Fathers Should Have a Say in Abortion

Tatarize: The guy you had sex with two weeks ago has about as much authority to make medical decisions for you as your butcher. My butcher isn't carrying my future son or daughter. Tatarize: All pregnancy are dangers to the mother's health. They all carry a pronounced risk that is absent if they choose to abort. If all pregnancy really carried that much risk to the mother, then all women would abort and none of us would be here. When you have a healthy woman and a healthy fetus there's nothing to suggest anything other than a smooth pregnancy. Tatarize: She gets to carry the child to term because it's her womb, her risks, and her body. Again, this is nothing but blatant disregard for the father. It's almost like you think he doesn't even exist. Tatarize: I feel for your situation and figure it's bleeding into what is otherwise a reasonable debate. I need to clarify. I'm not a father who has had his son or daughter aborted by a mother. I'm actually a gay man with no children who has never conceived. Therefore, my logic is reasonable and free of personal emotional perceptions. Tatarize: You can't force a women to carry a child to term against her will, regardless who provided some DNA to it. The notion that fathers are just "sperm and DNA" seems to be paramount to you. Tatarize: The fact you're arguing is that it isn't her choice. You're right. It isn't her choice. It's the choice of both parents. Tatarize: Children aren't worth money. Is the father going to sue for all the child support he'll never have to pay? It's not about the money. It's about the fact that a man's son or daughter was aborted without his knowledge or consent. Given that the child would now be dead, what other recourse could the father seek other than money? Some kind of penalty has to be put in place. A simple, "I'm sorry" from the mother won't cut it. Tatarize: THERE'S NO CHILD! Your entire argument is predicated on being a responsible man demands women be turned into forced birthers. There is a child. It is a child who was conceived by a mother and father. Any suggestion to the contrary is false. Tatarize: Fathers should love their children. They should be the best dads they can be. They should provide and help (mothers should do the same) and do everything in their powers to make their children happy, healthy and safe. Above you state the father is no more than some DNA. Now you're saying the father becomes a person who should be the best dad he can be. Either you're not firm on your position of fathers being just sperm donors or you're taking the double standard position regarding fathers I refer to in round one. Tatarize: The difference however, is there aren't any children. An embryo isn't a baby, it has no personhood. Women, however, are people. Now we're back again to the woman being the only person in the situation. I'd really appreciate it if you would stop flip flopping. Tatarize: The best interests of children demands that those who should be responsible for the child, must be responsible. The last I checked the father is responsible for the child and is acting responsibly in wanting to take care of it. I find it sad that there's no room in your definition of a humane society for this. NOTE: I respectfully request you answer this question in your next argument. Is the role of the father merely that of sperm donor? Yes or No?