When it's the male who feels trapped

I read this article on CNN and it dealt with a topic I often thought about: I believe women should unequivocally have a right to get an abortion in case of an unintended pregnancy, if they so desire, but what about their male counterparts? What rights do they have?

See, I don’t think a woman should be forced to keep the baby if she doesn’t want it, but why then should a man be forced to be responsible (at least economically) for a baby he didn’t want? And don’t give me the “well, he had fun, now he has to pay the price” argument, since she had fun too. They both did and now he’s stuck with her decision. Period.

We all make mistakes and unwanted pregnancies do happen all the time. The woman (for now at least), can choose if she wants to keep the baby or not. She can actually withhold the information from the guy altogether and get the abortion without him ever even knowing she got pregnant. It’s her prerogative. It’s her choice.

However, if she unilaterally decides to keep the baby, regardless of what he would like to do, he’s stuck with her decision for good. He’ll have to financially support the baby and can’t have any saying in the whole matter.

Being gay, I know I’ll never be personally faced with such a situation, but my kids one day might. My daughter will have the possibility to decide whether to keep the baby (and demand the father pay child support), but my son won’t. If he impregnates a girl and she decides to keep the baby even if he doesn’t want to, he’s still stuck with the bill. Is that right?

The article talks about the case of a guy whose girlfriend “knew he didn't want to have a child with her and assured him repeatedly that – because of a physical condition -- she could not get pregnant”, but who ended up pregnant and forced him to pay for child support in the amount of $500 a month. That’s not peanuts to me. And it’s unfair to the guy.

With the help of the National Center for Men he’s suing to address “the issue of male reproductive rights, contending that lack of such rights violates the U.S. Constitution's equal protection clause”:

The gist of the argument: If a pregnant woman can choose among abortion, adoption or raising a child, a man involved in an unintended pregnancy should have the choice of declining the financial responsibilities of fatherhood. The activists involved hope to spark discussion even if they lose.

And given the complicated issue, raising public awareness about it is pretty much all they can hope, since courts have pretty much always ordered the father to pay child support, whether fair or not, because, rightly so, they look out for the best interest of the child, not the parents. Neither of them.

Naturally, the other side has its own argument against this, saying:

"Roe is based on an extreme intrusion by the government -- literally to force a woman to continue a pregnancy she doesn't want," Brown said. "There's nothing equivalent for men. They have the same ability as women to use contraception, to get sterilized."

A solid argument no question about it. And it goes without saying that if the government shouldn’t have the power to force a woman to deliver a baby she doesn’t want, a guy shouldn’t have the power to force her to have an abortion if she doesn’t want to.

The solution proposed by the guy in the article is giving the baby up for adoption if the father doesn’t want it. And if the mother isn’t ok with that, than it’s her choice and it should be her duty only to support the kid.

It’s a tough issue and talking about it is a start. Read the article, it’s very interesting.