Many who are staunchly pro-choice about abortion also support holding fathers accountable for their children. That is, they believe that fathers should be legally obligated to provide for their children even if they didn’t want children. The law agrees, holding fathers financially responsible for their offspring regardless of their interest in having children. For the sake of clarity, I will refer to such men as “unwilling fathers”. Is it fair, however, for pro-choice advocates to hold unwilling fathers responsible for their children? I will argue that it isn’t.
To see why, notice that, on the one hand, pro-choice advocates argue that the fetus has NO right to its mother’s body unless its mother CHOOSES to give it this right. On the other hand, they argue that a fetus has FULL rights to its father’s wallet REGARDLESS of whether the father chooses to give it this right. On this view, a fetus has rights over its unwilling father but not its unwilling mother. This is especially peculiar because, according to pro-choice advocates, the decision to abort is entirely the mother’s. In other words, on the standard pro-choice view, a fetus has full rights over its father, who has no control over the fetus’s destiny, and NO rights over its mother, who has complete control over the fetus’s destiny. On the standard pro-choice view, the father has no rights and no power but much of the responsibility. This is puzzling because we typically think that individuals are responsible for what’s within their control and not for events beyond their control – but not according to the standard pro-choice view.
One might argue that the father is obligated to his child because he had sex in full knowledge of the possible consequences. But this argument is not available to a pro-choice advocate because, after all, the mother too had sex in full knowledge of the possible consequences (in most cases). If the father should be held responsible because he knowingly took a risk, then the same goes for the mother. And since a pro-choice advocate will not accept the latter, she cannot argue that an unwilling father should be forced to pay child support because he knowingly took a risk. Perhaps there’s some other reason why unwilling fathers ought to be held accountable for their children that’s compatible with the pro-choice view, but I’ll leave it to the reader to figure out what that reason may be.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Michael J. West
I never thought of it before, but this is a really interesting point. The father's rights and responsibilities in this situation really are entirely up to the mother, and she can bring down the law on the father if she decides to hold him responsible.
I'm gonna have to think further on this one.
2 - Eric Berlin
An interesting argument, Mr. Valdman. I'm not sure I'm willing to make the logical leap that you present, but you argue your case well. What would be interesting to learn, I think, is whether or not you agree with the very case you push or if you're merely throwing out a clever intellectual argument! In any event, your work is always a pleasure to read.
3 - Nancy
You make a good point; there are a lot of unwilling fathers out there because She insisted on having the kid, even tho He was willing to pay for an abortion at a reputable clinic. I have to agree that I don't think it's fair for a kid to be foisted on a man any more than I think it's permissable for a woman to be required to have a kid she doesn't want. What legal solutions would you suggest?
4 - gonzo marx
ummm..point of Order?
this is a fallacious argument...
the child AFTER being born, has Rights to that dead beat Father's wallet...NOT the fetus
if the mother needs money from the "unwilling Father" she needs to go to Court AFTER the child is BORN...and prove it's his kid, if contested
world of difference here, and it appears either the Poster simply missed the difference, or is deliberately attempting to mislead
but there is a very real and legal difference here, which this Post fails to recognize and appears to be intentionally muddying up
Excelsior!
5 - Nancy
Thank you, Gonzo, for clearing that up. Still, there's something wrong with a guy having to fork out when he didn't want to see it thru to begin with, and was willing to pay for a careful medical termination.
6 - gonzo marx
de nada Nancy...and i understand the point about a man offering to pony up the $$ for the procedure, her saying no..and then taking him to Court...i can easily Agree there should be something there , however..our Laws protect that child and hold the Father accountable...now i think the Mother should also be held fiscally responsibl to some extent...but with NO daycare...how is she to work, etc...
this Post..on the other hand, does nto appear to me to be about those unwilling father's who need to pay for the child...
rather, it appears to me to be a transparant ploy to garner artificial sympathy for the anti-abortion desire for Father's and parents and the church and the government and anyone else who cares to to decide what a woman does with her body
if you read the Post again, you will see the set up...not just in the glaring bit i pointed out already, but in other ready clues as to the writer's viewpoint on the Issue
it is a current and continuing trend for the anti-abortion folks to try ANY legal chicanery as well as propaganda skewed like this Post, into trying to take the Choice away from resting solely with the Mother and her doctor
me?..i call bullshit
nuff said?
Excelsior!
7 - esther
I think the father has the right to talk to the mother about issue and how he feels about it. obviously they both made the baby together so they both decide what happens after that. as i always believe if you used contraception you wouldn't be in that predicament, your better off preventing such a situation!!!!!!!!!
8 - Silas Kain
Abstinence. Yeah, that's the answer. What ever happened to promoting masturbation?
9 - Michael J. West
it is a current and continuing trend for the anti-abortion folks to try ANY legal chicanery as well as propaganda skewed like this Post, into trying to take the Choice away from resting solely with the Mother and her doctor
I don't agree with that, Gonzo. I don't think it takes the choice away from resting solely with the Mother and her doctor.
The point that I saw was that it's unfair to have the choice reside ONLY with the mother, while the responsibility for a possible outcome of that choice resides with the father.
I don't object to a mother deciding on her own to have an abortion. But if the father does object to it, I don't feel he should be required to pay for it. If it was her decision to make, regardless of his input, it's her responsibility to execute that decision.
That's just common sense.
It works the other way, too. I don't object to a mother deciding to keep and raise a baby. But again, if it's her decision to make and the father gets no part in the decision, it's the mother's responsibility to execute the decision. That is, to raise the baby.
Being pro-choice or not pro-choice has nothing to do with it, IMO.
10 - gonzo marx
a decent point Michael, and as you can see in my comment above, i do understand that there is a lot of room for improvement when it comes to the whole financial bit involved concerning these matters...
it is merely my own Opinion that this is NOT the real Issue dealt with in this Post
i also think that the discussion of the matters which you have brought up and which i also touch upon, concerning the financial Obligations, are indeed a matter for public discussion and consensus
bear in mind that a huge amount of these "deadbeat" males will opt for the easy way out...and if the mother decides to have the baby, this leaves her with no recourse...if i read you correctly
what is the proper balance? damn fine Question
Excelsior!
11 - Nukapai
An interesting hypothetical argument, but I say hypothetical because you simply cannot draw an exact parallel with a) a woman who has to face up to the consequences of carrying a child to term inside her body (potentially fatal and in every case, a permanent alteration to the female body), who has to become a mother of a child (maybe not the acting parent, but a mother) no matter what (it's not like there is a need for a maternity test) ... and b) a man who, after the child has already been born and paternity has been established may then be required to provide for his offspring (and not necessarily the guardian either).
In an ideal world, the woman who is pregnant and the man who impregnated her would have a clear, calm and adult way of communicating about actions and consequences, but we do not live in an ideal world and in most cases, choosing to have an abortion OR choosing to carry an unwanted child to term are incredibly hard choices and are not taken lightly by the people concerned.
I would be interested in seeing some comments from the author of this post in how he would see the ideal scenario roll out in his opinion.
12 - Nukapai
Michael, you fail to see that until men develop the ability to carry a child inside them, the argument isn't quite so clear-cut. Why should men have the "choice" to simply walk away?
13 - Eric Berlin
Nukapai -- Your take is apt, and I agree that I'd like to hear from Mr. Author!
14 - Mike
Eric,
You doubt my intellectual sincerity, do you? Despite your skepticism, I fully agree with this article's thesis, which is that a pro-choice advocate should not insist that fathers have unconditional obligations to their fetuses. But, do I think that, all things considered, fathers should not be legally compelled to provide for infants they had no interest in having? The answer to this question depends on the morality of abortion, which is not something I address in the article. For what it's worth, I have no firm view on the morality of abortion itself, and, having studied the issue and thought about it quite a bit, I can tell you that it's far more complicated than most people realize. Maybe I'll post on this topic later.
15 - Michael J. West
Why should men have the "choice" to simply walk away?
Because women have that choice, Nukapai.
Respectfully, what we are talking about here is not as complicated as you make it out to be. It's not an issue of "women agonize over their decisions and men don't"; there are plenty of men who agonize over that decision, and there are plenty of women who make the decision immediately and never look back. And plenty of times they choose to abort the fetus for no other reason than that they don't want to have the baby--in effect, they make the choice to simply walk away
They have the legal right to do that. Regardless of how many women choose to do it and how hard the decision is to make, THEY CAN MAKE THAT CHOICE IF THEY SO DESIRE.
Men cannot.
Suppose Ms. Smith tells her boyfriend, Mr. Jones, that she is having a baby and he is the father. Mr. Jones says, "I don't want to be the father to this baby." Ms. Smith says, "I want to be the baby's mother, and I'm going to be, regardless of how you feel about it."
Can Mr. Jones say, "I do not agree with your decision and therefore I cannot support you on it?" Legally, he cannot.
The man has no legal say in whether a woman can abort his baby, but are responsible for seeing through somebody else's decision. All of the responsibilities of a parent without all of the rights.
So the question for me, Nukapai, is why shouldn't men have the choice to simply walk away?
16 - Mike
Nancy,
I haven't thought much about what legal solution might work here, but I suppose it could be as easy as filling out a few forms. If a man wanted a woman to abort his fetus but she refused, he could go to City Hall and declare his wishes, thereby legally exonerating him of all future responsibility for the fetus.
17 - Mike
Gonzo,
You're right that the issue is whether the child, and not whether the fetus, has a right to its father's wallet. But I don't see how this observation has any bearing on the argument I've presented. I would explain why but I think Michael West explained it well in his post.
18 - Michael J. West
Thank you Mike.
As far as legal solutions, there are plenty of post-natal situations in which one parent or the other legally waives all parental rights. Why wouldn't that work in this case?
19 - Mike
Nupakai,
I'm not sure I know what you mean by an "ideal scenario" here. Indeed, I'm not sure there can be an ideal scenario here. If a woman wants to have the child but the man doesn't, somebody is going to get hurt (most likely the child). Under these circumstances, I don't think an ideal resolution is possible. But the question remains why the unwilling man should have any financial obligations to his child when the choice to abort is entirely the woman's.
Now, you also said that we cannot compare the sacrifices the woman makes in having a child with the man's sacrifices in financially supporting it. I agree that there's no PERFECT analogy here, but I think it's fairly close. The unwilling father's burden in supporting the child and, in some cases, the mother, can be quite burdensome. It lasts for 18 years whereas a pregnancy lasts only 9 months. Indeed, in light of the length of the father's obligation, you might even argue that the father has a more onerous duty than the mother -- especially if he is being forced to do this by the government against his will, and especially if he doesn't have much money to begin with.
20 - Mike
Nupakai,
Sorry, I forgot about your second post. You ask why men should just have the choice to walk away. I'm not sure they should, but if we're working within the confines of the pro-choice view which allows women to just walk away, then it's only fair to let men do the same. Of course, if you're willing to restrict a woman's right to have an abortion, then the man's obligations are no longer so clear. But the point of the article is that, to be consistently pro-choice, you have to give the man the same rights you give the woman. And since she has the right to walk away, then so should the man.
21 - Purple Tigress
Where does choice begin? Choice begins with the decision to have sexual intercourse and sexual play (since intercourse isn't always necessary for pregnancy). The father had the choice to use birth control. The mother had the choice to use birth control. If they both chose to not use birth control, then they are both responsible for the pregnancy.
Allowing fathers to walk away if they don't want the child, is considering the man not to have any responsibility for the original act. If you don't know what you want to do in case of pregnancy, if you are not willing to pay child support of a possible full-term pregnancy, then you shouldn't be having sexual intercourse. Men should think twice before having sex with partners they don't know that well, don't care about or don't expect to see again.
If a man feels he can't trust himself or his partner or partners, then he can always be sterilized.
A woman who has an abortion isn't just walking away. She is having a medical procedure and could possibly have complications. She might also feel some kind of guilt. However, it is her body and she should have control over what happens to it.
Pregnancy isn't the worse thing that can happen when people have intimate relations. Men can unknowingly spread the virus that causes cervical cancer and both men and women can get incurable diseases.
If you think about the cost of living with genital herpes, HIV or AIDS and the social stigma attached, then I think the cost of raising a child is quite cheap in comparison.
22 - KYS
There is another component here: women bear the moral brunt of the decision to abort. Not because of the decision-making process, per se, but because despite support from the father, it is ultimately her choice. It's a difficult burden to carry.
I would also argue that an abortion is much more devastating to the mother; physically, emotionally and socially, and that the effects persist throughout her life.
I think we need to consider those issues and weigh them appropriately when considering the father's responsibility. I'm not saying men don't care about abortions, but I do think it's easier for them to walk away.
23 - Mike
Purple Tigress,
On the one hand, you claim that a woman should have the right to control her body. On the other hand, you claim that "If you don't know what you want to do in case of pregnancy, if you are not willing to pay child support of a possible full-term pregnancy, then you shouldn't be having sexual intercourse." These are incompatible ideas. The mother, after all, had sexual intercourse. So how does this affect her right to control her body?
24 - Mike
KYS,
Even if you're right that abortion is devastating to the mother, isn't it also devastating to the father to be forced to pay for a child he didn't want? And yes, women bear the brunt of the decision as to whether to abort. But shouldn't they then have to bear the responsibility for that decision? If the decision is entirely theirs, why should the father have obligations to an unwanted child?
25 - Nukapai
Mike: You say "But the question remains why the unwilling man should have any financial obligations to his child when the choice to abort is entirely the woman's".
My point is, I don't see a section where you have convincingly explained where "the question is - why should a woman put herself through pregnancy, childbirth and motherhood if the choice is entirely the man's?"
Michael: the above could also be a question to you. It's nothing to do with who agonises more. If you re-read what I wrote, I clearly stated that the people in question (not just women, not just men) generally find it incredibly difficult to make a choice in these matters.