With the recent discussion of abortion in The Hustler, I thought it would be interesting to bring up not another argument either for or against abortion, but rather a related issue. Abortion is technically a woman’s ability to choose for herself whether or not she wishes to go through with a pregnancy. However, the father’s input can be completely ignored in this matter if she so chooses. That said, why then should a father not have the choice to “abort” a child after birth by having the right to not pay child support?
Of course, the woman is the one carrying the child, but, in essence, abortion can be broken down to her deciding that having a child at this point in her life just doesn’t suit her desires. If we do end up passing a law giving her this right, why shouldn’t a man have the same ability? To be able to say, “This child will impact me just as much for the next two decades of my life, and I choose not to be a part of it.”
It seems inherently hypocritical for abortion advocates to be defending a woman’s right to have the sole power of deciding whether an unborn child might live or not and the father to just be a slave to her decision and have no choice of opting out of the obligation himself. After all, even though the child is within the woman, it is 50 percent from the man; it’s just as much his child as hers. If he has no say in whether or not the child is born, then she should have no say in his decision to be a part of the child’s life if it is born.
Some people might view this idea as ludicrous; however, they should understand that abortion opponents view the idea of ending innocent life as equally outlandish. In my own personal opinion, if two people are irresponsible enough to have a child when they aren’t prepared for it, then that is a problem of their own making. The easy, and wrong, way out is to opt for abortion. People need to understand that a wild night of debauchery can lead to these sorts of situations, and one must learn to live with the consequences of one’s actions.
Women need to be aware that if the abortion debate does end up falling toward the pro-choice camp, a natural reaction will be the issue of men being able to “abort” a child post-pregnancy coming to the forefront. If women want to staunchly defend their right to choose whether or not their lives are “interrupted” by a child, then they must be prepared to raise children alone in the future – without monetary support from the father. Men should not, and will not, sit idly by as the fate of their children is wrenched from their hands. Of course, this all leads back to the fact that having a child should be an undertaking made by two people who care for one another and are in a committed relationship, where such issues are not a consideration.
If you break something, you don’t sweep it under the rug – you pick it up and move on as best as you can. And who knows? For those who find themselves confronted with the situation of choosing whether a child lives or dies, they might discover one of the biggest joys of their lives in the first smile of their own child.
Kyle Larson is a sophomore in the College of Arts and Science
Responses
Thanks for the response Sean.
I agree with you in heart - I wrote the article mainly as a rather extreme take on the issue. Certainly, two wrongs don't make a right, and this is a touchy issue. In my own personal opinion, if two people are irresponsible enough to have a child, then they should both have to deal with the consequences. However, as the system currently is set up, women can opt out of the responsibility, while men can't. I think obviously that's a wrong, even if I don't completely know the solution.
However, there should be other methods of dealing with it. Perhaps a compromise could be made - a man might agree to sever any responsibility the woman might have towards the child (he'll take full responsibility for the child, and she'll never have to pay anything) if she will at least have the child. Of course it isn't fair for a child to grow up with only one parent - but growing up is certainly preferable to not even having the chance to grow.
So... I don't know the solution, but the article was meant to be an extreme take (and it is) merely to point out to advocates who wildly claim it's the woman's choice - that men deserve equal input. As it is, men who want to be fathers, and men who don't have 0 say in the matter while women have 100%.
i'm with you in spirit, but you're completely wrong
My money, my choice!
Men do get treated unfairly when it comes to the abortion decision. I have no say whether I'm losing an unborn child or stuck paying large checks to somebody for the next 18 years.
However, the solution is not to allow men to cop out on child support. This is, in fact, the worst possible course of action from both the pro-life and pro-choice points of view. Without the promise of child support, we encourage single pregnant women to either have abortions or lead lives of poverty as single mothers. Regardless of whether or not people who conceive out of wedlock need to be taught a lesson, their children deserve better than to grow up in poverty.
Finally, by allowing men to cop-out on child support, you are not teaching them a lesson at all.
To make the process fairer to fathers, give them some sort of role to play in the decision on whether or not to have the baby. Honestly, I don't know how that would work or how it would be implemented, but it's certainly a whole lot better than withholding child support.
Usually people faced with
Usually people faced with this decision aren't ready, don't want or can't afford a child. I really believe that both the fathers/mother should have a choice in what happens. Regardless of what they choose i don't think any decision is good or bad it's theirs to make. Lets not forget mothers day is coming up so take a look at some great mothers day gifts and get your mom something nice this year.