Resolved: The Father Should Not Have Say In an Abortion

Ill jump right into it. 1) "Its in the woman's body, therefore she should have more say in the matter."Just because the baby is within her body it doesnt mean that one can conclude that nobody else is allowed to have any influence in making decisions regarding the baby's life, it only proves that women should have a decent amount of influence in choosing to keep it or not and should in fact have a say in the decision..... The fact that the child grows in the womans body only cements the belief that she should have her half of the say in deciding whether to keep it or not, it doesnt mean we can simply dismiss anything that the father has to say because he invests and sacrifice a lot for the upbringing of the child in terms of financial sacrifice, helping keep the mother alive and fed, hes also probably the guy who helps her get to a place to deliver the baby, the list goes on and on.... My point is, yes the woman is the one being the host for the child, but that only proves shes entitled to her half of the say in whether it should be kept or not. It doesnt necessarily mean that nobody else can have any say at all. 2) "Women donate more genetic material then men, its not 50-50"In this argument the Pro states that women give more genetic material to a child then men do, so much so that she should by default have an increased say. This is a very misleading argument though and the pro's own source states why. The way human reproduction works is that each parent donates a set of identical chromosomes to the offspring, with both sets of chromosomes being just about the same. The only pair of chromosomes that arent identical are the chromosomes that determine the sex of the baby, where the female always gives an X chromosome but the male can donate an X or a Y. This is where the discrepancy happens.If the baby is a female, then both parents have given exactly the same amount of genetic material, and pro's own source even admits that: "So, if the father contributes an X chromosome, and the couple has a baby girl, the mother has contributed about .0006% more DNA than the father"Now, .0006% is far less then the 3.5% number the pro gave, so where did this number come from?If the baby is a male, then the mother donated an X chromosome whereas the father donated the Y chromosome, and since the Y chromosome is significantly smaller then the X chromosome in terms of genetic material it carries, then naturally the father would have given less genetic material to the child. So all in all, women do not give more genetic material then men do to the child. The difference is based entirely on the sex of the child and not any kind of reproductive process that naturally favors female genes more then male genes. That being said this argument has very little weight in the big picture of things and it can rightfully be assumed that men and women each contribute approximately 50% of genetic material to the offspring. 3) "The man relinquished ownership of the sperm, so he shouldnt have any say at all" To relinquish ownership of something is to give up not just the possession of something, but to give up any responsibilities and potential liabilities that would arise from the object the man previously owned, and that is not the case here. One can argue that a sperm donor at a sperm bank is relinquishing ownership of sperm because he is giving up all liabilities, responsibilities, or financial obligations associated with whatever is done with his sperm. This is not the case with a soon-to-be father because he still chooses to be and is responsible for the sperm in question. The father is not relinquishing ownership of the sperm who is void of all responsibilities of his sperm, in this case he is simply loaning his sperm to the woman and he still is held accountable and responsible for it. Putting sperm in a woman is much like putting money in a bank, he may not have it on him but it is still his property and he still has a right to whatever he wants to do with it and face consequences of his actions. 4) "Even if it is 50-50, there is no neutral course of action for the parents to take, so one side must have more say in the matter"In this argument the pro argues that since there is no middle path that a couple can take regarding aborting or not aborting, then someone HAS to have more say in order to break the tie breaker. I disagree though. Couples disagree all the time on whether or not they should keep the baby yet there are middle roads that people can take that work just fine. - Many couples simply keep the baby and continue to argue over whether to keep it or not until one side has a change of heart over the course of the pregnancy - Many couples can give their child up to adoption when the child is born, like in the movie Juno where the unwed teenage mother gives her child up to a loving couple who cant have kids but want one. - Many couples can have an independent third party such as a doctor, priest, etc. come in and be the tie breaker for them or present a different point of view on why a woman should/shouldnt abort. - in some countries you are allowed to give your child to another set of parents and then if you decide you do want to raise your child, you can have it back and keep it. This process is called 'fostering' http://pregnancy.blurtit.com...Those are the four main examples but the point is, there are middle roads for couples to take if they cant decide whether to abort or not. There doesnt have to be a side that by default has more say then the other and it is more then possible for both sides to have a 50-50 say in the matter and reach a stalemate. 5) "The baby is not property because it is a human being"Property by definition is anything that is rightfully owned by someone else. In this case the baby isnt anybody's property because it isnt 'owned' by anyone. Since the fetus in question is not property, then in the con's words the only relevant argument is who is currently the host body. The fetus being human doesnt change the fact that half of the baby's genetic material comes from the mother and the other half comes from the father, that is true whether you agree the fetus is property or not, which means the 50-50 argument is still a sound argument to consider when deciding if parents should have equal say in choosing to abort or not. This then kicks back to the 'the woman is the host and should have more say' argument where I argued that this argument only entitles the woman to have her half of the say in making a decision, not deny anyone else the right to get a word in.