A Man's Right to Choose?

[popsmear]

Should a man be forced to be a father if he doesn't want to be? Yet another front in the abortion wars reopens now that the National Center for Men has undertaken a crusade to establish a "Roe v. Wade for Men." "Up until now, reproductive choice has been seen as a woman's issue: you're either pro-life or pro-choice," says center Director Mel Feit. "We're adding another element. If we expect men to be responsible, isn't it right to give them some choices too?"

Related Articles

It's a legal stunt, but as a way of calling attention to double standards and unintended consequences, the campaign makes sense. Matt Dubay, a 25-year-old computer programmer in Michigan, was ordered to pay child support after his former girlfriend had a baby. He says he had made it clear when they were dating that he did not want to have children; she had said she couldn't get pregnant anyway because of a medical condition. When she did get pregnant, he argues, she could have chosen to have an abortion. So shouldn't he have a choice as well, about whether to support a child he never wanted to have?

Dubay and the center filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court, which raises all kinds of confounding questions about rights and choice and what we really mean by equality, when we look at the social and biological roles played by men and women in the course of becoming parents. Feit argues that within a short window of time after discovering an unplanned pregnancy — he has proposed a month, but thinks a week might even be more appropriate — a man should have the right to terminate his legal and financial obligations to the child. "I'm not talking about fathers opting out of obligations that they've committed to," Feit says. "I mean early in pregnancy, if contraception failed, men should have a choice, and women have a right to know what that choice is as they decide how to proceed."

His argument gains force as more and more states pass laws requiring, as part of pre-abortion counseling, that pregnant women be informed that the baby's father has a legal obligation to pay child support. These rules were a response to evidence that the overwhelming majority of women seeking abortions do so for social and economic rather than medical reasons. Abortion opponents hope that by informing women about the legal and financial support systems available to them, including the father's obligations, they might reduce the number who choose abortion.

But solving one problem may just be creating another: pregnancy counselors find that another great source of pressure on ambivalent women is often the father of the child. As states crack down on "deadbeat dads," men have a greater financial incentive to pressure women into ending unwanted pregnancies. Some threaten to break up with their partner if she doesn't get an abortion. There is concern that violence against pregnant women is fueled by men trying to avoid a financial liability. So Dubay could argue that allowing men to shed their financial obligations for unwanted children might protect women from all kinds of pressure when they are deciding how to handle an unplanned pregnancy.

The larger philosophical argument is basically this: Do men have as much of a right to control their reproductive lives and financial futures as women do? "Roe v. Wade really changed the world for women," Feit says. "It allowed them to separate intimacy from procreation, freed them from the fear of contraceptive failure. That kind of empowerment and security that women feel in intimate relations — well, men can't, frankly." The only sure protection is total abstinence. Feit contends that men who don't want to have a child and made reasonable efforts to avoid it should at least be able to choose a "financial abortion" that frees them from any responsibility for the baby.

In a sense women already have a version of that right: Most states have laws permitting a woman to relinquish all her parental responsibilities if she leaves a baby at a hospital after giving birth. "No shame. No blame. No names" says the poster on the bus shelter. Naturally such laws are designed to offer an alternative to the heartbreaking stories we read of babies dumped in trash cans and abandoned by the side of the road.

The rights of fathers have always been the background noise of the abortion debate. Beginning with Planned Parenthood v. Danforth in 1976, then in Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992, state efforts to require that fathers be notified before women have abortions were struck down by the Supreme Court as placing too great a burden on women. A majority of Americans approve of spousal notification, provided there are exceptions for women in abusive situations, and when he was an appeals court judge Sam Alito upheld such a provision. But the Supreme Court ruled in Casey that "it cannot be claimed that the father's interest in the fetus' welfare is equal to the mother's protected liberty...." Requiring a woman to notify her husband before an abortion, the Justices argued, "embodies a view of marriage" that is "repugnant to this court's present understanding of marriage and of the nature of the rights secured by the Constitution."

Wanda Franz, president of National Right to Life, is glad to see Dubay's case calling attention to the mixed messages society sends to men. "He's basically saying that a woman now has the right to engage in sex relations without worrying about having a child she's responsible for. He wants the same right — to be able to have sex with a woman and if she gets pregnant, he shouldn't have to be responsible, since he can't force her to have an abortion legally."

Franz says that she is, of course, in favor of both parents' taking responsibility for a child, an impulse that she says legal abortion has undermined. One obvious problem, if men can sever their financial ties to unwanted children, is what becomes of that child, particularly as states cut back on health care and social services. "What I expect to hear [from the court] is that the way things are is not really fair, but that's the way it is," Dubay told the Associated Press. "Just to create awareness would be enough, to at least get a debate started."

Still, Feit has been surprised by the response he's gotten so far. "It doesn't break down along traditional gender lines," he says. "We're getting so much support from women." The men divide roughly half and half between those who support what he's doing and those who say essentially "be a man; accept responsibility." "Women seem more supportive, which is very surprising and gratifying. They say maybe this is fair, men should have some say, some choice. I'm getting more support from women than I anticipated." He is the first to say that these are not easy questions. So sometimes just asking them is the right place to start.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,...1173414,00.html

This is a discussion that will take a larger hold over the next ten years or so I think. Women want equal rights, so expect them.

The problem comes when dealing with something like this. It is way too much of a touchy issue with too many variables to decide on a regular basis. For instance women have all the rights during pregnancy. Which is harder to argue, but we don't even need to go there. They also have all the rights *after* pregnancy. The man never has a say. A woman, at any time, can go drop her baby off at a hospital or fire station and as long as it does not look abused no one asks any questions. A man can not do that, and he would also have a hell of a time getting parental rights back after the mother did that.

The only real answer is to abolish abortions, but the likelihood of that in a damn responsibility society is nill. Even that does not stop the post-pregnancy rights issues.

Edited April 23, 2008 by popsmear

[maplecookie Veteran]

Abolishing abortion isn't the only real answer.

If the guy can prove that he didn't want kids, made it clear to his girlfriend or wife, or if he can prove she was lying about her infertility then he should be allowed to cut off contact completely and not have to pay.

[popsmear]

Abolishing abortion isn't the only real answer.

If the guy can prove that he didn't want kids, made it clear to his girlfriend or wife, or if he can prove she was lying about her infertility then he should be allowed to cut off contact completely and not have to pay.

Yes, and imagine the court cases involved with that. It is simply not feasible.

Not to mention what if it is the man who wants to keep the kid, but the woman wants an abortion? There is nothing stopping her from going the next day to get it done. Even if they are having the kid because they both agreed to it.

[maplecookie Veteran]

Yes, and imagine the court cases involved with that. It is simply not feasible.

Not to mention what if it is the man who wants to keep the kid, but the woman wants an abortion? There is nothing stopping her from going the next day to get it done. Even if they are having the kid because they both agreed to it.

Then the guy loses out in that example. Until men can carry their own children, it's a woman's body and they can do with it what they wish.

I don't see why it's not feasible. Men everywhere end up with proof that the girl they slept with went off her BC pills to get pregnant, or find out lies and many many other things that they could use in court to say "hey...this wasn't my choice, i said no and she tricked me." There should be something in the courts and in the laws that support men in this situation. Not everyone should have parenthood forced on them.

[popsmear]

Then the guy loses out in that example. Until men can carry their own children, it's a woman's body and they can do with it what they wish.

If they don't want children they can not have sex. Same with men. How's that for control?

I don't see why it's not feasible. Men everywhere end up with proof that the girl they slept with went off her BC pills to get pregnant, or find out lies and many many other things that they could use in court to say "hey...this wasn't my choice, i said no and she tricked me." There should be something in the courts and in the laws that support men in this situation. Not everyone should have parenthood forced on them.

It would clog up the system and proving that she went off them instead of missing a pill or forgetting a patch or what about the .01% of the times it happens anyway? How can he prove he said no? Wheres the actual physical evidence he said no? It's his word against hers, and women generally win out in these cases. Which is exactly what I am talking about.

No one has parenthood "forced on them". That simply does not happen. Please point out to me someone who had not had sex that was then a parent somehow by force? If you have sex you accept the possibility of a child. We are just "lucky" that science has created a way to shirk consequences.

[FloatingFatMan]

No one has parenthood "forced on them". That simply does not happen. Please point out to me someone who had not had sex that was then a parent somehow by force? If you have sex you accept the possibility of a child. We are just "lucky" that science has created a way to shirk consequences.

Tell that to victims of rape who get pregnant because of it. Sure, abortion is an option, but some women won't have an abortion under ANY circumstances; so yes, there ARE people out there who've had parenthood forced on them.

Personally, I don't see why ANY man should be forced to bear any financial liability if it's the woman who ends the relationship before the child is born.

[popsmear]

Tell that to victims of rape who get pregnant because of it. Sure, abortion is an option, but some women won't have an abortion under ANY circumstances; so yes, there ARE people out there who've had parenthood forced on them.

That is not what we are talking about. No one here mentioned rape, it was consensual sex. However you are more or less correct, if we throw rape in to the mix.

This is getting into an entirely different area however.

[remix17]

If they don't want children they can not have sex. Same with men. How's that for control?

So what are you suggesting? People should only have sex for the purpose of reproducing?

[popsmear]

So what are you suggesting? People should only have sex for the purpose of reproducing?

No, how silly would that be? I am suggesting acceptance of responsibility. Which really, is just as silly.

[remix17]

No, how silly would that be? I am suggesting acceptance of responsibility. Which really, is just as silly.

I'm confused. I assumed you don't think it's fair that a man is forced to bear financial liability in case a child is conceived. And now you're bringing responsibility.. Can you clarify your position?

[popsmear]

I'm confused. I assumed you don't think it's fair that a man is forced to bear financial liability in case a child is conceived. And now you're bringing responsibility.. Can you clarify your position?

Responsibility. Thats what it boils down to. If you can not accept that fact that a baby might happen, don't do it. Period. It does not mean sex can't be had without having babies, by all means use protection and go at it like rabbits. This is more my feeling on abortion rather than the article however. I kind of let them run together.

Is it fair for the man to bear financial liability? Sure. My problem is, for instance, that women have the high end of the stick even after birth. As mentioned earlier a woman can simply just drop her baby off at a hospital after birth. The "No shame. No blame. No names" thing. Good luck getting that kid back as the father.

I just want it to be equal for both. Yes, it is inside the womans body. However it is a product of two people. Whose decisions should matter equally.

I do not believe in abortion. However, if abortion is allowed to remain it should be used equally. I will simply repeat the article here for a good example:

Feit argues that within a short window of time after discovering an unplanned pregnancy ? he has proposed a month, but thinks a week might even be more appropriate ? a man should have the right to terminate his legal and financial obligations to the child. "I'm not talking about fathers opting out of obligations that they've committed to," Feit says. "I mean early in pregnancy, if contraception failed, men should have a choice, and women have a right to know what that choice is as they decide how to proceed."

[remix17]

OK assume woman wants to abort and man doesn't. Who wins? Wouldn't it make more sense that since a woman is responsible for her body, she should have the upper hand in this decision? Otherwise the decision seems arbitrary. Who gets to decide? There is no 3rd party. Should the woman be forced to be pregnant for 9 months and experience painful childbirth?

Now assume the woman doesn't want to abort and man does. Again how do we decide? And lets assume that we decide in favor of the father, and lets assume the woman refuses to abort. Again should we physically force her? Doesn't it seem wrong?

[Aaron Veteran]

OK assume woman wants to abort and man doesn't. Who wins? Wouldn't it make more sense that since a woman is responsible for her body, she should have the upper hand in this decision? Otherwise the decision seems arbitrary. Who gets to decide? There is no 3rd party. Should the woman be forced to be pregnant for 9 months and experience painful childbirth?

Now assume the woman doesn't want to abort and man does. Again how do we decide? And lets assume that we decide in favor of the father, and lets assume the woman refuses to abort. Again should we physically force her? Doesn't it seem wrong?

I think in cases such as that, the man could be allowed to opt-out of all legal obligations to the child if the mother chooses to have the child. Essentially, I think what the guy is arguing for is the ability to "abort" his legal obligations for the child.

[Boffa Jones Veteran]

I think in cases such as that, the man could be allowed to opt-out of all legal obligations to the child if the mother chooses to have the child. Essentially, I think what the guy is arguing for is the ability to "abort" his legal obligations for the child.

I agree that guys should be able to do this. Girls need to have responsibility as well. Of course there has to be a limit on when he can do it till (third trimester? lol)

[remix17]

I think in cases such as that, the man could be allowed to opt-out of all legal obligations to the child if the mother chooses to have the child. Essentially, I think what the guy is arguing for is the ability to "abort" his legal obligations for the child.

Oh yea I was referring to actual abortion there, but man should definitely have the right to surrender financial liability in such cases.

[maplecookie Veteran]

I agree that guys should be able to do this. Girls need to have responsibility as well. Of course there has to be a limit on when he can do it till (third trimester? lol)

I do agree, but there has to be something in place to force the guy to prove he didn't want kids and she knew that...otherwise you'll have tons of idiot guys who just don't want to pay claiming this.

It's a pity there isn't more sex education out there. Below is a snippet of an article Flish found not that long ago.

Florida teens who believe drinking a cap of bleach will prevent HIV and a shot of Mountain Dew will stop pregnancy

http://www.local6.com/news/15773787/detail.html

[remix17]

I do agree, but there has to be something in place to force the guy to prove he didn't want kids and she knew that...otherwise you'll have tons of idiot guys who just don't want to pay claiming this.

Well why are you only picking on guys? I'm sure there will be plenty of women claiming the opposite.

[kernatch]

I agree that guys should be able to do this. Girls need to have responsibility as well. Of course there has to be a limit on when he can do it till (third trimester? lol)

I'm not sure. Surely aborting a child is a much tougher decision to make than a decision to "abort" financial responsibility. Men could easily abuse this option with little consequence.

[maplecookie Veteran]

I'm not sure. Surely aborting a child is a much tougher decision to make than a decision to "abort" financial responsibility. Men could easily abuse this option with little consequence.

Remix - the above point is what I was trying to make. Thankfully Snappy came along and posted it much better than I did.

[remix17]

Where is Fresh anyway? He should be all over this. His favorite word came up quite a few times too :p

[digipoi]

I personally think we wouldn't be in this situation had we not opened doors to irresponsibility in the first place. Some people thought that the fix would be there by allowing abortions to happen and the people against it were actually right. Look at how much more problems we are having now.

[Fresh]

Where is Fresh anyway? He should be all over this. His favorite word came up quite a few times too :p

HA! LMAO!

Serious...I brought this up a long time ago. If a mother is allowed to choose to be a mother then why is a man not allowed to choose if he wants to be the father.

I agree with popsmear; it is about consistency in the law. If a woman chooses to keep the child...well...?.?.? Why can the man not say...good for you...I choose not to be the father? Hands washed of responsibility :)

[kernatch]

Your calls for consistency come from an inability to judge when matters are equal and when matters are not.

[Fresh]

Your calls for consistency come from an inability to judge when matters are equal and when matters are not.

Would you care to site examples of your claim?

I could say your secular views (which I share many of) are clouded by the very same thing you acuse religion of...some sort of faith. NOT to hold both participants to the same standards only shows side A might be wrong.

[kernatch]

I'm not sure. Surely aborting a child is a much tougher decision to make than a decision to "abort" financial responsibility. Men could easily abuse this option with little consequence.

We want equal rights but we can't treat men and women as identical.

If a man can be allowed to abort financial responsibility of his child in a way which mirrors the abortion of a life, then, for consistencies sake, a restraining order must be placed on him so that he can never go near his child or learn anything about him/her. His child must be dead to him. He must take a pill that makes him bleed from his penis or undergo surgery which could damage his reproductive organs. I could go on.

Even here there are inconsistencies.

Edited April 24, 2008 by snappyfool