• "A man has no legal right to prevent his partner even if they are married from having an abortion nor may he force her to have an abortion" from this article-
  • There was a court case about a guy a few months back who prevented his ex wife from having an abortion.
  • How do you know this person is the father, without a dna test?
  • you can do an in utero dna test now
  • -legal or not, i do not want anything to do with a woman who has an abortion nor a man who condones one--old fashion or not this is how i feel--i won't want an abortion on my conscience--seems to me there is a flip attitude toward abortion today---a life is a life--
  • No. If he did, then we'd be advocating for forced pregnancies and abortions.
  • No, not unless they are legally married.
  • In the United States and the United Kingdom, no. All legal attempts by fathers to intervene have failed.
  • No, it's the woman's body. The father can't make her have a termination or make her keep it. Surely it would be an infringement of human rights??
  • well about all he can say is "get rid of the kid or i will have nothing to do with you"
  • Legally no. It has been known for supposed fathers of to be aborted said children to try to stop the abortion and they have even managed to delay the procedures but they are never successful at least not so far. The law works on the basis it is the womans body and only she has the right to decide
  • no he does not. that would be a very good argument but still the it's ultimately the woman's decision.
  • I am against abortions completely but both parents share responsibilities so it should be a compromise between both people.
  • Legally, it depends on where you live. If you know for sure that you want an abortion, no matter what, I would go ahead and not take the chance telling the young man until after, if at all. there was a big case in Canada, Chantale Dagle (I believe), she got pregnant by some guy, not an ongoing relationship, got pregnant, was going to have an abortionm he got an injunction to prevent her until the supreme court could rule on his rights, she sneaked across border to us before they got a chance. In us I think it could vary from state to state. In her case, had she gone through with it, he would have had first right to adopt if she decided to give it up.
  • Nope. The woman has all the power in pregnancy. If she wants to have the baby, the man is screwed. If she doesn't...tough luck.
  • 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 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 (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 (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 (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 (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) In both cases, the father's right NOT to procreate was upheld.
  • Not Legally...I think its really up to the woman when it comes down to it but I do believe that she should take into count how he feels about the whole thing...then decided if its the right thing to do.
  • no, because once she gets pregnant she automatically is imancipated(becomes an adult)
  • This is a sad destruction of fathers rights. If a woman ever did this to me I don't know what I'd do. . . I know I'd do anything to stop her, I'd kill her but that would just kill the baby, so I'd kidnap her, hold her til the baby was delivered, and then I would take her home, release her and the child and turn myself into the police to spend many years in jail for protecting my child from the liberal left murders who have made sure a father couldn't stop the procedure. Hopefully she would put the child up for adoption because she sure as hell would make a lousy mother. Either that or I'd deliver the child to term, release the mother and exile myself from the country I love for the rest of my life. Maybe there is one good conservative country out there that won't extrodite me.
  • I honestly think that a man should be able to say hey look that's my baby too. My b/f's ex just found out she's pregnant and it's automatically his for some odd reason but she wants an abortion. But, she wants him to pay for it. He legally doesnt have to pay for it though. He just doesnt want her to have an abortion because that's his child and he doesnt have any children but the mother is strung out on all kinds of drugs is there any way that I could call someone about her drug problem because she has a 1 yr old daughter as well as being pregnant again.
  • I totally believe that the father should have yes or no about his wife/partner / whatever she may be to have an abortion or not. people always say how hard itis on the woman but what about the man. About two years ago my wife got pregeant and id not want tho have the baby(keep in mind the baby and yes it is a baby at conception wheather or not you beleive it or not) and decieded to have a abortion just because she didn't want anymore kids. i wa totally against it but she went ahead and had one anyway with the RU 486 pill. You would not believe the void that a father can feel when his wife has one of these things. its a void that willnever be filled by anyone,period. She ws already at 5 weeks then which by this time a nervous system and organs was beginning to form( look it up, I did). Now, lot of people say that murders should be excuted or put to death for killing someone but yet they are all for abortion. Shouldn't the mother either ber ut inprision for the rest of her life or excuted for taking th elife of her unborn child( and regardless it is her unborn child)? quick answer society says no because darwin and other quacks say that at conception its not a living organism? What justifies a living organism? better recheck the biology books. so in short yes the father should have the right to say yes or no as long as he can show a means to support the child.

Copyright 2023, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy