Don’t get me wrong, I am definitely all for a woman’s ability to opt for an abortion of a fetus. I do not believe it is the prudent way to go, nor do I think that anyone I care for should truly consider it without extremely extenuating circumstances – but I am not pompous enough to suggest that I know every possibility and am not willing to suggest that the life of a fetus is more important than the life of the mother. My argument, however, comes from a defense I once heard from a friend of mine while defending abortion rights.

The argument that piqued my interest was the following: “I do not believe that anyone should pass legislation which should force me into such a life altering circumstance.” So, in essence, it is not the right of the government to dictate our futures, and child rearing absolutely alters that person’s future in irreparable ways.

Being a father and a willing parent even when my daughter was conceived despite of reasonable contraception, I can say that I have never been faced with the following situations. I have, however, tried to realistically think through these situations empathically and thoroughly.

Abortions have always been considered a right for the mother without consideration for the sire. These situations are all very much about the male part of the equation and what ethical rights the man has versus those that the woman claims in child birthing.

Situation 1)

A man and a woman discover that she is pregnant. She wants the baby but he does not. She continues through with the pregnancy despite his continuous requests for her to abort the fetus. Due to whatever beliefs of her and her family, she also wants him to be part of the child’s life, one way or another. In this case the man, when proven to be the sperm donor, will be required by courts nationwide to, at minimum, provide some level of child support, regardless of his desire to not have a part of their lives. He has, at this point been forced to support a child he never wanted. This is court mandated, legally accountable responsibility placed on the man for something that could have been changed by an abortion. He was forced; despite his continuous objections, to support the child. In the reverse situation, if the woman did not want the child, pro-choice activists proclaim that it is the woman’s body is forever changed and it has affected her life, therefore she has the right to abort the baby.

Situation 2)

A man and woman discover that she is pregnant. The man is excited to have the opportunity to have a baby, even though he did not plan for it. He is excited now to set his roots and start his family. She, however, does not want the responsibility of the baby because she has just now started her career as a world-traveling business lawyer. Having a child now will tie her down and she just isn’t ready for that kind of commitment. She wants to abort her baby, he doesn’t. She goes to the abortion clinic and without a moment of consideration of the man, the fetus is aborted. The man had no choice but to see his hopes for a children and settling down. Once again, in contrast with the woman wanting to keep the baby, it is pro-CHOICE not pro-ABORTION, so we would fight for her right to keep the baby. So her say, once again, is greater than his.

Now, let me clarify these situations a little bit with some of the arguments that are going to go through some people’s heads.

First, some will say to situation 1 that if the man didn’t want the baby, he should have tried harder for contraception. He should have worn a condom, or double wrapped a condom, or maybe worn seven condoms and pulled out 20 minutes prior to ejaculation. To that, I must call into question the woman from situation 2 if she did not try birth control, along with a sponge or only engaging in anal or oral sex. So if a man in situation 1 does not have the right to request an abortion due to his lack of contraception, the same should go for the woman in situation 2.

Another argument against situation 1 is that the man should not have the right to tell a woman to risk a surgery that could permanently affect her fertility. To that I challenge, again using situation 2, by asking what if the man and woman are married and she is turned infertile by the procedure and ultimately completely damaged the ability to have a baby with her husband? Ok, so maybe you don’t buy that, but if the surgery is really that dangerous or harmful, would it not be better to deliver the baby in situation 2, or any other for that matter, and put it up for adoption? After all, in most cases, actually delivering a baby is generally safe for the mother, and if it isn’t we would support the last resort of aborting the fetus. Right?

So with that in mind, I propose a few challenges to our current thought of abortion rights. What about these situations, or any other, makes it ethically or morally just do alienate the man from the abortion choice? With the millions of abortions that have happened in America, is there any time where these situations have actually occurred, or any other situation where the male felt he should have had more say in the abortion process? (If there have, I would love to hear about them) If you sympathize with the men’s possible strife for the things, what do you think can be done with abortion legislation to accommodate for it?

All I am asking is for some sort of equality between the sexes when it comes to the choice of reproduction. If this is authentically not an issue, and has never happened, and people really think it is absurd to suggest either situation 1 or 2 would happen in real life, I will gladly withdraw these questions. I just feel that these issues with abortion are examples of double standards that are taken for granted by the fairer sex, and would like to know if I am the only one who thinks it is a little off kilter.