Abortion - should the father have a say?


Sunlark's avatar
There are a lot of debates about the legalities surrounding abortion, but no one seems to take the father into consideration. If he is married, or even just living together, he will have to pay for the child, so should he be able to force the woman into abortion? What about if he wants the child? Should he be able to stop the mother from having an abortion? And then there is the issue of one night stands, divorces and break ups. Where do we then draw the line?
Comments470
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
CodePurpleyedrawings's avatar
The man can't tell her what to do with her body. It's her body. You can't really know his or her intentions for the baby, anyway.

Think of it this way. When she's pregnant the developing child is under her care, not the father's. It's her burden to carry. Since when do you decide if some one carries groceries/fetuses or not? Since when do you decide whether someone drops those groceries? You're not the one carrying those groceries. Sure, you helped put those groceries there, but the other half is hers and she's carrying it while you are not.
nonecansee's avatar
IMO, it depends on the relationship of the pregnant woman and the father of the child.

If they are married, the two of them must come to a conclusion together. A married life is all about managing choices to be able to live together after all. So yes, he has a say. :)

I'm not sure how to answer if there are instances where after a one night stand/divorce/break-up that the father of the child would want his child. For those cases, I would leave it to the woman's decision. After all, she and the father of the child probably do not have any deep meaningful relationship wherein the guy would be able to persuade her to keep it or get rid of it. :shrug:
Rhichter's avatar
Certainly. He doesn't get the last word, however. That's almost entirely up to the mother for the sole fact she is the one investing such a colossal amount of energy into reproduction. Its an important thing to consider.

But its always the woman's choice.
AkoyaBones's avatar
In some states, a rapist can sue the mother for custody.
nonecansee's avatar
:o I'm trying to rack my brain for a reason as to why a rapist would want children.
AkoyaBones's avatar
Sometimes guys are fucking nuts and want to have kids with some women..their 'dream women' so they capture and rape them..or they have some other kind of fucked up mentality involving having sex and impregnating women against their will
MechMate4066's avatar
This was already brought up a long time ago; women used to have to get consent from the fathers if they planned on having an abortion. However, the fifteenth (if I remember correctly) amendment made it so women did not have to do this, due to the reasoning that the woman has the right to her own body and her child.
stoneman123's avatar
Men do have a say in abortion. If you decide to have sex with some woman without using adequate contraception, in my mind you have tacitly agreed to take responsibility for any ensuing pregnancies. Of course, contraception is not always efficacious, and for safety measures I feel that no man should have sex with a woman who does not support abortion or who is not his wife.

Naturally, no man should have the right to force a woman to have (or not to have) an abortion, even if it would be the best possible course of action (as it usually is, when one or both parents do not want the child). If the man has not taken proper safety precautions (i.e. using a condom, and ensuring the woman would be in favor of abortion), he should accept his foolishness and pay child support. Childbirth is apparently much more emotionally and physically draining on women, and since it them who must suffer it the most, the ultimate decision should fall to them. Compared to having to birth and raise a fatherless child, paying child support is a very gentle fate, indeed.
FeralTao's avatar
Well in my opinion both parents have a very obvious choice. The mother has the choice to keep the baby or not and the father has the choice to not stick his penis into A. People without making sure himself that he is wearing a condom or B. A partner that isn't quite 100% clear on that she REALLY wants that baby. Partnerships are about honesty, respect and trust after all and if you chose someone who couldn't be upfront that they perhaps didn't really want a baby then you should work out those relationship issues before having a child anyway.
TTFNJinx's avatar
No unless the father agrees to take full responsibility of the child meaning if the mom does nt want the baby then he has to choose whether or not to keep it himself or put it for adoption. However if the choice is dying in labor because of a disease or problem with the mother or abortion then the mom should choose since it would be her life at stake. That's what I believe. I do not believe the father should force anyone into giving up or keeping the baby.
ChakatBlackstar's avatar
Hmm...this is a tough one. If he doesn't want the kid then he doesn't have to be involved in the child's life so he shouldn't be allowed to force an abortion. Stopping an abortion on the other hand is another issue. If he wants to make her go through with the pregnancy then he needs to accept all responsibility for the child as well as all financial issues involved with carrying the baby as well as compensation to the mother for her troubles, not unlike a surrogate.
WiffleBall's avatar
The father should have a say in whether or not his child dies, yes.
Mclandis's avatar
At that stage it's not a child, it's a fetus.
MelodyMoose's avatar
This kind of thing could be solved if people used their ability to communicate with each other. Talk about your expectations before sex and if you cannot agree on something, find someone else. We need to teach better sex ed if this basic thing is a huge problem.
SapphireZero's avatar
If the both partners were consenting adults, it should be considered.

The first problem I hear that it's the women's body, and she could do what she wants with it, which is true. However that is thrown out the window when that woman get pregnant from censenting sex and now has a problem that will get bigger in 9 months. Yet there are many scenarios in how this could go down:

1. The mother and father don't want an abortion and raise the child. No issues at all
2. The father wants an abortion and the mother does not. Issue
3. The mother and father both want and abortion. No issue.
4. The father doesn't want an abortion and the mother does. Issue

2/4 of these scenarios you won't have any issue saying yes or no to an abortion. Yet if one partner wishes to keep the child and the other doesn't? You have problems, it's even worse when it's the father who is opposed to it. Are we to say that a man wishing to be a father is a bad thing or to even say that he must just accept the fate of his child is to die without living?

The current system does not handle this well, at all. It puts all power to the woman and it leaves men as a sperm donor and wallet. All this in the name of protecting a women's rights over destroying or keeping a child she may or may not want.

I understand the need to protect a women's body, but there is also accountability. You can't just go around having sex and not expect things like this to happen, and I am still just going back to scenario 4. The current system says that feelings of the man are worthless to whether the child lives or dies. If a man wants to be a father, he better pray that the women doesn't take a pill, have an abortion, legally abandon the child, or put it up for adoption. The woman has all the power when deciding what to do with her child during the early phases of it's existence and the man doesn't have a say. That is not a perfect or even close to perfect system.

It's pretty much a catch 22 for this whole scenario. If we give women the rights to her body, we remove the feelings and willpower that a man has to be a father. If we give men some say over abortions, we force women to consider who they have sex with and how they wish to do it. This issue can not be sexually neutral, it's impossible to give both sexes equal rights over abortion.
Trorbes's avatar
Are we to say that a man wishing to be a father... must just accept the fate of his child is to die without living?

Yes. So long as abortions are legal and women are granted autonomy under the law, there are no circumstances where her bodily domain should be violated simply because another person wants her child. This is not a gray area, this is not a situation where both people evenly share the burden; the father's necessary involvement in creating a person ends at conception. Any argument that he should be able to deny the mother's right to an abortion is simply admitting that you do not respect women enough to let them govern themselves.
SapphireZero's avatar
So long as abortions are legal and women are granted autonomy under the law, there are no circumstances where her bodily domain should be violated simply because another person wants her child.

We are talking about the father. The man who contributed his dna for the conception of the child. One of the duties of a man is to pass knowledge and experiance to the next generation. It is also the man's duty, or at least wish, to reproduce and continue his line. Are we saying these desires are lesser?

This is not a gray area, this is not a situation where both people evenly share the burden; the father's necessary involvement in creating a person ends at conception.

True. I didn't say it in my original post, but I think the legal paternal surrender is something that the law should adopt and accept. Women should have the right to control their body, as much as a man should control what he cares to invest.

Any argument that he should be able to deny the mother's right to an abortion is simply admitting that you do not respect women enough to let them govern themselves.

If the only effect of having an abortion was just to herself and just herself, then yes. On a physical level, she is the one having an abortion. However she also has control over a man's wallet. The current legal atmosphere does not have it to where an abortion just affects the woman and her future, it affects the man. For she can demand child support at any time legally,and even ask for back pay if the child is over 18 and the father never paid a cent. So no, I can't trust women to do abortions when she can legally demand resources from the father, doesn't matter if the father wanted to be one or not, he is forced to pay by law for a child he may have no interaction with.

If the legal system had it to where her abortion only affected her, then I am fine with 100% control over her body.
witwitch's avatar
How about instead, we have a new law?

For example, in Finland, a man has to ACCEPT or the DENY the paternity of the child. A woman can not force a man to take responsibility for a kid he never wanted. This way, he is basically able to give up all aspects and claims of fatherhood to the child, and the woman is left to raise it on her own (she can get support from the state is she is poor, and all public healthcare for children is completely free).

In the same way, a man should not be able to use a woman as his living incubator to spare him some hurt feelings.
SapphireZero's avatar
That's exactly what I am saying. In the US, we don't have that option. The US legal systems focuses not in the interest of the parents but the child. So if a man is found to be a father, that's 18 years of child support, and that's not even fair.
witwitch's avatar
To be fair, in the USA a mother can't get the same kind of support from the government that a woman can here, so she needs the support of the father to get by.

This is only one of the ways that Socialism can actually help people have more freedoms.
SapphireZero's avatar
I don't believe the government should have any say in the matter of family. Women are very much capable to fend for themselves and their children.
View all replies
Trorbes's avatar
We are talking about the father. The man who contributed his dna for the conception of the child.

We are talking about someone who contributed 50% of their DNA having the power of veto over someone who contributed 50% of their DNA, 100% of their mitochondrial DNA, and 9 months of actually carrying the immature human, at the very least. That's not justice, that's control.


One of the duties of a man is to pass knowledge and experiance to the next generation. It is also the man's duty, or at least wish, to reproduce and continue his line.

Yeah, but women? They just want babies because they're stupid and driven by their hormones, amirite?


If the only effect of having an abortion was just to herself and just herself, then yes. On a physical level, she is the one having an abortion. However she also has control over a man's wallet. The current legal atmosphere does not have it to where an abortion just affects the woman and her future, it affects the man. For she can demand child support at any time legally,and even ask for back pay if the child is over 18 and the father never paid a cent. So no, I can't trust women to do abortions when she can legally demand resources from the father, doesn't matter if the father wanted to be one or not, he is forced to pay by law for a child he may have no interaction with.

There are these things, called consequences. Actions typically have them. You blatantly exposed your sexism by demanding women be held accountable for having sex, then cry about men being held accountable for the same thing. Even if we're to ignore the context for why fathers are expected to pay child support, being legally compelled to hand over a portion of your income is far from being compelled to hand over your right to your own body.
Kinoc-Kun's avatar
Adoption is always an option?