PDA

View Full Version : Does a man have right on an unborn child?



ns80
05-15-2005, 10:39 PM
Hello Geethamites,
This is a pretty current debate of the man claiming rights to an unborn child. Though each source quotes a totally different stories. What are your views on the fatherhood's right to an unborn child ?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ought fathers to have a say equal to that of mothers in determining whether a medical termination of pregnancy is justified? In a recent case, a plaintiff, Rajiv Nandi, has filed a petition in a Lucknow court seeking to restrain his estranged wife from aborting their unborn child. Claiming that this would infringe his right to fatherhood, Nandi has challenged the validity of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act of 1971 which grants women sole discretionary power to seek an abortion without reference to a male. The pro-choice versus pro-life debate has created a political and social schism in the United States between those who feel that it is a fundamental biological right of a woman to determine termination of pregnancy, and so have control of her womb, and those who believe that all life, including nascent life, is sacred and cannot be terminated for any reason.

In India, the issue of abortion has been further clouded by the prevalence of prenatal sex determination and female foeticide. Now, the Lucknow paternity suit with a difference has added a new twist to the debate. Can fatherhood be a right, in the sense that motherhood — or its reverse, the decision to undergo an abortion — is? Whatever the law may eventually rule on the subject, biology replies with a firm ‘No'. For the simple reason that while all mothers are assured of the fact that they are indeed the source of the life they give birth to, all fathers are only presumptive fathers in that — without recourse to a positive DNA test — they can never be sure that they are in fact the biological progenitors of the offspring they lay claim to. In fact, according to sociobiology, it is this persisting male doubt about leaving behind a genetic heritage that gives rise to the so-called ‘Casanova syndrome' which impels some men to promiscuity, which is nothing but a disguised obsession with fatherhood — all the more ironic in that the real Casanova is said to have been sterile. In short, apple pie and motherhood are fine. Fatherhood? Well, that might prove to be little more than pie in the sky.

Source: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1104221.cms
~~~~~~~~~~~

Other References:
http://www.ndtv.com/morenews/showmorestory.asp?slug=Petitio n+sparks+debate+on+abortion+ri ghts&id=72626

http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story.php?content_id=6997 8

http://us.rediff.com/news/2005/may/04abort.htm?q=up&file=.htm

Bluelotus
05-16-2005, 12:13 AM
well,

yes, they theoretically have as much rights as the mother to the unborn child.

I guess reality isn't so simple. :think:

See the thing is, although he does contribute half of the genetic material (sperm), she (the mother) contributes the other half as well as the mitochondrial genome and provides food nurishment and shelter during gestation, as well as post-partum.
So if the father wishes to assert his rights on the unborn embryo, then he should be fully prepared to support mother and child pre and post-partum.
If not...he should just go way and leave her to decide.

This is a very difficult issue, and frankly I would never want to be that in that situation.


blue.

anainar
05-16-2005, 12:55 AM
Practically, most of the hospitals insist on consent of the spouse for abortion. Only if the wife lies that she is not married, hospitals might do abortion.

It is a tricky situation. The law is silent on this. Atleast to the best of my knowledge. Some shrewd lawyer might interpret some section. I would not buy the casanova argument. If some one is interested only in sex, he may not be willing to have a baby.

Even in a case a casanova lays right over an unborn baby, he has to prove that he cares about every baby that can be attributed to his fatherhood. Even if he has wrecklessly abandoned one of his child, he can be considered a bad father and can be denied right to fatherhood. This applies to Sperm donors too. A donor absolutely has no right to excercise his fatherhood rights over the baby. The same logic applies there too.

I would not want to be in such a situation either. But if the couples are married and had pregnancy, the consent of the husband is required for abortion. He deserves that right, because of marriage.

Cheers

vasan
05-16-2005, 05:45 PM
See the thing is, although he does contribute half of the genetic material (sperm), she (the mother) contributes the other half as well as the mitochondrial genome and provides food nurishment and shelter during gestation, as well as post-partum.
So if the father wishes to assert his rights on the unborn embryo, then he should be fully prepared to support mother and child pre and post-partum.
If not...he should just go way and leave her to decide.

Well said.. but in case if she wants to go ahead with the pregnancy, who would pay for child support? The laws are made such a way that while the father has no right whatsoever on the baby being born, have made it his responsibility to pay, support and what not..

Laws are NOT adequate. Life is messy.

In an ideal world, yes... man must have right (as well as responsibility) to his unborn child. (How the heck would you prove??!! Hollywood is full of paternity suits.. :doh: :doh:)..

v-

itechlegend
05-18-2005, 07:46 AM
first of all .. i dono how this became a debate or patti mantram..
tat is by default tat father has as much of rights towards a unborn child as mother does...

aprum ithula kelvi kekarthuku enna iruku....

as per IPC.. kutram seithavanai vida kutram sieya thoondinavanuku than thandanai adigam.. athey pol ... kuzhanthaiyai sumappavargalai vida sumaka kaaranamanavargalukey antha kuzhanthai meethu urimai athigam..

apdi illana equal rights apdinu venudumna sollalam.. like 50-50
but male'ku right illa apdinrarthu ... arthamatra vaatham..

raghu
05-18-2005, 05:52 PM
i think father has equal right to the unborn child as its mother...

butterfly
05-18-2005, 11:02 PM
hmmmm...This is a little confusing topic Ns.

For a normal couple who are expecting a child...i wud say Yes the father has every right to the unborn child.
But with wats going on about carrying out the generation & killing of female offsprings...I cud never support the man ,who does have the right to the unborn child but does he have the right to force his wife to abort the babygal coz its his baby too :think:

vaalu2005
05-19-2005, 12:01 PM
Only the woman has the full rights....he can claim for his fatherhood rights..he can fight that he has equal share of rights on the unborn child but he can never share the pain the girl goes through.....

Achechoooooooooooooooooo Vaaalu vandhutanyaaaaaaaa vandhutanyaaaa ..
Vaalu After Rombaa Naaalu...............

itechlegend
05-19-2005, 12:14 PM
kanna vaalu jus try to understand...
we are jus talking abt the rights and not the sharing of pains...
ok ni solra mathiri vachikita kooda... andha female ku epdi foetus create agardu...???
without a male could a female create a foetus for herself...
so source have rights....

source code + compiler = output

source code'um venum compiler'um venum apo than proper output varamudiyum...
so rendumey thanithaniya iruntha client'kum(male) labam illa developer'kum(female) labam illa
so both have equal rights...

Priyanka
05-24-2005, 12:31 AM
I accept that father also has right on the fetus. But they can never claim equal right. May be 75/25. I mean 75% right for female and 25% for male. I accept that father contributes 50% genetic material of a child. But aana adhai paadupattu athukku uruvam kudutthu petthu edukkarathu mother than. So obviously she has more rights on both born and unborn child... I mean fetus.

And moreover it also depends on the situation.


For a normal couple who are expecting a child...i wud say Yes the father has every right to the unborn child.
But with wats going on about carrying out the generation & killing of female offsprings...I cud never support the man ,who does have the right to the unborn child but does he have the right to force his wife to abort the babygal coz its his baby too

I totally agree with you pattams. :yes:

dinesh
05-24-2005, 12:37 AM
If the guy is going to be required to cough up the dough to help pay for the upbringing of the kid by law, then I'd guess he should have a say whether he wants the kid.

Bluelotus
05-24-2005, 04:54 AM
If the guy is going to be required to cough up the dough to help pay for the upbringing of the kid by law, then I'd guess he should have a say whether he wants the kid.

hmmm...

The Law is a wonderful thing. However the number of fathers who actually keep up with their child support payment is very low. In fact regardless of the child support payment, if they would at least visit the child and build up at least a minimal relationship with it...
but hey I think perhaps at this point we're entering the realms of Utopia :ahha:




source code + compiler = output

hahahaha :ahha: is this like a joke :ahha:

she contributes more than 50% of the genetic material required (mitochondrial as well as gametic DNA), provides the material, the "factory", she compiles the whole thing, risk her life during delivery :lol:
and u (Itechlegend) compare her to a compiler ...I am dumbfounded :cool:





Laws are NOT adequate. Life is messy.

very true.



when all is said and done....it would be inhuman to deny fathers rights on their unborn progeniture.




blue.

vasan
05-24-2005, 05:01 AM
However the number of fathers who actually keep up with their child support payment is very low.

Do we really have some stats to prove this or is it one of those comments? :think:

People can get arrested for failing to pay child support. Every country (that allows divorce, naturally) have strict laws concerning these.

v- :Ksp:

dinesh
05-24-2005, 05:38 AM
The Law is a wonderful thing. However the number of fathers who actually keep up with their child support payment is very low.
Do you have any statistics to back this up?
Check out http://www.csa.gov.uk/newcsaweb/faq/payments/nonpayment.asp to check out what the "wonderful" law really says.

In fact regardless of the child support payment, if they would at least visit the child and build up at least a minimal relationship with it...
In fact some countries' laws prohobot you from seeing your child unless you pay a specified amount of support.

I can give you two facts, if you struggle to find some.

"100 children every day in the UK lose total or partial contact with their fathers"
"A mother can veto contact between the father an child, if she feels unhappy or depressed about it"
Both these come from the Lord Chancellors Office.
Check out http://www.fathers-4-justice.org/

dinesh
05-24-2005, 05:41 AM
but hey I think perhaps at this point we're entering the realms of Utopia
Not "we" my dear lady.....just you. I'm firmly rooted in the reality. :ahha:

vasan
05-24-2005, 06:06 AM
I am amused and confused and don't know about what to say about the Range of Powers invested in CSA.. :D :P :? :Ksp: :00:


The Child Support Agency has a range of powers it can use. These include taking money direct from earnings and taking court action. Ultimately the court may be asked to take away a non-resident parent's driving licence or even send him/her to prison.


Whatever.. :doh:

Like I said, Laws are NOT adequate. Life is far more messy. :(

v-

sri_gan
05-24-2005, 02:24 PM
There is absolutely nothing about a situation when it comes to a soul, any one who talks about man and woman are merely one sided and ofcourse they are bounded with situation because they don't think beyond that point.

In a ideal world, No one has the given rights to kill or hurt another living being even if its a single cell animal.

So aborting a child in any way is against nature.

If you just think about the family you think about few people.
If you just think about the society you think about few more people.
When you think about the universe you think about anything and everything *merely few think about this*.

Nature is the only one which has every rights on anything rest are merely for a time period.

So Motherhood and FatherHood has the equal amount of rights on born or unborn of physical existence and not to the soul which is invisible.

When a Mother or Father can stop (not protect) a death(lets say release of soul from body) from a natural cause to their children thats the day they have the complete rights on their offsprings, else they merely can talk about it because for this to happen they need to know how to stop their death itself.

yamini
05-24-2005, 11:25 PM
[QUOTE:
:b: So Motherhood and FatherHood has the equal amount of rights on born or unborn of physical existence and not to the soul which is invisible. :b:

:b: In an ideal world, yes... man must have right (as well as responsibility) to his unborn child. :b:
]

Hi all,

I did go through all of your views and found that the debate is quite interesting and fascinating. Let me pen down my views:

Let us assume that “Child” is just a commodity. The right for father to have a control on the commodity is very much limited (<50%) :Ksp: compared to mother :Ksp: due to processing, maintenance and delivery. Hence, mother has an upper hand in deciding to “throw away the commodity”. But she has to pay the “appropriate price” for his contribution for taking part in the production of the commodity. Money/material could be accepted as compensation.

Now, let us come to the other part in which “life” imparted into the commodity. No one can deny that father’s contribution is embedded in the form of “life” to the unborn. In this case, father and mother have the equal right :Ksp: for the “life of unborn child”. Here, I am talking only about the “life of the unborn child”. So mother cannot exercise more than 50% to take control of the “life of the unborn child”. Both father and mother have the equal right to “terminate /throw away “life of the unborn.


-yamini :wink:

Priyanka
05-24-2005, 11:59 PM
Yamini. Poova kodaliyaala vetrathungarathu ithukku thaan solraangalaa? :Ksp: Easy-aa puriya vekka vendiya vishaiyatthai ippadi kozhappu kozhappunnu kozhappareengale? :oops:

valluvan
05-25-2005, 05:01 AM
Connection is too slow that I could post 2 or 3 messages per hour. I shall post later on this topic. Good one to debate.

yamini
05-25-2005, 01:55 PM
ப்ரியன்கா,

:Ksp: "நல்லி" கடைக்கு போய் வந்தேன் :Ksp: .ஒரு முடிவும் செய்ய முடியல :? .ஒரே

குழப்பம். அதனால் தானோ என்னவோ, இப்படி எழுதிவிட்ட ேன். :Ksp: கொடியால்

பூவை வெட்டியதால ், பூவுக்கு ஆபத்து இல்லையே? :Ksp:


-யாமினி :Ksp: