Fathers Should Have a Say in Abortion

You have no right to make medical decisions for somebody else. Period. Your argument breaks down to, men have DNA and therefore they get to control women's bodies. I'm sorry, but wanting to be a daddy doesn't allow you to deny other people their rights. All pregnancy is taxing, causes extreme pain, carries enormous risk and is a financial and emotional burden. You are not the proper judge of whether unwilling parties should be forced to have children. This is an axioms of all humane societies. People make their own choices about their own bodies. Most of your arguments are categorically wrong and are framed in an entirely dishonest way. We aren't talking about children we are talking about whether women should be forced to carry a pregnancy to term. Men should be good fathers and care for their children, but as far as DNA and sperm is concerned it doesn't give them any special rights to control and make medical decisions for other people. After a child is born, mothers and fathers are on equal footing and have equal responsibility. As far as the pregnancy go, both the mother and the father have equal rights. As far as women go, they have complete control over their bodies. I'm not discounting men or preventing them from stepping up and being a good father. I am simply pointing out that carrying a pregnancy to term is a monumental task and cannot taken lightly or forced by the whims of other people. Nobody has rights to children, whether born or unborn. But, everybody has the right to control what does and doesn't happen with their body. You are confusing the latter with the former and shouting "me too". You are wrongly supposing women have rights when it comes to pregnancy that men do not. That isn't so. Women have rights when it comes to their own bodies, just as men have rights when it comes to their own bodies. ------ >>>>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. No this is blatant respect for medical sovereignty. >>I'm actually a gay man with no children who has never conceived. Therefore, my logic is reasonable and free of personal emotional perceptions. You actually seems a bit misogynistic. >>The notion that fathers are just "sperm and DNA" seems to be paramount to you. No. My claim is actually completely different from that. I'm saying that sperm and DNA doesn't give you the right to infringe on the rights of others. >>You're right. It isn't her choice. It's the choice of both parents. Without a child, there are no parents. >>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. So emotional distress? You can sue for that. So your argument is that if he's not told he should be allowed to sue. Okay, he can sue. He probably won't win. But, he can sue. >>There is a child. It is a child who was conceived by a mother and father. Any suggestion to the contrary is false. No, there is a fetus which must be carried to term. Without that, there's nothing. Children are not conceived, zygotes are conceived and they develop. >>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. No, fathers are much more than DNA. But, DNA doesn't give them rights to women's bodies. >>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. There is nothing but room for that. However, what must be excluded from a humane society is forcing women to carry pregnancies to term just so that men can take care of the resulting baby. That's absolutely vile. >>Is the role of the father merely that of sperm donor? Yes or No? No. But, sperm nor DNA give him the right to control other people.