So much for “choice”

An interesting piece by Dalton Conley, looking at choice from a father’s perspective.

About a decade ago, my girlfriend became pregnant. It wasn’t planned, but it wasn’t exactly unplanned either, in that we obviously knew how biology worked.

I desperately wanted to keep the baby, but she wasn’t ready, and there were some minor medical concerns about the fetus, so she decided to terminate the pregnancy against my wishes. What right did I have to stop her? As it turned out, none. It was, indeed, a woman’s right to choose.

Not surprisingly, we broke up. And my desire for fatherhood was eventually fulfilled by two wonderful children. But every so often I think back to the fateful decision, and frustration boils up.

I am particularly reminded of it now, as I counsel a friend who finds himself in a parallel — but reverse — situation: When he broke off his engagement, his girlfriend told him that she was pregnant and was going to have the child no matter what.

That is her right, of course, and nobody should be able to take that away. But when men and women engage in sexual relations both parties recognize the potential for creating life. If both parties willingly participate, shouldn’t both have a say in whether to keep a baby that results?

Reading the article in full, Mr. Conley is clearly pro-choice and would consider the potential overturning of Roe v. Wade to be adequate cause to reject the confirmation of Justic Alito.  But he also points out the conflicting messages we are giving as a society. 

The bottom line is that if we want to make fathers relevant, they need rights, too. If a father is willing to legally commit to raising a child with no help from the mother, he should be able to obtain an injunction against the abortion of the fetus he helped create.

While such issues may be complicated, so is family life. Better to deal with the metaphorical dirty diapers than to pursue an inconsistent policy toward fatherhood and an abortion debate that doesn’t acknowledge the reality of all actors involved.

Otherwise, don’t expect anything more of me than a few million sperm.

Certainly, he’s not alone in this argument.  A majority of Americans agree that abortion should be legal, yet a majority also believe a few asterisks are appropriate.  Parental consent for minors and spousal notification are two biggies.

Of course, he gets the predictable response, in this instance coming in a letter to the editor from Megan Felling of St. Paul.

Abortion law favors the woman and given the reality that she’s the one pregnant, it has to be that way.  But failing to recognize the fundamental unfairness inherent in the system suggests ideological blinders or willful ignorance.  A few examples come to mind.

The rejoinder repeats the traditional arguments about the woman’s sacrifice of health, career, money, opportunity, etc., summarizing thus:

Abortion is one tool for achieving an egalitarian society, which values women’s safety and contributions to society, above and beyond the wonderful, underappreciated gift of motherhood. If Conley doesn’t like it, he shouldn’t sleep with women whose abortion politics differ from his! 

We’ll set aside for now the question of whether such non married, non committeds should be sleeping together at all and point out that abortion policy in no way leads to an egalitarian society, but rather leads to a society in which consentual sex has consequences only for the man.  The woman doesn’t want the child, she aborts and the man has no say in it.  She wants the child, she delivers the child and the man is legally responsible for its support. 

And the peanut gallery can stop hyperventillating.  I never said parents shouldn’t support their children.  I’m pointing out that the father has no choice in the matter either way, he’s completely at the mercy of the woman’s choice.  But as Conley points out, it takes two to make a baby. 

Felling also argues:

Conley also assumes consent: “If both parties willingly participate.” Believe it or not, date rape and partner rape are real phenomena. And certainly both parties may not participate equally in child-rearing.

Finding his contentions difficult to rebut, she settles for arguing something else.  He’s talking about some very specific scenarios that she doesn’t recognize.  Nobody’s saying that abortion should be denied in the event of rape, incest, health of the mother, etc.  But these encompass fewer than five percent of abortions.  And if the father is disinterested in the child to begin with, he’s not going to be offering to raise the child himself as primary caregiver. 

Conley asks:

Nobody is arguing that we should let my friend who impregnated his girlfriend off the hook. If you play, you 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?

I recommend Conley’s essay in full.  Abortion is a tricky matter to balance the rights and responsibilities of competing interests.  For too long have fathers been an afterthought in family law.