I had always assumed that if a man had gotten a woman pregnant, then if that pregnancy is carried to term, both partners should be financially responsible for the child regardless whether the man had wanted to have the child or not. The mindset being "they got them pregnant, so you have to face the consequences'".

I was talking with some people online, and they asserted that if the man did not want to have the child, then they should be able to apply to be resolved of any financial responsibility towards caring for it. I was at first against this proposal, but I feel like I now understand it better. Our current legislation was created at a time where abortion was tantamount to murder, and since it was illegal, an obligation of financial responsibility was the only way to ensure that women weren't stranded with children they couldn't afford to raise. But now that we live in a world where abortion is legal (for now), and where abortion procedures are safer than carrying the child to term, there doesn't seem to be a good argument for men still needing to be financially responsible for unwanted children. Men probably would still need to assist in paying for the procedure, but outside of that, I think they had a point. Please explain to me if there is anything I'm failing to consider here.

I also want to apologize for the binary language I used in writing this. I tried at first to write this in a more inclusive way, but I struggled wrapping my head around it. If anyone can educate me in how to write in a way that doesn't disclude non-binary comrades, I would appreciate it.

  • PapaEmeritusIII [any]
    2·
    4 years ago

    I’m gonna be lazy and copy (and lightly edit) a good reddit comment about the topic (the source is a deleted account so idk who wrote it):

    The source of the right to an abortion is in bodily autonomy. The MRA spin about "the right to opt out of parenthood" is one of the wildest things I have ever read. "Opting out of parenthood" isn't a legally protected right in its own might, which is why it can't be "extended" to men, as neither women have it. Women have a right whose practical consequence incidentally includes opting out of parenthood, but the right stems from a completely different (and higher-level) principle.

    Another problem is that child support is actually the right of the child, not of the custodial parent. It's not sex-specific either: women are as subject to this imposition as are men (it doesn't matter that in practice there are fewer such cases, we're talking legal principles here). Once a child is there, that child "claims" both parents' support.

    I don't see a philosophically nor legally consistent way to solve the issue. The principles involved aren't of equal importance (an attack on bodily integrity and a financial imposition aren't comparable offenses) + there's a potential to multiply moral hazards if any potential consequences of the action are taken away for one party. Women have to face the ultimate physical and moral consequences of the decision (either way), men have to face the lack of control over it. Once the child is born, both parents have obligations towards them.

    I suggest you to reframe and reword the whole issue. You don't have a "right to choose", because you're not in a two-party dynamic which involves bodily dependency. When you enter the picture, it's already a three-party dynamic and one of the parties has a legal claim over you and the third party (the mother). Your question is thus null: it's not that there is a legal right which you somehow can't exercise, you don't have one. A woman's right to an abortion is not a "right to opt out of parenthood". The second is incidental, not the source of the right.

    I don't know if you're following legal niceties WRT new bioethical issues, such as IVF/surrogacy, but when you take out the direct bodily dependency, there is no power asymmetry between the man and the woman. Both have a theoretical equal claim to an embryo outside of the woman's body (and depending on where you are in the world, each party can demand or oppose its destruction - the party that will "win" will be the one who asks that which is given the priority for all such cases, regardless of their sex). It's only when bodily dependence, and thus the issue of bodily autonomy kicks in that any of this becomes so entangled.

    This is one of those issues where mathematical "equality" cannot exist. Such issues are few, but they exist and are in function of differences in male and female bodily morphology, which then put the two in situations which can never be fully medically nor legally analogous, and different-level principles are involved (which means that we can't take the simplistic road of "balancing the interests out").

    • aaaaaaadjsf [he/him, comrade/them]
      ·
      4 years ago

      This is one of those issues where mathematical “equality” cannot exist. Such issues are few, but they exist and are in function of differences in male and female bodily morphology, which then put the two in situations which can never be fully medically nor legally analogous, and different-level principles are involved (which means that we can’t take the simplistic road of “balancing the interests out”).

      I've wanted to say something like this for a long time but am no where coherent or smart enough to do it. Thanks