School has kept me pretty busy and when I wasn't busy, I was kind of burned out on writing. During that time, I kept track of a few items that caught my attention. So while I am actually caught up on school and on a break, I'm going to post a few more items here.
Up first is a question about abortion that I came across back in March. For the purpose of this post, let's temporarily suspend the argument about whether abortion is right or wrong generally.
The question at hand has to do with what rights a man has when it comes to a decision to abort a baby. The easiest way to explain the issue is with a hypothetical case: John and Jane are sexually active together. She becomes pregnant and the two of them disagree about what to do.
Scenario A
Jane decides she wants to keep the child despite John insisting that she have an abortion. She has the child and then sues John for child support, which he is then obligated to pay. In today's society, this is the current norm for paternity issues, with the father being required to pay child support regardless of whether he wanted her to keep the baby or not. I haven't heard too many objections to this set up. After all, the baby is half his and he should have to shoulder some responsibility whether he likes it or not.
Scenario B
Jane decides she wants to have an abortion. John is adamantly opposed to her aborting the baby and wants to take responsibility for the baby that is half his. Jane simply can go ahead with the abortion despite John's protests.
So, where is the equal, shared responsibility of the father for the child in Scenario B? How is it that in Scenario A, Jane's decision to have the baby trumps John's desire to not have to shoulder parental responsibilities (or at least child support obligations) but when the situation is reversed, she still trumps him?
I believe that it is ethically wrong to have this double standard. Can you honestly agree that Jane can dictate whether John's child lives or dies but John can't dictate whether Jane's child lives or dies? Is the child equally theirs or not?
If the child is equally theirs, then the man should have just as much say in the fate of the pregnancy as the woman. If it is not equally theirs and the woman has more say than the man, then paternal obligation laws need to be reformed to reflect that and hold the man less (or not) financially or otherwise responsible for a child that he didn't want but that the woman refused to abort.
Agree? Disagree? I'd love to hear why.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Personally, I believe that the choice was made at the time of intercourse and that after that... you get to live with the consequences of your choice. However, in today's "lack of responsibility or acceptance of consequences" society, I think you're on the right track. If the man definitely does not want the child, then he should not be held accountable if the woman decides to keep it. The other half of the decision is a little more tricky though. If the woman doesn't want the child but the man does, requiring the woman to give birth does put her in danger medically. In this case, the woman definitely does have some say because it does directly concern her. Not sure on this one.
I think though, that giving the father rights to waive all concerns with the child, including child support, would probably have the secondary effect of decreasing lower age pregnancies as they would know that they can't simply sue for child support.
Interesting question but I think you have simplified it too much. In Adam's response he alluded to the medical issues the woman might have to suffer. Let's remember that abortion rights all had to do with a woman having the right to control what happens to her body.
It does present a difficult situation; and, unfortunately (or maybe fortunately) I cannot separate my own beliefs (anti-abortion) from the question. We have become a world that is baby-unfriendly when we decide that a baby is not a person until some entity (the court) says it is. The ability to survive outside of the womb doesn't even qualify a baby to be a human being anymore. I say that the rights of the child, born or unborn, trump the rights of either parent, and both should assume a fiscal responsibility for the child. As Adam said, the choice was really made at the time of intercourse.
This is a tough one...I believe that a man is pretty much in a catch 22 situation no matter what he does...Now I am Anti-Abortion, except in some SERIOUS cases, but I think if a woman wants to have the child, and the father doesn't...well he wanted to have sex, and that is what it runs back to. But if she doesn't want it, and he does he's out of luck again, because it would never stand up in court for her to have it, and give it up. I remember a few years ago (6 to 8 years ago) there actually was a case liek this. The girlfriend wanted to have an abortion, and the boyfriend wanted the baby. It went to court, and all that, and of course she won...no big surprise there. I honestly don't know where to go with this one, because of all the medical issues involved with this.
Also if you go with "I don't want it...go have an abortion" relieves him of all responsibility...there are a lot of guys that would take advantage with that..I'm talking having sex with anything that moves, crude, but gets the point across, not using condoms if/when they do have sex, and I think that STD's would get worse, and more common, and there would be loads of women with babys, and no type of support. Some may say....well you had sex, so it's your fault, but it does take 2 to tango!
Post a Comment