/city council to individuals who would otherwise be unable to own/rent a home.

Needless to say the quality of these houses is not great, and the supply is limited. Thus there are long waiting lists to get a house.

For a young girl getting onto the county council housing list is very difficult, UNLESS she has a baby. This results in a culture of young girls who are choosing to have children as a strategy. It is a life achievement to have a child, most of their friends are doing it, and they get to be free of their parents homes, living still in a hosue provided by the council.

Here again abortion is not an option, making life more difficult for those who do are pregnant but do not want to be. Here instead, financial incentives designed to help encourage strategies which result in young women becoming pregnant because it will make their lives easier, irrelivant of the effect on the life they are bringing into hte world.

As raising a child can give anyone a sense of achievement, i do not think any less of an individual who chooses to dedicate their life to their children, however for an entire generation to grow up with the aim of having children for the financial benifit, and social freedom of having one's own home is not in the interest of those childen, so i say it is a shame for that these girls consider it an achievement to have a child, without expected the father to be around, often multiple children with different fathers, with no other goal in their life.

Again i believe that giapeep's original arguement was based on the idea that empowering women to make wise decisions will help improve the qality of parenting.

Here a culture has been born out of the best of intentions which has resulted in a system that does not empower women. It leaves them with a narrow view of a world where there is a problem, (not a choice) of how to get the most out of the state, (which is supporting them and their family to begin with) They naturelly figure out the best way of doing that, which is to have a child, (or many children).

(again from computer games, there is a difference between a choice and a problem, and many game designers do not know the difference or confuse the two; A problem is something with one best solution, a choice is something where multiple solutions will yeild different but not neccessarily better results.)

Thus many of those girls raised in this 'nice' system where the state cares for them and limited in their education (in part due to the parenting they recieved) cannot see past the system to any alternative (in fact i may be more difficult to live outside of the social security net, because there are barriers to leaving)

Not that i think socialism is inherently flawed, as I believe that individual members of society should contribute to help each other. But that is not to say there is no downside to making life easier for an individual.

@ Thycudides,

You missed some crucial phrasing I put in there: In the *first years of life*, which includes the pregnancy, women's bodies and caring. because of the shared physical environment, is irreplaceable to the child's survival needs. The biology of a man cannot replace that. You're bias is the equality of the father and it just isn't so. I'm sorry, its' no less valuable when the father wants to be involved, but not equal in essentially life giving ways.

You seem to be assuming that all men are as willing as you are to have children. As I stated before, not all women are and men are equal in this measure. Not all of either sex wants to parent, yet without the right to choose, (as Perspheron's story illustrates) women can and will take it out on the fetus and child. Such is a reaction to powerlessness, often it is negative.

You cannot argue the biological realities of procreation: the womb, which only women have, is the only environment a child is grown in. Single women are often not supported well. They are stigmatized, labeled, especially when they do not adhere to the cultural bias that assumes it's the woman's fault she got pregnant, or that she is somehow wrong for wanting to explore her sexuality without procreation as the reason. and that labels abortion to as killing and that life begins at conception.

I live in Canada, where abortion is legal. Our culture attempts to be supportive of individual Human Rights and we have managed quite progressively allowing abortion and same sex marraige, to name but two, to be the individual choices to address these needs for the greater good and equality of all. And here 20 weeks is the mark for optional abortion -- though late term abortion is allowed for other reasons, women are educated to know that this is the time frame. So with our right to choose comes the responsibility to learn how to make this choice.

Biology shows that a under 20 weeks for certain, a fetus is a fetus, it is not a child, it is a potential child. Otherwise there would not be two different labels to describe these very different states of being. During the first 20 weeks it is certain that a fetus cannot survive outside the womb, and as far as we know consider itself a self. This may seem heartless, but it is a fact of science.

It is our obligation as parents are to make sure the conditions for the growth and birth of a child are optimal -- the best is we chose to be parents but just as often we can become parents because we got got caught screwing; "she" trying to make "he" stay; we're young and stupid: "he" raped "her"..., I did not say conception, as this can be both a choice to procreate or an accident of sex.

Since we became aware that only women can carry a child to life it must be the woman who attempts -- provided her culture allows her to-- to decide this for her potential child. The woman must ultimately decide if this is safe for her child and up to her her abilities and whether the father has a say. Men have tried to control procreation since they figured out their greater and lesser ablities, which definitely pissed some off Look at the history of who held the power and the subjugation of women. Not much equality is there?.. How can you argue this?

The fallacy is saying the father is equally important, biology and psychology refute this, in the first years of life shows me that you have not accepted this reality of our existence. Since you are equally important, would you force the mother of your children to have more children than she knew she does not have the capacity to care for?

I wish it were so, but in the first few years of life not there are inherent biological inequalities and while there are men like you who dream of being a father (Live the dream.), these, I would guess, are not part the majority of births on this planet. Think on that.

Life ends, all the time; life seeks to better itself and perhaps it's worth considering that a woman's need to abort a pregnancy (not want, need is the only thing that will get a woman through the pain.of abortion.) is as much a biological urge to that end to betterment, in terms of the mother's sense of success and safety. Abortion is another way of protecting a potential life, it's cruel as much to the mother who will remember it. It is no easy choice, no where have I been glib in our discourse. It is personal and context sensitive. It is a human right as far as I'm concerned.



I am speaking in generalities when I say women make the "better" single parent, from conception up until toddler-hood, at least for the biological nurture that only a mother can provide, at least for her to asses if the father is a threat to either of them, and the hardest of all, if she is a threat to the potential life, not just the fetus but the life too and when a woman know she can't provide for the child, because ultimately, more than the man who has the choice to abandon, she must know she can provide without the father's help.

If she can't do it, she alone should choose adoption or abortion or by assessing if she can provide a healthy environment long enough to give "her" child away. Do you know what fetal alcohol syndrome does to a brain? It can never develop completely. Do you know how many teen age girls get pregnant and try to get rid of a pregnancy by drinking. Is abortion not better than that?

When women have the right to choose, without male bias, such as you have shown here and with the social understanding we are not equal until we have as much freedom to choose from our individual context, without recrimination.

You never responded to: A better quid pro quo, if we're going to consider it that way, is to say until all mother's have a right to choose all fathers must legally support the child that results from his sperm in all ways possible.

I'm glad you want to be a father, that your having this conversation shows your thoughtfulness and that's one fine Dad trait.

I wonder, though, how you feel you have a say in a decision you will never have to make for yourself; you will never have the pain of either.

As much as you and me and a few others like Orathic would like the ideal world, it is not equal. Biological, socio-economic, intellectual and cultural inequality is the world of our present as it has been throughout our evolution. Until that is recognized, and the biases this creates acknowledge, we cannot find a better balance.

We're back to individual choices. I like yours, that being a father "is a fulfillment of [your] life purpose." Still there remain a great many men who feel fucking is theirs, consequences (being a pregnancy) not quite being their responsibility.



Yes, I am biased that women take the lead on bringing a child into the world and that bias is dictated by our biological natures.

See, it's not an either or kind of thing. Humans are flawed. So many perspectives so little time.

What do we do with both of them ands?

Socialism also has many definitions -- but this is not a thread on socialism so start a new thread if you like..

Also @ Thycudides,

I'm glad that you would take up the challenge I posed.Would you do it if you had a family of your own?

Regading a father's rights. I suppose it's rather inhuman to compare to bussiness/contract law, but for what is considerd fair there i think another prespective may help me rationalise what i feel to be right.

If two adults choose to have a child together, then i think the father deserves equal say, like pre-arranged contract . If either party fails to live up to their responcibilities then the contract can be broken.

It is an unfair reality that in this case the man may choose to abandon the woman, without having to decide what to do about a pregnancy. Or the woman can fail to live up to her responcibility and still take the child (which can be considered the product of this contract) I don't actually have an ideal solution for this circumstance, but it is a risk which both parties know they are taking from the start.(and the man had the free choice of which woman he wanted to be his partner)

On the other hand in the case of an accidental pregnancy there is no agreement to begin with, and no rights or responcibilities. If the woman chooses to inform the man then they can make a choice, but neither party should be required(or be pressured) to enter into parenthood. Thus in this case if the woman chooses an abortion or to give up the child after then the father should have no right to stop her. (though in the case of adoption could choose to exercise his right to raise the child himself)

(I am going back on something i said above - but this seems like a better, more detailed analysis.)

Reality is unfair, and as much as i think the rights of a father should be respected in law there are differences in child 'creation' which can't just be ignored.

giapeep:

If I had my own family I think I would be even more inclined to, since I would know what the mother and child need from experience and not just intuition.

You had a really good post, but I'm off to class in a second so I'll just respond to one little bit really quickly. It has to do with the debate as a whole more than paternal rights, but bear with me.


You say that a fetus does not appear to be a person scientifically, so that means it's okay to end its life. You say that's a fact.

Here's another fact: I cannot prove you are a person. Does that mean its okay for me to kill you? I mean... you could just be a figment of my imagination. There's nothing you can say or do that could remove this possibility. So... what'll it be?

@Thucydides: I can't prove you exist, but i live in a world where i assume other people are like me.

Further I live in a world where i believe that by working with other people(which requires trust) we can improve the quality of life of all. (to build a utopia or 'heaven on earth' as the more religious may call it) So i believe that taking a strategy which respects at least those rights defined by the universal declaration of human rights will help to reach those goals.

That doesn't mean i can't kill to defend myself, so you shouldn't kill me for your own survival (if in fact you believe I am a person like you)

Further it is not possible to get everyone to believe the same things are right or wrong (no way to prove to them what is the best strategy for them to take, or what is morally right and wrong for them).

If a person chooses to have sex, and risks pregnancy and abort the fetus then it doesn't affect you directly. I don't see why you should have any input in their decision.

Ideally everyone would always know what is best for themselves, and would always make those decisions. Even better people would consider what is best for their community or consider what is best for others, and find an ideal strategy for improving everyone's benifit. (which is probably easier to do in smaller groups... but let's not get bogged down in the practical)

That we value human is great, but is forcing a child to be raised by a parent who wasn't interested in the first place, or isn't able financially capable in that child's best interest? (i don't know, but if i'm careful enough i will not be forced to make this decision.)

Is capital punishment in societies best interest? (i don't think it is, and i think society should make this decision)

@orathaic - why do you keep insisting banning abortion forces "a child to be raised by a parent who wasn't interested in the first place, or isn't able financially capable in that child's best interest". Again, I point to adoption. That child can have a perfectly wonderully happy life with someone who is willing to show them love and give them everything they need and want and more.

That is correct, and it is not my place to say whether an individual should choose adoption over abortion. Though neither is an easy decision to make.

Even the choice of raising a child who isn't yours is a difficult question, how do you know if your feelings will develop? how do you know that the child will accept you when they find out yuo're not their biological child? you say Adoption like it's easy.

Do you think i'm suggesting Abortion is a good/easy choice to make, or an ideal situation to find yourself in tobegin with?

Orathaic, I really like your analysis of 3 posts ago. Of course, it's really only valid if the embryo or fetus has no rights, which is a matter of some debate; I won't debate it here, since I've already had a good discussion about it with Thucydides on the other Abortion thread, but I accept it enough that it doesn't affect your analysis for me.

But if a woman breaks her implied contract with a man to bear a child that they will raise together, that is not a matter for any criminal penalties against her; it should still be perfectly legal for her to abort. It's just that he should be able to sue her. This would bring fairness between the sexes to her ability to sue him for child support.