It’s always hard doing justice to someone’s argument with which you disagree. And in fairness to the Prof, we became awash in sangria and had to answer the dinner bell before we could complete the discussion.

There's only one thing for sure......If men had the babies, there would be NO case where a woman would be allowed to over-rule. And Roe would be cast in granite.

I don't care if he is "Mr. Best Father in History", it's still my body so it's still my decision. No one has the right to make me have a child I don't want. PERIOD.

Notorious, you are 100% correct. We'd have that right enshrined in the Constitution.

Safe Bet, I agree with you but from time to time I do like to consider points of view I previously hadn't thought much about. I guess I was wondering here if there was something I was overlooking.

Here's a scenario within the realm of possibility, though I don't think it's possible today: Imagine a medical procedure that doesn't involve significantly more danger or inconvenience than an abortion, one that can safely take an embryo from a uterus. Further imagine medical technology that's adequate to bring such an embryo to term. In this scenario, which respects the first two of your criteria, I think a father would reasonably be able to claim the right to veto an abortion in favor of this alternative.

I say no, the father gets no voice, and I'm father to a daughter whose mother tried unsuccessfully to abort her, twice.

The reason, simply, is that it is a matter for the mother to decide, about her own body. If she chooses not to carry a pregnancy to term, it's between her and God only.

Rob, interesting scenario. It wouldn't be shocking if the day eventually comes when that's possible. After all, we're probably not so far off from having the medical or biologic technology from literally creating test tube babies. If and when, maybe the law would alow the father the right to the procedure. I really need to consider this angle some more.

David, my position has always been that in a split "vote" the woman has the tie-breaker. I think I was a little non-plussed at taking a more "left" position than my friend who, as I say, is smarter than me and much further left on most issues than I. Like voting for Nader in the last three elections.

While I don't think men should be able to stop an abortion, on the flip side a women should be REQUIRED by law to establish paternity before asking for any child support so that men aren't forced to support children that aren't theirs.

-R-

Lady M, good point but isn't that already standard? It's a genuine question. I guess I just assumed that men wouldn't pay support if they had any doubt re paternity.

You would think it is, but the courts can still make a man pay support for child that isn't theirs. But more and more hospitals are doing blood tests at birth for the sake of an accurate birth certificate.

Despite being mostly pro choice, I kind of like your prof's take.

When a woman gets pregnant, the father is held responsible whether he wanted a kid or not. We constantly tell men they don't get to skip out on responsibility just because they didn't 'want' a kid. Don't want one, don't make one - that's what we tell them. We expect even unwilling fathers to shut up and pay up until the child is grown. Not for 9 months, but for 18 years.

If the father has no veto, we're saying women call the shots.
- If she wants the kid and he doesn't, he loses.
- If he wants the kid and she doesn't, he loses.

Yes, I know that it's "her" body. Still, it hardly sounds fair. It takes 2 to make a child, but all the power of decision is in the hands of 1. And we wonder why men become resentful?

I like Rob's idea. I'm sure there are women who would veto it.

I'm just glad I'll never have to face this decision. Talk is cheap. ;)

These are all valid and thoughtful arguments, however they in no way persuade me that a man should have any say until he can carry a baby full term himself. Frankly, I find it rather annoying that more often than not, it is a male (a war-mongering, death-penalty advocate) in the forefromt of the pro-life argument i.e Trent Franks, Bart Stupak. But then again, I'm funny that way...I don't like people who can't cook in my kitchen either. :) Rated

Ranting B, you make have gotten closer to The Prof's point than I did. She may have been trying to make the point in a more general, moral way but I pinned the issue down to legalities right away. Still, if you allow that the final legal say is the woman's, then The Prof's argument devolves into an admonition that pregnant women should take the father's wishes into consideration. I'll think twice before paraphrasing this to her face however.

Fay, can't disagree with you. Though I'm more like "I don't want people in my kitchen when I'm cooking".

Greetings and welcome Ray. I belive that the way Open Salon works is that if you wish to follow someone's posts, you click the "favorite" link beside their name, Then, whenever you check your own OS blog, you'll see updates from everyone you have "favorited".

My posts are not very thematic so it's probable that some might interest you while others almost certainly will not. But there are plenty of fine writers/bloggers here and if you start checking around, you'll quickly develop your own set of favorites. Hope you have fun with it.

I agree with the Prof's in that a pregnant women should take the father's wishes into consideration. However, consideration is still deciding with free will. Since it is her body, she has the final say.

I was about to write about test-tube possibilities, then I saw Rob St. Amant said it perfectly. Still, the emotional ramifications could be severe. The woman, who is chose not to have a child, is now a mother. I am aware that happens to men often.

For now, men cannot have the power to veto, but they should be considered, listened to, even offered counseling, just as the woman is when she decides on an abortion.

Ideally, when people decide to have sex they would discuss accidental pregnancy, and decide then if they can live with the outcome should it happen.

men have no rights. if they need a baby, let them hire a woman to bear one for him.

Sarati, I think the decent aproach is for the woman to consult with and take into consideration the father's position. But short of Rob's scenario, I can't think of a situation where the man should be able to compel the woman to carry the fetus through to birth. You've probably heard that expression, that if men could get pregnant, abortion would already be a constitutionally protected right.

As far as discussing a possible pregnancy before sex, I have more sins of omission than I care to remember. No kids though, at least none I'm aware of.

al - short and to the point. But some men who aren't keen on having kids but change their minds fast once the wheels have been set in motion. Still, I agree with your underlying point that they don't have the right to compel.

Nope, women have some responsibilities towards men but the rights are all women's!

Any woman taking this "professorial" opinion is, without question, one who had an abortion and now is childless and probably now barren and has some sick guilt they don't have the ovaries to work out or simply adopt and shut up ... Men, and other women, need to keep the hell out of womens bodies. What a bunch of ancient, misogynist, authoritative and controlling behavioral nonsense. Nothing worse than the reformed or guilt-ridden when it comes to lecturing others ... in any forum.

She who hauls it, calls it!

(I just made that up!)

Fred - completely agree and I recycle your "hauls it" comment.

Oahu - her argument sounded more nuanced than the position you're critiquing and I may not have done it justice. But I agree with your main point.

It's a good question, and one that has neither been honestly addressed or answered in any of the debates. On the short answer list, the physical risk ends when the man withdraws after sex. For the woman, there is the chance of ectopic pregnancy, pre-eclampsia, eclampsia, other blood clots, various infections, death during birth, death shortly after from septic embolism or clot embolism, etc. Plus, the post partum depression and hypothyroidism. Plus kidney and heart failure. Some of these things can be "assessed" but none predicted. (no, I didn't google this until after I wrote it, I remember a lot from med school). Women have a much higher incidence of (receiving) spousal abuse and murder during and shortly after pregnancy.
The women most at risk fall into a few categories- young pregnancy (adolescent) because of underdeveloped bodies and poor eating habits, drug habits, emotional imbalance; older pregnancy (older than 35), and women in violent, abusive situations.
If women are at risk, they are perhaps more likely to both desire an abortion and to possibly need one (for therapeutic purposes, like an ectopic). The desire of the father to claim sole legal and financial custody should be considered but not the determining factor. In the interim, she still must be clothed, housed, fed, and nurtured, given full medical care, and also for six months to a year after to assess for hormonal imbalances, physical scarring and emotional scarring. There would be no legal right for the child to be taken from her custody- even is she agreed- like there is currently no law that supplants the right of surrogate mothers to the donating couple.
Should a couple be stable enough to endure a reasonable discussion before pregnancy, or after one is discovered, they are likely in a far better place than many and most who seek abortion.
Keep in mind, it has only been in recent years that women were allowed to get abortion without the consent of their spouse, as in, a signature. Some states still require it or try to.
On the flip side, the same argument would allow any man who did not want to become a father to surrender full legal and economic responsibility for any child born without his consent.
I don't think there is any right or wrong answer, as I am staunchly pro choice but I think the real answer is education, access to prevention, fully supported options no matter which you pick, and better support for the parents. In as much as birth control errors happen on both sides, men have four choices: abstinence, condom use, freezing off their sperm and then having a vasectomy, and not having sex with a woman they cannot have this discussion with.
Children born will need to know or will want to know the circumstances of their birth, their parents and their parents' relationship. No amount of "I chose you" could ever make up for the parent saying the other parent abandoning their child.

Oryoki - thanks for such a comprehensive reply. You've outlined many of the reasons why it's not as simple as saying that under ideal circumstances, including Sidney Poitier, the woman ought to proceed with the pregnancy. I think that for teh sake of discussion, we assumed away the many complicating condition that can arise. Fully agree that more education is needed. And good point with the analogy to teh surrogate mother. I hadn't thought of that angle. Is this right to keep the child in force everywhere or only in some jurisdictions?

The legal contracts differ, and vary from state to state. However, during the course of pregnancy, there are no enforceable rights of the parents over the surrogate (like, don't smoke, don't drink, don't have sex, the usual stuff they always write into the contract, eat healthy food, get rest). A surrogate, could, in face, decide to get an abortion. All this is probably not common, but more and more cases of parenting by genetics versus donation versus surrogacy bring us back to the same old questions.

Oryoki - yet another issue that once explored turns out to be much more complicated than you'd initially think. Thanks for adding so much to the discussion.