Based on section 3.2 of the Reference Book of Men’s Issues

If a woman doesn’t feel she’s ready for the responsibilities of parenthood, she has various options after the act of sex (in most of the Western world). This includes the morning-after pill, abortion, adoption, and safe-haven laws.

(Yes, we are aware that in parts of the US these rights are under attack or have been severely limited. That does not take away from the main point here.)

Men have no comparable legal rights. If you’re a man in the same situation and you’re not ready for the responsibilities of parenthood, you can only hope that the woman decides to take one of her options. As Karen DeCrow (previous president of the National Organization for Women) put it:

The courts have properly determined that a man should neither be able to force a woman to have an abortion nor to prevent her from having one, should she so choose. Justice therefore dictates that if a woman makes a unilateral decision to bring pregnancy to term, and the biological father does not, and cannot, share in this decision, he should not be liable for 21 years of support. Or, put another way, autonomous women making independent decisions about their lives should not expect men to finance their choice.

The New York Times article “Is Forced Fatherhood Fair?” explains the problem:

Women’s rights advocates have long struggled for motherhood to be a voluntary condition, and not one imposed by nature or culture. In places where women and girls have access to affordable and safe contraception and abortion services, and where there are programs to assist mothers in distress find foster or adoptive parents, voluntary motherhood is basically a reality. In many states, infant safe haven laws allow a birth mother to walk away from her newborn baby if she leaves it unharmed at a designated facility.

If a man accidentally conceives a child with a woman, and does not want to raise the child with her, what are his choices? Surprisingly, he has few options in the United States. He can urge her to seek an abortion, but ultimately that decision is hers to make. Should she decide to continue the pregnancy and raise the child, and should she or our government attempt to establish him as the legal father, he can be stuck with years of child support payments. […]

The political philosopher Elizabeth Brake has argued that our policies should give men who accidentally impregnate a woman more options, and that feminists should oppose policies that make fatherhood compulsory. In a 2005 article in the Journal of Applied Philosophy she wrote, “if women’s partial responsibility for pregnancy does not obligate them to support a fetus, then men’s partial responsibility for pregnancy does not obligate them to support a resulting child.” At most, according to Brake, men should be responsible for helping with the medical expenses and other costs of a pregnancy for which they are partly responsible. […]

Court-ordered child support does make sense, say, in the case of a divorce, when a man who is already raising a child separates from the child’s mother, and when the child’s mother retains custody of the child. In such cases, expectations of continued financial support recognize and stabilize a parent’s continued caregiving role in a child’s life. However, just as court-ordered child support does not make sense when a woman goes to a sperm bank and obtains sperm from a donor who has not agreed to father the resulting child, it does not make sense when a woman is impregnated (accidentally or possibly by her choice) from sex with a partner who has not agreed to father a child with her. In consenting to sex, neither a man nor a woman gives consent to become a parent, just as in consenting to any activity, one does not consent to yield to all the accidental outcomes that might flow from that activity.

Policies that punish men for accidental pregnancies also punish those children who must manage a lifelong relationship with an absent but legal father. These “fathers” are not “dead-beat dads” failing to live up to responsibilities they once took on — they are men who never voluntarily took on the responsibilities of fatherhood with respect to a particular child. We need to respect men’s reproductive autonomy, as Brake suggests, by providing them more options in the case of an accidental pregnancy. […]

If we agree that men and women deserve equal rights, and have equal agency, then this is an area that urgently needs to be addressed. Trapping men into a parenthood they never wanted, and never signed up for, is cruel and unjust.

  • gapbetweenus@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Can’t have it equal because babies grow inside women and not man. For this reasons man can’t abort and for child interest they have at least to pay up. But there is also an easy solution, don’t have sex or vasectomy.

    • a-man-from-earth@kbin.socialOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Can’t have it equal because babies grow inside women and not man.

      We’re not biologically equal, and that gives some complications, sure. Which is why we give women 100% of the choice, as it should be, as the choice involves medical procedures on her body. As the quote above says:

      Women’s rights advocates have long struggled for motherhood to be a voluntary condition, and not one imposed by nature or culture.

      Men should have a similar choice for fatherhood. If a man doesn’t want to become a father, he should not be forced to. And this should be independent from the choice of the woman.

      For this reasons man can’t abort

      Fair.

      and for child interest they have at least to pay up.

      How is this fair? He has no choice in the matter. If he voluntarily accepts to become a father, sure. But if he doesn’t and the woman still chooses to keep the baby, he should be free from obligations to the child. (This is why I tagged this post with #financialservitude.)

      But there is also an easy solution, don’t have sex or vasectomy.

      Do you hear yourself? This is the same argument Republicans make against abortion. We don’t accept that when it comes to women’s rights, and we don’t accept that when it comes to men’s rights.

      • gapbetweenus@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        How is this fair?

        It’s not. It’s a case where it has to be unfair for someone. The choice is the child or the guy. We as society decided against the guy, for the child. There is a third - socialist solution: the cost is covered by society. Would be best, but might be not so popular right now.

          • Halafax@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Governmental agencies are fairly terrible in how they treat men, I can’t imagine feeding more money and power into the feminist bureaucrats that inevitably run these organizations will end well for men.
            Governments are fixated on extracting value from men, not providing services for them.

  • relative_iterator@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    The main reason is because the courts and law generally are looking out for the interests of the child. If the man doesn’t want to have the child but the woman has it anyway, is it fair to that child to put it at a disadvantage financially?

    • a-man-from-earth@kbin.socialOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      And how is it fair to put that on the man? It’s the woman’s choice.

      And it’s not in the interest of the child to be thrust into this world without a father willing to have it. So it is the woman’s choice that put the child in this position, and thus it’s the woman’s responsibility.

      • relative_iterator@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s not just put on the man, the woman is also expected to provide for the child.

        If you’re saying it’s the woman’s responsibility so she should be the only one providing, that just goes back to my point.

        • a-man-from-earth@kbin.socialOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          1 year ago

          That’s an inegalitarian argument for injustice. If the man has no choice in the matter, he should not be obliged to pay.

          If the woman unilaterally chooses to have the child, she should be the only one providing. If she can no longer provide, then the state should step in, financed by general taxes, for the good of the child. It is injustice to put this on a man who had no choice in the matter.