Yes, she can (certainly if it's the UK, I expect the law must very according to different countries). Though there was a case a while back where a guy challenged his partner in court and stopped her having an abortion. Though I'm not sure whether or not they were married.

Since I don't know about your state of residence, age and all of that, I would say it was probably a possibility. Sex should be limited to married persons because of situations like this. If you were married to her, then you would definitely have a voice in the life that she is carrying.

yes she can she doesnt need your permission, i totally sympathise with you on this one because i dont believe abortion is right.

i'm not sure but she shouldn't be able to it is your child too....besides if she doesn't want to take care of it and you want to you can.

The 2 of you really need to talk through this. It is not a black and white issue. Tough spot for both of you. It is a decision that you will both remember for the rest of your lives, no matter what you decide.

I should imagine so. It's in her body, she has to carry and deliver it, and you were stupid enough not to wear protection (then again, that's the responsibility of both involved). If you want a kid, find someone else who wants one.

Unfortunately, yes she can. Try talking to her. Explain that you are deeply committed to raising that baby and if that does not work, try to let it go. Parenthood is best as a two-person deal. You would both have to be very committed to make it work. She's the one who would have to do the bulk of the early work in carrying it to term. She may grow to resent you or the child which would be very unhealthy for all of you once it is delivered. Try to have as adult a discussion as you can have with her. Don't try to make her feel guilty for her choice. Just lay it all out. That you have between you set a course in place that will result in a human life and that this is precious to you. She will ultimately have the final say. Tell her to be sure about what she is doing. As for you. It may be time to accept that some things really are not for us to decide. When we take a huge risk, we must remain aware of the potential consequences. Good luck to you both.

Depends where she lives. If she lives in a humane country/state, then ultimately the choice is hers. She must weigh all factors, and do what she knows to be in the best interest for all. Ultimately her choice.

I don't know where you live, but I'm sure she could. Would you actually try to stop her? To what end? It's a big deal to carry a baby, takes nearly a year and some women do still die from it. I know that abortion is also a very serious step, and I'm not advocating that, but I think the decision belongs to the person who is going to actually have to go through it. You haven't made a commitment to this girl, all you did was enjoy a gift she gave you. When I hear couples say "we're pregnant" it always annoys me. "We" are expecting, "we" aren't pregnant. Only women get pregnant. If you really care for this girl, talk to her and then, you should prove it to her, by offering her your support. If this is just about exercising power, you should talk to a therapist. If this is about a moral imperative against abortion, well you shouldn't have had unprotected sex. Start covering your business and join an anti-abortion group.

I answered this question before here: http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/69274/311901 In the United States, a man claiming to be the father of a fetus does not have the right to force an abortion, nor does he have the right to force a full-term pregnancy. The only exceptions are the "male abortion" cases at the end of this answer, and all of those cases involve frozen embryos that are not inside the woman's body. Courts have held that his opportunity to avoid parenthood was during the act of conception. Even if he wore birth control and it failed (broke, fell off, whatever), IF a pregnancy results, he is stuck with whatever the woman decides to do, because it is her body and only SHE has the legal right to decide if her body will support a pregnancy for nine months, or endure an abortion. IF a child is born alive from this pregnancy, THEN the male parent is responsible for child support unless the child is adopted, and the courts do not care: ----whether he tried to use birth control ----whether he was tricked into thinking SHE was using birth control ----whether he offered to pay for an abortion ----whether he offered to adopt the child ----or anything else. What matters legally, once the pregnancy has begun, is what the woman is willing to do with her own body. Her uterus is not marital property, it's exclusively hers. She can't force her husband to give a kidney or donate blood to a child, and her husband can't force her to loan out her uterus to a fetus. What matters legally, no matter whether the woman lied or anything else, is that the man is 50% of the parentage of a child if the pregnancy is carried to term, and he cannot get out of that responsibility. (He can come back and sue the woman for fraud if he wants to, but that doesn't change his legal responsiblity to the child itself). VERY IMPORTANT CASE, DAVIS v. DAVIS (1990): There was a case regarding seven frozen embryos in Tennessee. The embryos were NOT in a woman's body, they were in a freezer. The couple had created the embryos during fertility treatments. They were breaking up, and the husband wanted them destroyed. The wife wanted them implanted in her (which meant the husband would be paying child support to her for 21 years or so) OR she said if she couldn't have that, she wanted the embryos given up for adoption to other infertile couples. The judge stated that, since the embryos were not in her body, the woman had no more rights than the man to decide what should happen next. So, holding both parents equal, the judge decided that the person who did NOT want to put their genetic material out into the world was the one who had the stronger rights to decide, because: ---once the DNA is out there, it's out there, there's no taking it back; forcing it out there against their will is an irreversible decision; and ---the parent who WANTS to put their DNA out there will have endless opportunities to do so with another partner; refusing to allow them this opportunity to force their DNA out into the stream of humanity is reversible as soon as they conceive more embryos with a willing partner. So, the court favored the parent who did not want to have children, in this case, the male parent. This kind of case is the closest to a "male abortion" our law and biology can get, and the reasons the male won the case were: 1. It wasn't about controlling a woman's body, and 2. The judge decided that, although the two parents' RIGHTS were equal, the HARM done to them would not be; that it's more harmful to force someone into parenthood, than it is to force someone to NOT be a parent this time (because they will have other chances to parent with other partners down the road). In a similar case, New York courts eventually came to the same position: 1995: NY Judge Disagrees with Tennessee Case http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=990CE6DB1330F933A15752C0A963958260 (summary: judge in Nassau County gave wife custody of the embryos, declaring that ''a husband's rights and controls of the procreative process end'' when the sperm and the egg are combined.) 1998: NY Judge Overturned; Husband Controls Decision About Frozen Embryos http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9D05E5DD1331F93BA35756C0A96E958260 (summary: wife & husband had signed form at fertility clinic stating embryos could not be implanted without consent of BOTH; NY's highest court treated it as a contract dispute, and said wife must obey contract and cannot implant embryos without husband's consent.) 1998: BOHN v MOBLEY Michigan Judge Agrees Ex-Husband Controls Decision About Frozen Embryos http://www.michbar.org/family/pdfs/FamJNov98.pdf (summary: case begins at p 15 of PDF file. Ex-husband wins on contractual grounds like KASS, and on "Thus the Court would hold that Michael Mobley, aside from his contractual rights, has a constitutional right not to beget offspring, and, therefore, has the right to veto any use of the embryos to produce more children" like DAVIS.) 2001: ACLU supports father in Michigan's highest court http://www.aclumich.org/modules.php?name=Sections&op=viewarticle&artid=33 (summary: ACLU files friend-of-court brief supporting father at appellate court level; appellate court upholds trial court and ACLU position: "We argued that when former partners disagree about whether or not to procreate by having their frozen pre-embryos implanted, an individual’s wish not to procreate must take precedence." So, now there's DAVIS v DAVIS (Tennessee, 1990) and KASS v. KASS (New York, 1998) and BOHN v. MOBLEY (Michigan, 1998)(Michigan, 2001) which can be considered "male abortion" cases if you want to think of them that way. I don't know if BOHN went to the Michigan Supreme Court; I didn't locate it, if it did. And take a look at these two Massachusetts cases, one against a clinic which used frozen embryos without telling the father, and one just like the others, husband v. wife: GLADU v. BOSTON IVF (Mass., 2004) and A.Z. v B.Z. (Mass., 2000) http://massbar.org/for-attorneys/publications/section-review/2005/v7-n3/ivf-new-horizons-in-informed In both cases, the father's right NOT to procreate was upheld.

This is my second answer to you, which I wrote for someone who was worrying about her boygriend's role in her pregnancy. It's about what men have to think about in this situation: http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/91106/306432 Hope this helps. It's a tough time in your life, and I wish there were more we could do to help you figure things out, but in the end, how you feel about it is deeplly personal, nd ou must go by your own conscience and emotions.