Abortions for Boys?

Today, the National Center for Men will file a suit in a Michigan federal district court on behalf of 25 year old Matt Dubay, a man who has been ordered by the State of Michigan to pay child support. According to Dubay's version, the child's mother repeatedly assured him she was biologically incapable of pregnancy and the couple agreed they did not want children. But, lo and behold, she ended up pregnant and Matt received orders to pay child support.

The argument goes something like this: Roe v. Wade (and Casey), create a Constitutional right to reproductive choice. However, in application, women are granted reproductive rights while men are assigned reproductive responsibility. A secondary argument invokes equal protection because men do not have a similar say in whether a conception leads to birth and the attaching financial and emotional responsibilities (obviously, the equal protection argument is lacking a bit in the "similarly situated" department....)

The plaintiff will argue that a Constitutional right to "opt-out" should be established for men - similar to the time during which a woman's right to terminate her potetial parental responsibilities is absolutely protected (via abortion). While men cannot undergo abortions, Dubay feels potential fathers should be entitled to a similar right/ time period during which they can "choose" not to be a parent. Obviously, men would be required to share in half the cost of abortion or adoption. But if the woman decides to keep the child, and the father has timely opted out, the financial responsibility of raising the child would rest with the woman and the man would be relieved of future responsibilities (and rights) related to the child.

I see some logical points in Dubay's arguments: Women have 100% say in whether the product of consensual behaviors that result in a pregnancy will lead to childbirth. I get that this is a "right to control my body" issue for women, and that is part of the reason that women are granted the absolute right to an abortion. Men have no corresponding right to opt-out: pre-viability or after birth. For my part, I have seen firsthand that women are capable of using pregnancy as a way to lock men in, on some level, and granting men some rights might decrease the power preganant women can abuse against men who father their children. It seems that if a woman can unilaterally make the decision to terminate a pregnancy, men should also be granted some similar right to opt-out of parenthood.

It seems that standard counter-argument against men goes: "if you don't want to take the risk, don't have sex." But that is not the standard for women. We can go out, take no precautions, have sex all day long - and we are still permitted to backtrack and rid ourselves of the consequences by seeking an abortion. It doesn't seem right to tell men "If you don't like the consequences, don't have sex" while women have historically argued that "don't have sex" is a ridiculous assertion that interferes with freedom of choice. (Remember, the "don't like the risk, don't have the sex" argument is huge among pro-lifers, and pro-choicers have long since turned their nose against that argument)

On tangential matters: Many states also permit a mother to "abandon" her child within hours of birth if the baby is taken to a hospital - no questions asked. It's tantamount to giving your child up for adoption, and,although many such state-statutes use gender neutral language, the reality is that this is an option used by women. The idea being to avoid situations you hear about on the news every once in awhile where a newborn is found in a trashcan or some other horrifying circumstance.

But in all these situations - the consequences for the man after pregnancy occurs is completely in the women's hands. If she decides to keep the child, men have no choice but to become fathers (well, at least in the financial obligation respect). They (obviously) can't require a woman to undergo abortion. And man also can't "give up" their child unilaterally after birth (a one-sided adoption, essentially).

I also see some failed-logic in the arguments. Even if a man could "opt-out" and we grant the mother the same right, it can never be the same because the emotional and mental associations created by carrying a child are unique to the female via biology. In the abortion context, it is the female that has to make the hard-decision of whether to undergo a procedure on her body - and it is much easier for a man to detach himself from the decision and abstractly decide "no, I don't want a child" and then sign the hypothetical "opt-out" paperwork. Similarly, if the woman carries the child to birth, similar emotional and mental associations between the mother and the child are created by the way of things biologically and, again, there are differences between a man in that situation wanting to "adopt out" his rights and females making a similar decision. But is that enough to deny men any say in reproduction, absent telling them that they need to abstain all together if they don't like the consequences?

So, are things as they are fair? Should men also have an absolutely protected reproductive right? How about a limited right - like recognizing contracts entered into between men and women that state that the man does not wish to procreate, both agree that abortion is the way in the event of a pregnancy, and if the woman changes her mind then no paternal rights and obligations may attach? Also, let's take Casey into the future.... there will undoubtedly come a day when it will be medically possible to remove an embryo, within days of conception, and maintain and incubate it for the gestational period. When that happens, will men be granted the right to demand the product of the female removing the potential child from her body be handed over to the fathering male (assume, arguendo, that the procedure is exactly the same in terms of what the woman experiences, complications, etc)? Will the man have the right to elect that the embryo be removed, rather than destroyed, and maintained for the man if he wants to keep the child? If so, would men equally be permitted to demand child support? Should they?

I don't have the answers, but I think this is an interesting topic. One I am sure will inflame many readers. But what I would appreciate more than tiresome bashing is reasoned responses and thoughts on this issue. I don't know where I stand yet, I'm still thinking it though... but I would love for some of you to come with me.