Male Reproductive Rights
This is something I had thought about, but I hadn't heard it discussed publicly until the past few days when CNN ran this article. I had actually thought of a policy like this on my own, and that made me happy that my idea had been thought up by others as well.
Anyway, this argument may be moot considering the attack on abortion coming from South Dakota and other states. If abortion is illegalized, a policy like this has no chance of standing up in court. So, defending a woman's right to an abortion is the first order of business for the sane among us. Firedoglake has an interesting post up about this.
However, assuming abortion remains legal in most states, the argument goes like this: when a woman gets pregnant, she has three options: abort it, carry it to term and give it up for adoption, or carry it to term and keep it. Men have no such options. If the woman wants to abort it and the man wants to keep it, the baby is aborted. If the man wants to abort it and the woman wants to keep it, the man is still subject to required child support payments.
This lawsuit only concerns situations where a woman has deceived/misled a man into thinking she would abort a baby if an unintended pregnancy occured, only to change her mind once that happens. In such a case, I think it's reasonable to view the woman and man as having had a verbal agreement that the woman later reneged on.
Final say on whether to have an abortion should always remain in the hands of the woman. After all, the baby grows inside of her, and it is her that would undergo abortion surgery if that is the choice made. However, if a man is led to believe that an unintended pregnancy would get aborted, he should not be responsible for child support payments if the woman changes her mind. It is only fair.
Critics will say that child support still should be required since the baby is what is at issue, and the man's rights are irrelevant compared to the baby's. I will counter by saying that having a father spending his money on a baby he does not want, being resentful of the child for draining his bank account, this isn't good for anyone. The man has rights too, and while his rights are the easiest to violate in this instance (most criminals are men, men fight and die in wars, civilian women and children are viewed as more regrettable collateral damage than civilian men are; men are viewed as more expendable, in almost any instance, than women and children are), this shouldn't be the case.
This isn't chauvenism, as many men would likely view it. It's about equal treatment and insisting that the courts remember we exist, and our rights matter.
Anyway, this argument may be moot considering the attack on abortion coming from South Dakota and other states. If abortion is illegalized, a policy like this has no chance of standing up in court. So, defending a woman's right to an abortion is the first order of business for the sane among us. Firedoglake has an interesting post up about this.
However, assuming abortion remains legal in most states, the argument goes like this: when a woman gets pregnant, she has three options: abort it, carry it to term and give it up for adoption, or carry it to term and keep it. Men have no such options. If the woman wants to abort it and the man wants to keep it, the baby is aborted. If the man wants to abort it and the woman wants to keep it, the man is still subject to required child support payments.
This lawsuit only concerns situations where a woman has deceived/misled a man into thinking she would abort a baby if an unintended pregnancy occured, only to change her mind once that happens. In such a case, I think it's reasonable to view the woman and man as having had a verbal agreement that the woman later reneged on.
Final say on whether to have an abortion should always remain in the hands of the woman. After all, the baby grows inside of her, and it is her that would undergo abortion surgery if that is the choice made. However, if a man is led to believe that an unintended pregnancy would get aborted, he should not be responsible for child support payments if the woman changes her mind. It is only fair.
Critics will say that child support still should be required since the baby is what is at issue, and the man's rights are irrelevant compared to the baby's. I will counter by saying that having a father spending his money on a baby he does not want, being resentful of the child for draining his bank account, this isn't good for anyone. The man has rights too, and while his rights are the easiest to violate in this instance (most criminals are men, men fight and die in wars, civilian women and children are viewed as more regrettable collateral damage than civilian men are; men are viewed as more expendable, in almost any instance, than women and children are), this shouldn't be the case.
This isn't chauvenism, as many men would likely view it. It's about equal treatment and insisting that the courts remember we exist, and our rights matter.
posted by Willis at 7:18 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home