the times has an interesting, if somewhat typically fearmongering, piece on the diveregnce in the law re father's rights in abortion and invitro contexts. I touched on this topic in another thread, a while it's a point that often gets glossed over in the abortion debate, it's taken on new signifigance in the debate over Alito's nomination. in Casey, spousal notification, not consent, was at issue, and there were safeguards in the law for cases where the woman feared for her safety. in any case, all she had to do was "affirm" that her spouse have given his consent, a fairly low standard. my own feeling is that when a man and a woman have sex they enter into an implied contract in the event a child is conceived as a result. This contract should cover both the decision to have the child, or to terminate the pregnancy. This contract should not be construed as granting control to one or the other party, but rather to provide them with dual responsibility for the welfare of the child, and input into the decision making process about whether to have an abortion. the law currently recognizes a man's implicit responsibility at the moment of intercourse. however, it gives him no voice in the abortion decision. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/06/w...&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=print -- The Right to Be a Father (or Not) By PAM BELLUCK BOSTON — Case study one: a pregnant woman wants an abortion. Her husband doesn't. Should he have a say? Case study two: a woman wants to become pregnant with frozen embryos. Her ex-husband opposes the decision. Should he have a say? The answer, legally, is no in the abortion case, and in the case of frozen embryos, almost always yes. It might seem paradoxical, but it is emblematic of the way technology is changing the landscape of human reproduction. And it is the kind of paradox that could get more attention with the nomination of Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. to the Supreme Court. Since his nomination, Judge Alito's most talked-about decision so far has been his dissent in the 1991 Pennsylvania abortion case, Planned Parenthood v. Casey. In that case, Judge Alito wanted to uphold a Pennsylvania law that required women to notify their husbands when seeking an abortion. His view was rejected by the majority of the judges, and later, by the Supreme Court, which used the case as a vehicle to uphold the legality of abortion. The Casey decision effectively left the decision of whether to have an abortion entirely up to the woman. But in cases involving frozen embryos, judges have given equal weight to the father's point of view. "It's fascinating because they are sort of developing on dual tracks without a whole lot of reference back and forth," said David D. Meyer, a University of Illinois law professor, about the divergent outcomes in cases involving abortion and frozen embryos. With abortion, said Marsha Garrison, a professor at Brooklyn Law School, the courts recognize that "that embryo is in the woman's body, it's within her and can't be separated from her, so it's not just her decision-making about whether to bear a child, it's about her body." Ms. Garrison said even if a man is tricked into impregnating a woman, many courts have held that "well, it just doesn't matter: if you engage in sexual intercourse, you assume the risk that a child will be born." With embryos, however, everything changes, said June Carbone, a law professor at the University of Santa Clara. "There's nothing that involves her physical integrity," she said, "and there is a notion that this would be a violation of the parenthood of the father" not to take his wishes into account. The watershed case was a 1992 decision by the Tennessee Supreme Court, which ruled that a man could prevent his ex-wife from using or donating embryos that they had created during their marriage in an attempt to have children. IN that case, the couple had not signed a contract specifying what should be done with the leftover embryos. But some courts, including one in Massachusetts in 2000, have said that even if both parties signed a contract giving the woman the right to the embryos in case of divorce, such a contract could not be enforced. "Either parent cannot be forced to become a parent in circumstances where they object, even if they signed a contract," Professor Carbone said. The dichotomy in the courts' treatment of abortion and embryos could change the approach of fathers' rights advocates. For years, they have argued that there is a basic unfairness in the lack of a father's input in an abortion decision. "A mother can terminate a pregnancy and the father has no say," said Michael McCormick, executive director of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children. "On the other hand, a mother's able to make a unilateral decision to keep the child and saddle the father with 18 years of child support." But what if fathers' rights groups used the embryo issue to gain more leverage? Jeffery M. Leving, a Chicago lawyer and fathers' rights advocate, has created a print advertisement aimed at fathers in embryo cases: "Dads, protect the fate of your potential unborn children," it says. Mr. Leving, who opposes abortion in most cases, last year led an unsuccessful attempt to get Illinois to pass a law requiring women seeking abortion to notify their husbands. "I believe that if we get newsworthy frozen embryo cases, it could bring media attention to the rights of fathers in the abortion area," he said. While most fathers' rights groups have a right-to-life cast to them, antiabortion groups and fathers' rights advocates might find they eventually part company. In embryo cases, courts have almost always ruled that in the case of a dispute, the embryo cannot be implanted and no child will be born. Of course, ultimately, technology could change things yet again. Fathers may end up with rights in abortion cases, Professor Garrison said, "if the day ever comes when men can become pregnant or we have artificial incubators" so that a woman's womb is unnecessary.
What about a case where the prospective father wants the prospective mother to get an abortion, yet the prospective mother wants to have the baby?
there is no "one-size-fits-all" solution, but i would imagine in such a case that a compromise could be reached whereby the father wasn't responsible to child support.
Why shouldn't he be responsible to help support the child he fathered? Because he wanted her to get an abortion and she refused??
as i said, there is no one size fits all solution, but in general, yes. but to turn the question around, if by law he can be held responsible, why shouldn't he have a voice in the decision to have the child?
It seems that men basically have no rights in these issues. There are cases of sperm donors being ordered to pay child support. There's also a case of a divorced father being ordered to pay child support for children that his ex-wife had through artificial insemination without his knowledge.
I think the rationale was that women shouldn't have to be forced into subjecting their bodies to the whims of a man, particularly if they are married in a less than ideal situation. Since men basically have always had the legal upperhand in our society (not to mention most other societies). Theoretically, I agree that the husband should be notified. However the wife should have some legal recourse to bypass that rule if she felt she was physically threatened. That's the tricky part. How does a woman get legal representation, without her husband knowing, to get the bypass? Also, what about this scenario: What if a woman finds out she is pregnant right in the middle of a divorce but not finalized yet? The husband could then have the power to veto the abortion out of anger? Why would a woman need legal approval from a man in that situation? Interesting questions. In an ideal world, it sounds like a good idea. But I agree with Basso on this one ...there is no one size fits all. And for that reason, I oppose the notification requirement. It's too hard to make a universal law that is always appropriate.
to be clear, the notification requirement in Casey did not require consent of the husband, just that he be informed. indeed, all it really required was that the woman certify she'd noticed the father, an easily fungible standard.
I guess I'm inclined to agree with you as well in terms of spousal notification. However in terms of actually giving fathers the right to have some say in the abortion decision, there might be some problems... My take is that this type of regulation would either be struck down by the courts or would cause Roe v. Wade to get struck down. The reason is that currently women get exclusive rights to determine whether or not to get an abortion is that under the Roe v. Wade decision it was determined that the fetus is considered part of the female body and thus is granted a zone of privacy that allows her to do what she wants to her "body." Essentially, giving fathers the power to have some say on the abortion would take that control away from the mother and essentially cut into the heart of the logic behind Roe v. Wade because the fetus would no longer be privy to a zone of privacy guaranteed under Roe. Consequently the courts would have a dilemma. Either allow this law which would basically undermine the foundation of Roe v. Wade and could be the part of the basis of a test case to challenge Roe v. Wade or the courts would use the Roe v. Wade decision to strike down this law. Nonetheless it's a legal dilemma that no one has really wanted to play out.
IF two people lay down . . . and they get pregnant The BOTH RESPONSIBLE . . Correct? See. . . if a woman wants to escape responsibility .. she gets an abortion she basically Gives up parental Rights and Responsibility a man should like wise have the chance to give up his parental Rights and Responsibilities. . . a Male version of an abortion the ability . . like a woman . .to walk away Women says they should have complete control over their bodies yet they would deny men complete control over their money and resources Man's wallets are at the whim of women . . . .if she wants to have the baby . . he has to pay . . whether he wants a child or not BACK TO THE SUBJECT Basically .. in america Father have NO RIGHTS to their children only those GIVEN to him by the woman QUESTION: If i snatch a child from the hospital and tell the mom he died. . and she finds out 5 yrs later. . . .what happens???? I goto Jail for kidnapping but If a woman . .DOES NOT TELL A MAN HE HAS A CHILD . . . and he finds out 5 yrs later. . . he gets hit with 5 yrs of child support and the deceiving woman gets no punishment what so ever DOES a MAN have the right to know he has produced a child??? In this county . . he does not unless the woman WANTS him to know DOES denying a man his parental right constitute a crime??? NOT IN THIS COUNTRY . . . is a woman doesn't want the man to be in his childs life. . . she simply does not tell him . . and basically if he finds out there is next to NO REPROCUSSIONS . . . and plus she can get a boom of instance Back Child Support If . . a man gets fooled into producing a child? [she says she sterile. . she says puts a whole in the condom ..whatever] he has to stand up and pay out the ass If a woman is so fool . . she can give it up for Adoption get an abortion or keep it [3 options to the man's 1] If i Fraud you into giving me money . . . i can goto jail If a woman falsely claims a man is the father. . no biggie. . go blame the next man . .and the next .. . and the next . . until she hits the jackpot Is that right??? Women are not really for equal rights. . . well not in reproductive rights anyway it is the one province they have always held the upper hand and they REFUSE to let a man have ANY say in the process I know u think I'm dogging women . . I am not I am simply stating that in the realm of reproductive rights MEN are severely handicapped and not allow any say or participation
There have been men ordered to pay child support for kids that are not theres Women want to fight the INFORM part because well . . if they get preggers OUTSIDE the marriage . . . lucy got some 'splaining to do I mean . .they don't want girls 15 yr old to have to tell their parents The ideal that the government is helping my child keep vital information from me . . .is frightening . . this would be like Schools not telling you anything your kid does at school Rocket River
The problem people seem to be confusing is 'spouse' with 'father'. The spouse of the woman may not be the father of the child.
"Case study one: a pregnant woman wants an abortion. Her husband doesn't. Should he have a say?" Legally, no because of right to privacy doesn't include the man. Case study two: a woman wants to become pregnant with frozen embryos. Her ex-husband opposes the decision. Should he have a say? He should because it has nothing to do with right to privacy. It's just a decision about their whether to have children or not.
That's quite a rant there Rocket River. While I normally agree with you, I can't really support your view for two simple reasons. If man doesn't want to have a child, he can refrain from having sex or use protection. Its hard to blame that on the woman. If man were to carry a baby for 9 months and push it through their ass, then perhaps man could have a little more say. Biology is the driver here. Or if it pleases you, discuss this one with God. There are certain inalienable facts of life. Women give birth to children is one of them. I don't really call that a "handicap." Another one is men are stronger than women, generally. If you ask a woman, they wouldn't call that a handicap.
Explain to me this. . . Does this not also work for abortion? She could refrain from having sex . . .if she didn't want a child? So .. Abortion should be illegal . .if a woman doesn't want a child she should simply refraim from having sex or use protect See. . .it works there too. Biology does not necessitate Law IF By LAW . .. we allow women to walk away from their responsibilities then we should BY LAW allow the man the same opportunity A Woman -can walk away 2 ways. 1. adoptions - she can give a child up for adopt . .. here is the insidious part She DOES NOT have to tell the father [he gets NO RIGHT TO HIS CHILD] If she does give the child up for adopt .. it is against the law for the agency to tell the child about her . .or give her info out . .if they do . . their are LEGAL consequences IF A MAN decides to pay up . . but wants nothing to do with a child . . . and the woman tells the child. . . oops her bad. . no LEGAL consequences 2. Abortion - At its base Abortion is a mother refusing to give a child Food, Shelter and Protection . .the results is the child's death IF a MAN refuses to give up FOOD , Shelter and Protection . . he goes to Jail even if it does not result in death We cannot allow for laws to allow women one set of rights and men the other when it happens in favor of men . . . it is a civil suit and maybe legal actions BTW Women says. . .since men cannot have babies. . they cannot have a saw Well that is as stupid as a man saying Women don't know the male sex drive. . .so they should have no say in Rape In both argument the fact that one is a biologically diffent is in play HOWEVER Both have or HAD the potential to be victims which allows one a level understanding Equal Rights runs both ways Rocket River
