A part of a "woman's reproductive right" is the "right" to abortion of a zygote residing inside of her, under the claim that it is a part of her body.

Now, as a zygote (and later, fetus) is constucted exactly 50/50 of a mothers biological makeup and a fathers biological makeup (remember, nutrition is fuel, not a body part), if we really strive for equality:

Should a Man have equal rights to demand an abortion of "a part of his body?"

-Robert

Really? Abortion is a right based on the claim that the fetus is a part of her body? I thought abortion was a right based on the fact that the fetus is inside of her body, and requires her active participation and personal sacrifice for its maintainance.

No.

Interesting terminology. "Active participation". Pregnancy does not require a woman's "active" participation, in the sense that it occurs under the direction of her will. Barring willful intervention, her body is going to do what it does. Being pregnant (as opposed to BECOMING pregnant) takes no more "active participation" than breathing.

The process of pregnancy is autonomous, and as a result, "part of her body" is a better description of the justification offered by pro-choice advocates than "inside her body." "Inside" veers too close to permitting the establishment of a distinct entity, ergo, a distinct person. That is a road pro-choice does not want to tread.

How wonderful to hear that your pregnancies were so carefree and personally non obstructive to your lifestyle! I, along with all of the pregnant people I’ve known, wasn’t so lucky…Some were bedridden for months to sustain a pregnancy. One had to be on a dialysis machine for almost five months of hers. Some gave up habits which they knew weren’t healthy, others gave up good habits (such as running 5 miles a day) to sustain a pregnancy. Actually, I don’t know of a single pregnant person who didn’t have some very active participation in the process of bringing a new, healthy life into the world. I’m happy to hear that isn’t always the case.

The fetus is an organism into itself which includes the placenta. The uterus is part of the female carrying the fetus. The fetus and uterus are in the female's body. I do not know of any part of a male involved in a pregnancy.

1. I believe Greenring7 meant a fetus is 50/50 father and mother genetic makeup. Whether or not this gives the father a right to demand an abortion depends on your rational for why the mother should have a right to kill a fetus. It's biological makeup (if by this one means tissue, cells etc.) are its own. Based on that, seeing as I am for restictions on abortion across the board I would say no to the question posed in this thread.

2. I thought (not sure where I got the impression) the placenta was maternal tissue. Not that I'm sure or anything...

Not in the least. Read carefully, I didn't say pregnancy has no effect. I said its gonna have its effect regardless of what the mother wills.



What, no knowledge of the women who have been brain dead, yet kept on life support for a few weeks in order to allow their child to have a shot at life? Surely you haven't missed that, although you may not have known any of the women personally.

I'm not saying that pregnancy doesn't change things, it does. I'm simply saying that the process itself doesn't require a whole lot of intellectual input, moral choice, human reasoning, etc from the mother. The mother doesn't wake up in the morning and say "well, I think I'll do some work on Junior's spleen today, maybe frame out that big toe, and let's look at some eye colors." Nope, she may modify her lifestyle seeking a healthier baby, but she has little ultimate control short of allowing her body to do its thing, giving her body the best shot at doing a good job, or interfering with the process. A pregnant woman is accomodating the pregnancy, not directing it.

The "real" work, the work that challenges, that inspires, that frustrates, that rewards, that begins AFTER Junior enters the world. You ain't on autopilot any longer....

Just as there is a qualitative difference between being a sperm donor and a daddy, there's a qualitative difference between being a fetal development system and a mommy.

Yes, being a FDS is harder than being a sperm donor, although I'm not so sure that its harder than being an FDS SS.

To clarify -

The embryo/fetus is 50/50 part of the man and woman in every way. When the sperm and the egg combine, they form a new lifeform, a seperate entity. Within a period of time, the embryo attaches itself to the mother, after which the mother autonomously allows the embryo/fetus to feed from it.

Therefore, the embryo/fetus is just as much part of a man as it is part of a woman, unless you go as far as to consider digested food/nutriets a part of the mother, as opposed to food.

I do not know of any part of a male involved in a pregnancy.

Last time I checked, it is usual to have a penis involved in starting the pregnancy, and it is essential to have sperm, which, last time I checked, are part of a male. Mind you it may be removed from his body, though if you cut your hair, is that hair still not your hair?

In addition, Bikerdad, would you care to elaborate on your answer to the question posed? We are after all, here to debate, aren't we ?

-Robert

A houseplant requires active participation, Bikerdad. That doesn't mean you 'will' it to produce leaves.


Err.
It's some sort of clue. Fetal development system Sin Sister? Swearing sailor? Sperm saver? Stolen spermer? OH! I think I know! Is it sperm stealer?

If it's sperm stealer, that brings up a point I ought to add...Many men, such as Green here (I've determined from his posts), express a definite frivolous regard for the sex act. You do know where babies come from, don't ya, Green? Anyhoos...I don't think that by, say, the second date, most men who are happy to get women into the sack (suchas Green) could have a very thorough understand of their bedpartner's stand on abortion, or perhaps even birthcontrol for that matter. Do they know that many antibiotics yield the pill much less effective? Do they know that condoms break? Then, the birthcontrol or lack thereof fails and they scream about rights. Such is the danger of paradoxical moral relativism.

That's an interesting way to put it. If one considers a fetus a combinaton of the mother and father than I'll agree that the fetus is not more (or less) part of the mother than the father. It is only that ownership (or connection) is not the only criteria pro-choice advocates use to decide abortion rights. Therefore, if one were pro-choice, there are ways around giving the father a right to an abortion. But it is a good point...

In short, no. While there is an argument to be had over whether the foetus/embryo is 50% father, 50% mother, or 100% foetus, an abortion is still a surgical procedure that has to be carried out on the mother.

Without the mother's consent, an abortion cannot take place (unless there is some kind of incapacity - e.g. the coma already mentioned). Until such time as a pregnancy can be carried out entirely in vitro, fathers will not have the same rights with mothers in the abortion debate.

Them's the breaks.

If the mother wants the child, she will keep it no matter what the father thinks, and he will have to assault her in some way (breaking the law) to carry out an abortion against her will.

If she doesn't want to raise it, but doesn't mind carrying it, she'll put it up for adoption.

If she does not want to carry the child, she will abort it. This will either be legally, with adequate medical supervision to ensure her life is not at great risk; or illegally, in some dirty back-street clinic rife with infection, using smuggled or home-made pills or potions, or maybe in the bath at home with a coathanger and a bottle of scotch. In either of the last few situations, two lives are at risk, not just one. A simple utilitarian calculation leads us to decide that legal access to abortion is a better idea than banning it.

Or maybe she'll just holiday in England for a few days or months so she can get an abortion here. It's worked for the Irish since 1967.

I have never heard an argument in favor of abortion based solely on the premise that 'The baby is half mine, so I dispose of it'. Have you?

Not exactly. But I have heard of an argument that goes something like
"I'm not ready to raise a child yet, so let's abort the pregnancy"
I think it is along these lines, if any, that fathers could be granted abortion rights.


There is a thread for discussing this particular aspect. It has given me reason to believe the "two-for-one deal" argument is exaggerated, although not enough to be sure, due too a shortage of stats.
Question for Prolifers

That's fine, Turnea, perhaps you're right (I disagree, but I won't argue that point). However, the ENTIRE premise for this thread is the argument that ' Women are for the right to an abortion on the grounds that the fetus is a part of their body. The fetus is also 'part of the man's body' (under the same reasoning), therefore, should he be able to order an abortion, too?'. That entire premise is erroneous at the get- go, because the argument for the foundation of abortion rights is not contingent on the fact that the fetus is 50 percent his body or hers. It is irrelevant to any argument I've ever heard regarding abortion rights (whether for or against).

Honestly, I AM becoming vexed with the entire point Green is trying to present here. The woman is some sort of 'impassive soil' used to incubate a child. It is significantly more dynamic than that.

I've never heard of a baby getting FAS from the father... The fetus is not half created by the man and half created by the woman. The man may give a single haploid cell which initiates the pregnancy but that only contributed to the DNA. What's important to remember once a diploid organism is formed it is 100% created and maintained by the woman.

The combination of an egg and sperm creates an embryo which is later renamed a fetus and later renamed a baby.

It gains sustainance though its umbelical connection. The mother, in no way shape or form, creates the child (any further than releasing the egg). The only way one could say the mother creates the child, is if one would say the rock quarry creates the building. The mother's body autonomically provides sustinance.

-Robert

But, in this case, the ‘rock quarry’ is an actual human being, and the ‘building’ causes physical illness, obesity, (often) asthma, varicosities, deformity, depression, and sometimes-severe emotional disturbance.

True enough.

No one is argueing that women should not be able to abort in life or death cases.

What people have the trouble with, is the notion that the entire lifetime of a human is not worth 9 months of your discomfort.

-Robert

Those weren't life or death cases, Green. Those are the symptoms of COMPLETELY NORMAL PREGNANCY. Incidentally, it's actually 9 and a half months for a normal pregnancy term (38 weeks gestation). Unless you're unlucky, like me, in which case it was 10 months for each.

um...

Last I checked, what you named off were not life and death.

I realize that, and it seems you do too. So why do you think I was referring to those symptoms as life and death?

See, what most pro-lifers are saying is that unless it *is* a life and death case, abortion should not be another form of birth control, available whenever the mother decides that 9 months of her temporary inconvience is not worth the entire lifetime of another human being.

You seem to belive that because the child is within the mother, the mother should be able to kill it for any reason that strikes her fancy, or, for no reason at all.

-Robert

I was thrown by your use of the word 'discomfort' to describe symptoms of physical illness, obesity, (often) asthma, varicosities, deformity, depression, and sometimes-severe emotional disturbance.

I must thank you, however. Between the topic of incest, and your various posts (describing your obvious frivolous regard for the sex act, as well as apparent disregard of resulting responsibility AND you're going into the occupation of instructing future generations) I have never been this unaroused since before puberty. Mr P is away for two months, so that's a good thing...less battery waste. I'm finished responding to this topic. I might need to hurl though.

Why is it that "cultured" insults always seem so much more vicious and biting then more provincial name-calling, regardless of the lack of vulgarity?


Well, for what it's worth, I don't think that giving your sperm means you should have a right to decied if a woman has an abortion. You didn't do anything. Yes, the baby has your genetic makeup, but did you do anything that someone else couldn't have does just as easily? However, not to be hypocritical, you aren't obligated to pay child support for a child you didn't want to have (or wanted to be adopted after birth.)

FDS SS = Fetal Development System Support Staff, i.e., anybody interracting with a potentially irrational (aka crazy, hormonal, etc) pregnant woman.

No, although the argument has often been proferred that the fetus is all hers, so she has the right to dispose of it. Green is specifically raising ownership as a rationale for permitting abortion, and advancing the proposition that "ownership" is shared.

which brings me to my next point...

Okay, I'll elaborate. Male ownership, whether 50/50, or 75/25, or 99/1 or 100/0 does not give the father the right to demand an abortion, because it is unconsciounable (and unconstitutional) in this country to own another person. Any imputed or claimed "ownership" by the mother is likewise moot. The ownership argument depends a priori on the position that it is a fetus, not a baby.


An ever useful and constructive response.

Hmm. This may be true of most pro-lifers - I don't doubt that it's what YOU think. But, I have not met all pro-lifers, so I can't say what motivates most of them. Neither, I suspect, have you, nor can you.

However, in my experience, most of the pro-lifers I have met or corresponded with are not only opposed to abortion when it is not life or death. No, they are opposed to abortion under all circumstances, because they think it is wrong under all circumsatnces. They merely oppose abortion on demand first, because they consider it the easiest form of abortion to remove, in turn because it is the least popular form of abortion with the general public; even pro-choice advocates do not seem to actively like the idea of abortion on demand; women aren't encouraged to enjoy the experience, after all.

No, in my experience, most pro-lifers oppose "abortion as birth control" for the same reason as most PETA member oppose factory farming - they think it's a start on the road to their ultimate goals (no abortion at all ever; and no human exploitation of animals at all ever, including pet ownership, respectively).

Hey Julian,

That may be your experience, but, in my own, outside of the religious fanatics, of course, most have no qualms with saving a mothers life at the cost of a child's. They just have a problem with killing a child that ins't going to kill you.

Also, Rattlesnake, cultured insults always seem to be more vicious because the people in control seem content to leave them there, as opposed to giving them equal treatment and scolding that the other insults get.

In addition, your assertation that "You didn't do anything" also applies to the mother. The only thing we did was release our reproductive cells from the organs that store/produce them and allow them to combine.

After that, neither the man nor the woman has to do another thing. The zygote/embryo/child does it all themselves. Of course, it does have physical affects on a woman, since it is doing it all itself inside of said woman. They don't even have labor. They are subjected to labor when the child decides.

-Robert

I aint read most of this, just the first post... all i can say is I am generally against abortion, unless it is because of rape or incest...

And even if a couple had a conversation with each other about having an abortion, I say whoever says 'no' wins

The semantics of the original question, as to what 'part of the body' means seems to be a focal point.

Greenring7 has used "genetics information derived from" as in ancestorial DNA passed on. I suppose this definition would suggest that all ancestors should be involved in pregnancy decisions as they as could stake a claim as the embryo possessing their DNA to varying degrees. Grandparents can claim 25% genetic involvement, great-grandparents have 12.5% involvement, etc.. I think such a legal definition would be cumbersome. Can dead ancestors have their estate being involved in future pregnancy for perpetuity? What other pregnancy decisions would require input from DNA ancestors?

How about cousins? They have some the same DNA as the fetus ? Would they get a vote? With the ability to identify DNA, possibly there are people in other parts of the world who share similar DNA segments. Depending on how much DNA strands are similar, would they get a proportional vote?

The meaning I assumed for 'part of the body' was the actual physical tissue involved. Pregnancy involved fetal tissue and maternal tissue. The embryo has its body, umbilical cord and placenta while the mother has the uterus, all of which are contained within the mother's body. Males are not providing any part of their body during a pregnancy. (Yes, the placenta is part of the fetus. It is remarkable to think about the birth process once you know the parts. Just think, you lose approximately 25-35% of yourself when you are born. Take that and all the circulatory and respiratory changes, birth is indeed a startling metamorphosis. All who have seen the birth of mammals, i.e. foals, calves, pupps or you own kids, have gotten to see the effects of this metamorphosis as they have a blue appearance as the large circulatory changes kick into place over a few short minutes. The caterpillar to butterfly change is distinctive but not so dramatic and abrupt.)

Which brings us to the third definition of 'part of the body' in a pregnancy which is the formation of a single cell from the joining of the egg and the sperm. Both a male and a female contribute to the resulting egg. Such joinings can happen many places. This has been done in petri dishes. When it happens in a petri dish who is the pregnant person? I would suggest having pregnancy defined as beginning when implantation occurs. No male involvement is required for implantation. It only involves the zygote and the maternal tissue.

As a side note, legally defining humans as possessing full rights once the egg and sperm join has always seemed disingenuous to me. I have yet to see people holding funerals for this stage of development. At some point, people do have emotional attachments to humans as they develope but when that occurs varies from person to person. But I do not think anyone is emotionally attached to the single cell.

What's the saying? Mama's baby. Daddy's maybe?

Providing your DNA doesn't make you a father. It makes you a sperm donor. My take on the abortion rights of men goes something like this:

1. It's a woman's body and it's her decision. The first time a man dies giving childbirth I may reconsider this position.

2. I have yet to see the man who became impregnated or needed an abortion. It's a medical procedure for women only. Why is this such a difficult concept for men to grasp?

3. Where did the idea come from that bringing more unwanted children in the world is a good thing?

Where is this usage of DNA coming from?

That's not at all what I mean.

I mean, ALL OF YOU, comes from an egg and a sperm.

You put an egg and sperm together, and IT GROWS into an embryo, to a fetus, to a child, to an adolescent, to an adult, etc.

I mean that a human is half of their father, as half of it's body is that sperm, and the other half is the egg. Of course, the cells divided, each divided cell half-mother/half-father, but it's not like the sperm enters, and suddenly the egg starts dividing and creating you, using the sperm as half the blue-print. The sperm and egg combines and a new human is formed.

-Robert

I object to the implication that the level of emotional concern be the deciding factor in granting full human rights. It seem to me that consideration of scientific fact (that the embryo, as you have alread implied, is a human organism unto itself) is a more objective and reliable.

Reading what some of the men on this board have written has blown me away. When it comes to children, men are so willing to give up their rights and be totally raked over the coals.

This attitude that women have full control of the fetus has so permeated our society it spills over into child support, visitation rights and other aspects of men's reproductive rights.

Men are forced to pay child support for children that aren't even theirs.

A man plays around, gets a woman pregnant and many say, you played, you pay. But if the circumstances are reversed and it's the woman who is doing the playing we refuse to hold them to the same level of accountability. Instead, we tell her, YOU have a choice, abort the baby OR you can keep the baby and sue the father for child support. Oh and by the way, let's make sure the father has no visitation.

Two extreme cases in point:



Men should have EQUAL rights (financial, custody) to the unborn/born baby unless it can be proven to the court he is unfit to "have rights" to his children.

Women have rights and choices while men have responsibilities and are expected to support any choice a woman makes. *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. ***!

A man should be allowed to petition the court to "abort" his parental rights and responsibilities within a limited time of being notified of the pregnancy just like the woman has a right to terminate a pregnancy.

That's all well and good, Beladonna, and I agree with you that men's parental rights need an overhaul.

However, the thread is about men's abortionrights, and it has to be said that men don't have any abortion rights because men don't have abortions.

Absolutely not! Abortion should be totally up to the women, she is the one carrying the fetus for 9months.

Ok I really have to settle myself down on this one.

Breath in....breath out...

I have to agree with the person that said, when discussing abortion, the first person that says "no", wins. I hope I never have to face this decision, because if my wife went and got an abortion, I'd file charges for murder. I know, I know, I wouldn't win. But, I'd fight that battle til the day I died. I don't care how many judges laugh in my face, I'd fight it with everything that I have. Think I'm crazy? I call it passion. Love for my child that would be needlessly slaughtered with a vacuum hose just so she didn't have to through labor. That would be MY flesh and blood too.

Breath in....breath out....

......first person that says "no", wins, unless of course there is a life or death situation which is extremely rare.

No, men have no rights over a womens body.

But this is the essence of the question... If there is something growing in a womans body that is created as part of a mutual act, is it not fair that the man also has a say in the keeping of the child. If the woman is in danger due to deliverance of said baby, or if it was a case of rape (or an extenuating circumstance) now that is a different issue. HOWEVER why not allow the man to take custody of the child after birth if the woman does not want the responsibility of raising the child? Who are we to decide who should live or die, that is to be decided by fate, or God, or Allah or whatever you believe in. Do you agree?

Yes, but a woman can go to a sperm bank and get the little guys too. If the woman is carrying the baby, going through the discomforts and pains and the baby is inside of her, btw, possession is 9\10ths of the law, then she takes precedence over the father, who just supplied one ingredient and can walk out. The father's bond with the child isn't nearly as strong as the mothers.

You contradict yourself here. If a woman goes to a sperm bank and is artifically inseminated:

1) One would assume that she would WANT to bear the baby (why else would she be there)

2) If the baby is artificially inseminated at a sperm bank then (as i understand it) the male donor's name is kept in secrecy and also the male who donated the sperm has no rights to the child whatsoever, therefore the point would be moot anyway.

3) This is a dangerous line to follow, but when does a zygote/baby stop being property and become a legal person. If you want to look at the law, then i guess the age of 18 because before that a child is under the protection of the parents, and not really a separate identity, so posession could be stated. However, i dont really think posession is a good argument because face it, even though Schwarzenegger carried a baby in a movie, theres no way for a man to carry a child...

Are you refering to the physical bond of a womb or do you mean the emotional bond?

If you mean the emotional bond, how do you know?

http://www.childresearch.net/CYBRARY/KOBY/...E/cbse0018.html


http://www.originsusa.org/articles/Why_Bir...ns_Breeder.html
Concerning "Birth Mothers" and adoption


http://www.jhbmc.jhu.edu/healthcarenews/01011604.html


http://breastfeed.com/resources/articles/dadsbond.htm

Arent we talking about ABORTION rights.... It seems that these bonds wouldnt develop until after the baby is born... at which point the issue of abortion was already decided...

Those show that the MOTHER's relationship is more pertinent to the childs welfare. The one who carries the child, therefore instinctively has a natural and stronger bond to the child. As the link, which you OBVIOUSLY didn't read about "birth mother" states, it's a bond that is formed REGARDLESS of whether or not the mother raises the child. PLEASE read my links before you comment on them.

Edited to add: Maybe I haven't made myself clear, which I don't think I have. I don't think that the unwed father of a baby has rights on whether or not the mother has an abortion or not. I do think that in the context of a married couple, the father definitely has a choice in the matter.

Actually i DID read the excerpts that you made, but the point still remains WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH THE TOPIC... are you saying that everyone should just ABORT fetuses instead of putting them up for adoption??? Because of there is this bond thats omnipresent?

You have evidence that the bond is stronger in the mother.... whats the relevance?

Note: with the updated edition of Billy's last reply he makes total sense. I agree that if the father is not going to be a part of the childs life he should have no say in the abortion process

I don't agree with wide spread abortions. I don't even agree that a woman should use abortion as a form of birth control, to an extent. Granted, the right should be given to every women and not be exclusive or based on factors. If a woman wants an abortion she should have the right to it under the law.

BUT I also believe in personal responsibility. If a college girl gets knocked up by her boyfriend because of being irresponsible, I think the right she should do is carry the baby and put it up for adoption. being pregnant after your teenage years has a lot less consequences on the development of the mother. A high school or middle school girl should have access to an abortion with no denial. A rape victim, of course should be given the option. But a husband and a wife who are bickering over the unborn? That life was made consentualy and in the realm of love, I hope.

I'm not trying to categorize the abortion issue, I think all women should have the right to an abortion because of the law, but my personal opinions are irrelevant. You can't say one can have a right, while the other can't. That's not equality.

Wow what the men on this thread have said astounds me.

Julian and others, are you really saying that if your wife/partner suddenly decided that she didn’t want her child (despite your pure happiness in anticipation of parenthood) and decided to have a abortion, you would be prepared to accept that decision?

Well, I don’t know about you “men” but I would want some form of power to say “hang on, I’m going to be the father and I want to see that foetus born!”.

The question to be debated

I am pro-choice, but the part that bothers me the most about the entire debate is the total lack of accountability for females in any part of the process. When a man drops his pants and does the deed, his rights are over, but the woman's rights are carried forward for the next 18 years +. If my act of sex is my responsibility, I should get equal rights to access the child, period, no matter what the woman wants, after all, no matter what I want right now has no bearing, right? It is a very large double standard we have right now. If I just want to have sex with a woman, and talk before hand that this is all I want, and we even discuss birth control, and she lies about being sterile, and she gets pregnant, I still have to pay child support. It is time women have some accountability in this issue.

To make the topic point: A man should be able to demand an abortion, and if she says no, then he is absolved of all financial responsibility. Women will stop being treated as sex objects when men stop being treated as success objects, or, as my grandad says, I will stop staring at your boobs when you stop staring at my paycheck!

I agree with you. There needs to be a point at which the father can say he doesn't want to be a father and his responsibility absolved. I'd say give him 6-8 weeks from the time he is legally informed to decide. If he wishes to be absolved of responsibility, he needs to file legal documents stating his intention and provide 50% of the cost of an abortion. He loses any future rights to see the child and his name is expunged from the birth certificate. It's like he was a sperm donor, nothing more.

Hey! CruisingRam and Cephus, you guys are in luck! There's a topic that's made for you on another thread . It is rich with wit and succinct points, just like CR's grandpa, who apparently wore a paystatement stappled to his chest...men's reproductive rights

Billy Jean, I have read the four links you provided in regards to a mother's bond being stronger than a father's. The first talked about how important skin contact is with infants. The second was a woman championing that a mother-infant bond was extra special. The third said mother's usually had the most influence on emotional stability of children after divorce. The fourth said father's bond was just as important as a mother's bond for children's development.

Three of those were interesting and worthy subjects but only the second one addresses the idea of a mother's bond being stronger. It did state there are many cases where long separated mothers and children can have instant rapport when reunited but it never stated whether or not fathers have a similar experience. I also expect there are cases where reunions between separated mothers and children do not go well. There was no scientific study in this article upon which to draw any conclusion to support the notion that mothers have a stronger bond than fathers.

In the context of this discussion, abortion rights, I would bet there are situations where a father does have an emotional attachment (bond) to the idea of raising an offspring and the mother does not.

The importance of the nursing is well substantiated. Yes, there is a bond created between a mother and an infant because of this. Does this nursing bond create a relationship which will be unmatched for the rest of the child's life? I have not seen this to be true from my life experiences.

I do not think your blanket statement that a mother's bond is stronger than a father's is a valid one. Maintaining this myth is detrimental to fathers and their status as parents.

Even if I disagree with your argument, I still do not think a man can demand a women maintain a pregnancy.