Posted on 05/05/2015 11:51:53 AM PDT by drewh
Ablow, a psychiatrist, declared Tuesday on "Outnumbered" that a man should have the right to compel his female partner to take a pregnancy to term if he's willing to take full responsibility for their child after he or she is born.
The comment came during a discussion of a dispute between wealthy businessman Nick Loeb and his former partner, "Modern Family" star Sofía Vergara, over their frozen embryos. Loeb claimed in a vindictive New York Times op-ed that Vergara was blocking him from taking full custody of two of those embryos he wished to bring to term.
"Why would a woman's right to decide what to do with a frozen embryo trump a man's right every time?" Ablow asked. "If he wants to bring these embryos to term, good for him. He wants to parent. If he wants to have them adopted, good for him. It's not a coin toss. Whoever wants that potential being to survive, that's who wins."
"I've been outspoken on this," he added later. "I think men should be able to veto women's abortions if they're willing to care for the child after it's born."
In May 2014, he argued there was a "huge double standard" in the fact that a woman could block a man from implanting a surrogate with her donated egg, whereas he said it's considered "crazy" for a man to try to block a woman from aborting an unwanted pregnancy.
Ablow in a 2011 FoxNews.com op-ed that argued a woman who seeks an abortion over a man's objections should be civilly and criminally liable for both wrongful death and her partner's "psychological suffering." Men's lack of veto power over their female partner's abortions correlates with America's "epidemic of absentee fathers."
(Excerpt) Read more at talkingpointsmemo.com ...
I’m against abortion. However, since it’s legal I agree with Ablow. I go as far as to say that if a women gets pregnant and the man doesn’t want the child then he should be able to force the woman to get an abortion or waive all child support. Laws like these would help to put a quick end abortion all together.
Whatever if takes if he save the live of an unborn baby.
The fact that both sexes are in agreement does not make the choice any more moral.
Valid point. As soon as a child is “born” a father may go to court and seek custody and other parental rights.
If the legislative bodies defined that “life” begins at conception, or end of first trimester, or second trimester then that is when “right” to life of child would inure, and father could also step in (to enjoin mother from prenatal abuse of drugs, for example).
It becomes a balance of mother’s, baby’s and father’s rights. Baby is losing his most fundamental right to life.
Roe v Wade was a deeply flawed legal analysis and one cannot imagine that those who wrought such a work envisioned how it would become an abortion-on-demand and for-any-whim circus.
He does!
He marries a woman who shares his values.
He’s a hero because he if for abortion?
I disagree with that. If a baby is just a piece of a woman, the husband should have no legal say. If the baby’s a person, no one should be able to kill a baby. Oh the mental gymnastics we’re forced to play when we forget this is a life and death issue!
I’ve liked him since his talk show was on.
A child has a right to a mother and a father....not a cryogenic freezer, not a dispute over ownership, but a right to room temperature mother and father.
Isn’t that what roe vs. Wade was all about? Men have no rights. They can even be forced to pay child support for kids that are not theirs.
shh you let the cat out of the bag !
Feminism Kills!
Ablow is a complete idiot but I have to agree with him on this. A father should have veto power over an abortion. Right now a father has no say if the mother kills the baby and all of the responsibility if she has the baby. If the guy is named as the father when he isn’t he has all of the responsibility. It isn’t about whether or not he was irresponsible in the first place by hooking up with woman, she has as much responsibility as the guy. He should claim the right not just as the father because they rarely listen to the father anyway. Also claim the right on the basis that she is misusing his sperm without his permission.
The baby isn’t just a piece of the woman. The baby is a product of both the man and woman’s genetic material/cells. She would not be pregnant without the sperm of the man so whatever they deem the combination of those cells to be she is harboring a part of the man as well and he should have a right to control the outcome of those cells as well.
Yeah, I know that those cells are a living human baby but when it comes to the father’s parental rights they’re going to try to deny it. Biologically it is a fact that 50% of the makeup of the baby, fetus, collection of cells is the genetic makeup of the father so just on a straight biological basis he has rights to the baby as much as the incubator.
This is a perfectly valid point. Why is it that a mother is entitled to child support from the father of her child whether he wants the child or not, while fathers have absolutely no say in whether the child should even be born or not depending on the mother's whim?
If I were room temperature (78.0, currently) I'd be pretty dead.
Please note that the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect the so-called “right” to have an abortion. So when activist justices decided Roe v. Wade against Texas, they actually had no enumerated abortion protections to apply to Texas as required by the 14th Amendment. (We’re looking at the same problem today with pro-gay activist justices possibly unconstitutionally forcing gay marriage on the states.)
In other words, the “right” to an abortion was wrongly established outside the framework of the Constitution by corrupt justices imo.
On the other hand, note that if the 17th Amendment had never been ratified then there would have probably been all different faces on the Supreme Court when Roe v. Wade (Roe) was decided, the Court likely made up of conservative justices with family values instead. And if such was the case then Roe would likely have been decided in Texas’s favor imo.
The 17th Amendment needs to disappear, and activist justices along with it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
