Financial Abortion: What rights SHOULD a man have?

I believe we all remember the craziness that occurs around election time, and the way social issues get fired up in our media.  With all the talk of abortion, gay marriage, and wage gaps, it’s not hard to believe that everyone would want a bite of the “equality” apple.  One of the major issues to come out of the discussion of gender biases and the like is the question of whether a man should have similar rights concerning paternal responsibility and choice as a woman does with maternal rights.  The question I wanted to raise is this:  Should men (and women) have an option for a financial abortion?

Before the wrong idea gets implanted, I would first like to say that I am a firm Pro-Choice believer.  When it comes to the decisions that a woman makes for her body, I support her right to do just that.  However, in what ways do we break the gender-biased views of parenthood and procreation?  This question is being asked because to many, ejaculation followed by financial support seems to be extent of what a father brings to the table.  While no one can truly doubt that there are gender inequalities in various places, such as the workplace and in politics, should we continue to believe that these discrepancies regarding fatherhood are unrelated to equality and opportunity for both sexes?  If the responsibilities are equal, shouldn’t the choices be?  Armin Brott, an author and spokesperson of father’s rights, is quoted with “A woman can legally deprive a man of his right to become a parent or force him to become one against his will.”  Agree with him or not, this should certainly spark some debate.

Should interest in a child be a mutual agreement?

Should interest in a child be a mutual agreement?

Financial Abortion [See: Dubay v. Wells], if implemented properly, could give fathers (potential fathers) some rights regarding their own reproductive activities.  For example, if a man and a woman agree that they are not interested in having children, and the woman gets pregnant, she can terminate it.  However, if they agree that they are still not interested in children, but she decides to complete the pregnancy, what rights does he have?  On the flip side, if the man wants a child and she does not, she can choose to terminate the pregnancy.  For the record, I believe that she should have every right to terminate said pregnancy, seeing as it’s inseparable from her for 9 months, and she should decide for her own body.  Additionally, if she goes through with the pregnancy, and decides she does not want the child, there is some legislation (California, for example) that allows for her to give up said child, even if a perfectly fit and wanting father is available. [See: CA Courts Force Adoption]

When it comes to who gets to decide on having a child, should the field be leveled to an extent?  If some states allow for a mother to give up her rights as a mother via adoption (post-pregnancy), should a father be given the same courtesy?  Do we believe that this would increase the numbers of dead-beat dads?  Or would this be a wake-up call for women to be more selective with the men that they are intimate with?  Overall, if it’s all for the sake of the children, would we see a decrease or an increase in the welfare of children in our nation?  Overall, we should consider that sex is a two-person affair (most of the time, anyway!) and as such, both parties should have some degree of responsibility and some degree of choice.  As they say, “it takes two to tango.”  Your thoughts?  I’d love to hear them.

Advertisements

About whurst001

Criminal Justice major. Senior.
This entry was posted in Fathers & Fatherhood, Law/ Litigation. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Financial Abortion: What rights SHOULD a man have?

  1. ainge002 says:

    For decades a man had to give consent for a woman to have surgery that would prevent her from getting pregnant, and in fact in some states (including VA) this is still true for women under a certain age. When you say, “Or would this be a wake-up call for women to be more selective with the men that they are intimate with” I find this very problematic. Many women choose to have an abortion not because they don’t like the guy, but because this is not the right time in their life, they don’t have the financial stability needed to start a family, they have future aspirations, etc. If a man wants to have a children and his partner does not…then maybe what this guy should do is find himself another woman who does want to have a child at that time. As we have discussed in class women typically spend more time and energy raising a child, so since she is more than likely going to invest more energy into this child and jeopardize her future aspirations, I say the decision (legally) should rest in her hands. Let the discussion of whether or not to keep the child between the woman and man happen at home, not in the court room.

  2. whurst001 says:

    I agree completely, the less we take to courts, the better. The issue, however, is when it IS taken to court rooms. In Dubay v Wells, for example, even when the man and woman agreed they had no interest in a children, she became pregnant (despite informing him she was infertile and on contraceptions). Ultimately, against his will he was put in the role of fatherhood and completely obligated with the responsibilities that come with it, while having no choice in the matter. Do you believe a man should be forced to believe a woman when she says she is infertile (privacy protects her medical records, as it should) and on birth control (privacy protects this too, as it should) and she agrees that she wants no children (which is a social contract, an agreement between two people) and ultimately be forced with the responsibilities legally? I would like to hear your thoughts.

    • ainge002 says:

      That is a really tricky situation. I do that that legally both parties should have to take responsibility for the child despite it all. It is certainly a problem that she lied about those things but the child should not have to suffer because she lied and the father was uninterested in having a child. The scenario is very he said she said, but despite the problems the parents have, there is a child now, and that child deserves a decent standard of living. It happens this way sometimes that someone does not want to have children but once they become pregnant they change their minds, and this is very human I think. Just because she said she did not want to have children one day doesn’t mean she cannot change her mind the next. It may not seem fair to the father in this scenario but life isn’t fair I guess.

Comments are closed.