If abortion is legal and to remain legal, I think there is a serious legal loophole that no one is looking at. By saying that the fetus is NOT a human and therefore gets no legal protection under the law and that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the U.S. Constitution do not apply, you ARE saying that men DO NOT make children. And if a man can only make a fetus (a nothing according to law) and that the human life in the form of a born child is the direct result of a woman giving birth, it is only her who makes it. Therefore totally canceling out the man’s contribution (since his contribution only makes an insignificant fetus). This then would imply that men have NO RIGHTS OR RESPONSIBILITIES to any born children since they did not take part in the making of that person. That should mean that the child has only one legal parent, the mother, since biology can’t be insignificant at first but then significant later. So if abortion is to remain legal, then all paternity rights should be canceled as well as child support payments. All custody and financial responsibility should go directly to the mother since she is the sole maker and that child’s life is a result of her sole choice.

Or, you see that at the moment of conception when the 23 chromosomes from the mother and the 23 chromosomes of the father join, THEY BOTH create a whole new unique individual person that was non existent prior to that very moment and give it human status that deserves the full protection under the law that all humans are entitled. Thus making both parents equal partners in the creation of that child with equal rights and responsibilities.

By allowing a woman to consent to sex, but not to motherhood based on the idea that she should not be “forced” to carry a baby for 9 months since it is her body, then why is it that a man can not consent to JUST sex, but then can be “forced” into fatherhood by a woman’s choice and have to financially support that child for 18 years? Shouldn’t 2 people who consent to sex have to accept the consequences equally when they make a whole new human being?

So in short, my question is, isn’t the way the law stands now totally unbalanced? Either the fetus is a human and both parents equally share the rights and responsibilities from the moment of conception, or the fetus is NOT a human being and the man takes no part in the making of a child and therefore it ALL falls on the woman. I guess you could also say that during sex the man GIVES the woman his sperm and it is now HERS to do with it as she pleases and he is out of the picture. If that is the case, then keep abortion legal and make the mother the only legal parent. If not, it should be changed.

Thank you,

So what is the real question? It seems on some of the points your confusing yourself. To independently carry a child to term a woman can do just that. A man can not. Upon birth there are responsibilities bestowed upon both parents. The child deserves the benefit of both.

I am not confusing myself. I am trying to make 2 points with two questions. So we will start simple... Because abortion is legal, isn't that saying that a MAN does not make born children, but only insignificant fetuses? And if this is so, shouldn't born children have only ONE legal parent at birth... the ONE who created it? Making a fathers rights null and void?

For the first part of the question. Understand its law.
Its not a mans choice because at that point in time it is part of a woman's body. There are preemptive orders that are recognised in some states as far as move aways are concerned even before a baby is born. So really the insignificant part you keep quoting is irrelative.

Part 2: That has to do with basic human rights. Once the child is born then the child should be able to benefit from both parents.

You have to understand in your asking of the questions that this is a law forum and not an moral forum. If you want to simply debate it there are other areas on AMHD that it can be posted in.

Well, laws can be changed if good points are brought to the argument. At one time slavery was legal and now it is not. Now, my question was not about the born child's rights, and even the born child is not "entitled" to both of it's biological parents, such as the case with adoption. The child has no choice in that matter. No one is saying that the child at age 18 can not know WHO there biological father (or mother) may be. The question is WHY should a man have rights to a BORN human person that according to the law... he did NOT make? Because abortion is legal it IMPLIES that the man only makes the fetus (which is NOT a human by law) Only the woman's CHOICE makes a born child. As in ALL children born on this planet are here SOLELY because a woman, through her choice made them HUMAN by allowing them to be BORN. The man had NO say is the making of a human being... the ONLY thing that has rights under the law.

Maybe you are confused about my intention. It is not to debate, but to see if I have the potential to legally make abortion illegal by pointing out this legal point and having it recognized. Then the law would either have to deny all fathers their rights (which one court would want to do) OR realize their errors and see that men do in fact make a HUMAN being from conception and that the HUMAN unborn child is the responsibility of BOTH parents. It is a new angle on trying to get abortion illegal by showing the court that denying a father the right to his child from the beginning strikes out his making of the born child. But first I need to get a court to understand how wrong it is to allow JUST the woman to make the decision that wipes out the fathers making of a human. So I need to know if you get this and if legally I can make this point so I can make another point to CHANGE a current law.

I don'd understand how this would outlaw abortion. I can see, at least sort of, how maybe it might allow for more men to have a say in it. But then how can anyone really prove that the woman really knows who the father of the baby is so that his consent could be obtained? Maybe you could make the court understand if you could make your argument clearer?

Because they would have to call the fetus a HUMAN and to call it human would give it protection under the law. Either two people make a human, or just the mother does. So I want to "force" them to see that denying it a human before birth, strikes out the fathers contribution to making a human. So in order to make abortion remain legal, they would have to continue with their NON human label (a fetus) And see that as it is now, only mama makes the human and strike out fathers all together. So for daddy to have actually made a HUMAN, they have to CALL the fetus a human and grant it human rights, so abortion would be illegal because it is illegal to kill a human and considered murder under the law.

I'm having trouble finding a law that actually says specifically when a fetus is considered a human. I can't find any legal definitions, only debates on it. Which laws specifically are you going off? I'm very curious about this.

This has been moved to a discussion forum so I will offer my own non-legal opinion. Milady, while logical your thesis must be taken to its conclusion of outlawing patriarchal society entirely, including such concepts as marriage and inheritance. I read a great deal of science fiction and I have trouble envisioning a court that would accept such a postulate.

On the other hand, outlawing a medical procedure is a perfect example of the usurpation of the doctor-patient relationship by legislators.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miladyshaila

The question is WHY should a man have rights to a BORN human person that according to the law...he did NOT make? Because abortion is legal it IMPLIES that the man only makes the fetus (which is NOT a human by law) Only the woman's CHOICE makes a born child. As in ALL children born on this planet are here SOLELY because a woman, through her choice made them HUMAN by allowing them to be BORN. The man had NO say is the making of a human being...the ONLY thing that has rights under the law.

---

Im going to address this one last time. At the point of conception a fetus is still a part of a women's body and CAN NOT live independent of it. In theory men don't have a right to the child until they actually apply for it in cases of non married couples. A man has to assert HIS rights. The courts then VERIFY through DNA that the applicant is in fact the father. Its only through this process that a father is held responsible for a child in a non married environment. DNA has to be established. In a married environment the father is assumed without confirmation.

Your looking at all this in an abstract manner rather then fact of law and your confusing yourself. Before making any argument you need to know the facts. I suggest if you want it eliminated you study up on the law as it applies and then make the argument from knowing and not from making wild guesses.

I was told that when Roe v Wade was decided, it was decided that no one could "prove" a fetus was a human, so they could only say it was for sure a human at birth. In Canada, it was also determined that a fetus was not a "person" So the courts here said that only when the fetus becomes a person, which is said to be when the baby is ALL the way out of the mother, it then granted human rights or "person hood". In Roe v Wade they also said if it could be proven that a fetus was human, it would overturn it's decision. Well, if you can make the point based on fathers... it could work. It is like this... I will use me as an example. Lets say I get pregnant by Joe and while he helps make the pregnancy/fetus the law says he has NO rights to it at all. As the mother, I have the sole rights. I decide if the fetus becomes a human and he has NO say. It is like, he gave me his sperm, which is no longer HIS, it is ALL mine to do as I please. So in order for it to go from a fetus to a human... no matter when that point is, is only decided by me the mother. So the father takes NO part in making the HUMAN, unless he has recognition and his 23 chromosome contribution has importance from the VERY start. In order to say the both Joe and I made the human it HAS to be from the start. Thus giving the fetus and the father rights from the start. And since they must call it a human from the start, abortion would have to become illegal, or admittance that the fathers contribution is null and void all together since he never makes the "human child".

The law is much older than the science, and therefore takes precedence in western society.

Logic does not enter the equation. I mean, really, a lawyer being logical? He'd go broke.

LOL Catsmine! Your are funny! And probably right. However, I think this logic if put before a court could change laws if it can be proven, as this is how laws are made and changed. At least you "see" my logic here... many have a hard time seeing it.

The problem, of course, is that the courts are presided over by judges, i.e. senior lawyers.

If you really wish to overturn Roe v. Wade, you should argue the "implicit right to privacy" not being in the Constitution.

Don't get me wrong, my support is for the libertarian premise that the government has no business opining on the issue at all. I think Adoption, Abortion, or Motherhood are each a valid choice to be made by the woman.

And if this is to remain so, and a woman has the option to consent to sex, but not motherhood, then the father should have the right to consent to sex and not to fatherhood where he is then forced to support a child for 18 years. How can his DNA not matter in the fetus and them matter in the born child that he has no say in it's becoming a born human. I think if it is all about the woman, it should always be just about the woman, as in ALL her responsibility... as it was created solely by her choice, the man should be O-U-T OUT unless she wants to allow and the father agree to have him adopt the child after birth.. as in both consent at that time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miladyshaila

the father should have the right to consent to sex and not to fatherhood

---

Here's the fly in your ointment. The potential father does have the choice of consenting to fatherhood, by his choices to use or not use prophylaxis methods. Accidents do happen but only in less than 1% of instances. If he doesn't want fatherhood, he has a choice, just not at the same time as the potential mother.

Then why can it not be said that the woman's choice is to use birth control or not to have sex and that by having sex, she IS consenting to motherhood? It should go both ways.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miladyshaila

Then why can it not be said that the woman's choice is to use birth control or not to have sex and that by having sex, she IS consenting to motherhood? It should go both ways.

---

She has additional choices because of the additional burden on her of gestation. This is the proverbial "lady's perogative" at it's most basic.

So would this be a equal rights case or discrimination case before it can go further?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miladyshaila

So would this be a equal rights case or discrimination case before it can go further?

---

Ok, this has gone on far enough. Stop quoting things you have no clue in. You keep mentioning that a father has no rights when in fact a father does have rights. So STOP saying that. In many states if a women gets pregnant and a father ( possible presumed ) comes forth then there are restrictions that can be placed on a mother of a child like it or not. Also there are protections under the law already against abuse if the mother is a doper and produces an addicted child. So you wasting thought on this no rights stuff. As I asked before why not look at the laws and see how you can apply them for a challenge. But saying things that aren't true will get it thrown out before you can close your mouth. You keep asking the same thing over and over and quoting a lie. Get it right. Otherwise your just wasting time.