Paternal Rights and Abortion - Controversy

Controversy

A man's rights relating to a woman’s decision to abort a fetus are the subject of considerable debate. Advocates of father's rights and members of the men's movement often argue that the valuing of maternal over paternal rights in many Western nations is an example of sexual discrimination.

Those who support a man's right to direct involvement argue that it is unreasonable that women are often given more options with regard to pregnancy and parenthood than men. Parenting authority Armin Brott has said of this, "A woman can legally deprive a man of his right to become a parent or force him to become one against his will". As a result, men’s rights advocates such as Daniel Conley have argued that men should have veto power over their partners’ decisions to abort. Similarly, Philosopher George W. Harris has written that, if a man impregnates a woman with the explicit goal of having a child, in a manner that is mutually consensual, then it would be morally unacceptable for that woman to later have an abortion.

However, bioethicist Jacob Appel has pointed out that “if one grants a man veto power over a woman’s choice to have an abortion in cases where he is willing to pay for the child, why not grant him the right to demand an abortion where he is unwilling to provide for the child? In reference to those cases in which men who do not desire to become fathers have been required to pay child support, Melanie McCulley, a South Carolina attorney, in her 1998 article, "The Male Abortion: The Putative Father's Right to Terminate His Interests in and Obligations to the Unborn Child," set forth the theory of the "male abortion," in which she argues that men should be able to terminate their legal obligations to unwanted children. In some cases, men and boys that have been statutorily raped by women have been forced to pay child support to their rapists.

Those who object to men having a right to direct involvement argue that because it is the woman who carries the couple's unborn baby, her determination for or against abortion should be the definitive one. Marsha Garrison, a professor at Brooklyn Law School, stated that U.S. courts acknowledge "that embryo is in the woman's body, it is within her and can't be separated from her, so it's not just her decision-making about whether to bear a child, it's about her body". However, one could also argue that if personhood is essential for rights, and that if the woman decides whether or not to turn her prenatal offspring into a person, then she should also have all the responsibilities of parenthood and child-rearing (essentially allowing the man to opt-out of child support). A 2002 United States Gallup special report mentions only 38% of the population being opposed to requiring the consent of the husband of a married woman for an abortion. In a 2003 Gallup poll, 72% of respondents were in favor of notification to the husband, with 26% opposed; of those polled, 79% of males and 67% of females responded in favor.