The right to choose.
An Op-Ed in the NY times got me thinking on an issue that I haven't ever thought about.
The right to choose. Or more specifically, a man's right to choose. How much of a say can and should a man have in the a woman's decision to abort. The basic point Conley was trying to make was that the man who has fathered the child should have some say in the woman's right to choose.
That paragraph I believe captures the gist of Conley's argument. He seems to miss the basic fact that it is the WOMAN's body. It is the woman who has to risk her life, who has to deal with cramps and morning sickness and what not. How can a man ask a woman to unwillingly go through that experience or ordeal (depending on your perspective)?
However
A man invests in a relationship. He has feelings for someone. That someone gets pregnant. He wants the baby. To him, that is his son/daughter. The woman does not want to "deal" with that at this point. She gets an abortion.
A woman and a man have sex. The woman gets pregnant. The man wants no part of it. The woman has the baby anyway. Now she can LEGALLY demand child support. She can LEGALLY alter the course of that mans life.
Conclusion: If something does not sound fair, it normally isn't right.
Of course, the right to choose ultimately has to be the woman's. That's a no brainer for all too obvious reasons. So what's the solution? How about absolving the man from the legal obligation of being financially responsible for the child? At pregnancy, if there is a disagreement over the child and the man does not want the woman to have the child, how about having a legal document that can be signed, freeing the man from all obligations, financial or otherwise, related to the child?
But what about if a woman is against abortion but does not have the financial ability to sustain the child. Shouldn't the father be held responsible in that scenario? Just because he decided he did not want to "deal" with it, does not mean he can just walk away.
Whichever way you go, the law is going to end up being unfair to someone. I guess the way to go is to look at real life data instead of indulging in theoretical discussions, and determine which side is more vulnerable to exploitation. In this case, it would be women. Hence the law is obligated to protect women. This means that some men who might be put in such an unfortunate situation might suffer, but that's just the way it's going to have to be.
I'm sure I haven't even begun to scratch the surface of the issues at stake here. Need to do some research and find out more about this issue.
The right to choose. Or more specifically, a man's right to choose. How much of a say can and should a man have in the a woman's decision to abort. The basic point Conley was trying to make was that the man who has fathered the child should have some say in the woman's right to choose.
NOBODY is arguing that we should let my friend who impregnated his girlfriend off the hook. If you play, you must pay. But if you pay, you should get some say. If a father is willing to legally commit to supporting and raising the child himself, why should a woman be able to end a pregnancy that she knew was a possibility of consensual sex? Why couldn't I make the same claim - that I am going to keep the baby regardless of whether she wants it or not?
That paragraph I believe captures the gist of Conley's argument. He seems to miss the basic fact that it is the WOMAN's body. It is the woman who has to risk her life, who has to deal with cramps and morning sickness and what not. How can a man ask a woman to unwillingly go through that experience or ordeal (depending on your perspective)?
However
A man invests in a relationship. He has feelings for someone. That someone gets pregnant. He wants the baby. To him, that is his son/daughter. The woman does not want to "deal" with that at this point. She gets an abortion.
A woman and a man have sex. The woman gets pregnant. The man wants no part of it. The woman has the baby anyway. Now she can LEGALLY demand child support. She can LEGALLY alter the course of that mans life.
Conclusion: If something does not sound fair, it normally isn't right.
Of course, the right to choose ultimately has to be the woman's. That's a no brainer for all too obvious reasons. So what's the solution? How about absolving the man from the legal obligation of being financially responsible for the child? At pregnancy, if there is a disagreement over the child and the man does not want the woman to have the child, how about having a legal document that can be signed, freeing the man from all obligations, financial or otherwise, related to the child?
But what about if a woman is against abortion but does not have the financial ability to sustain the child. Shouldn't the father be held responsible in that scenario? Just because he decided he did not want to "deal" with it, does not mean he can just walk away.
Whichever way you go, the law is going to end up being unfair to someone. I guess the way to go is to look at real life data instead of indulging in theoretical discussions, and determine which side is more vulnerable to exploitation. In this case, it would be women. Hence the law is obligated to protect women. This means that some men who might be put in such an unfortunate situation might suffer, but that's just the way it's going to have to be.
I'm sure I haven't even begun to scratch the surface of the issues at stake here. Need to do some research and find out more about this issue.
posted by MJ at Monday, December 05, 2005
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home