Read other letters about this article

• Monday, December 5, 2005 12:35 PM

  Men's input into the abortion decision

  Well. There sure is a lot of vitriol on this subject. I do understand the men's feelings of powerlessness and rage on the subject. Once the pregnancy happens, they no longer have any control at all. I hope that the men who feel this way understand that before Roe v. Wade, and I very much fear, again soon, all women will have to feel this way again.

  As far as men having input on the abortion decision, I just don't see how it could work, at least, to force an abortion on a person who doesn't want it. Can't she just not notify her partner until the pregnancy is too far advanced for an abortion? Or would the man's decision, to be enforceable, require weekly pregnancy tests, that the woman is forced to undergo?

  How would the against-her-will abortion work? If her husband or partner decreed that the pregnancy should not go forward, would she be taken into police custody, restrained, and have the procedure performed against her will?

  Or if the decision is that she must bear the child for the man, will then all her lifestyle decisions be scrutinized? Is she barred from sexual activity until the pregnancy is over? Should her food and alcohol intake be monitored? Should her activities be restricted to ensure she does not engage in any behavior that might be of risk to the child? Again, police custody!

  The problem is, in a conflict of have the baby/don't have the baby, only one of the persons involved can have his or her way. To give someone such intimate dominion over another's body is not possible, and should not even be contemplated, which is why the choice has been heretofore the woman's.

  While I believe the child support/child custody laws in this country are abominable, family destroying, and harmful to children, I don't believe giving one party dominion over another's body is the answer. Unwilling fathers, barring outright trickery (such as the woman in CA who used semen from a blow job to impregnate herself) should still be responsible to some degree for the support of their child, but only at a standardized level, say between 50% and 100% of what a state is willing to pay a foster parent, and no more. Ridiculous awards should not be authorized. This would help bring the level of vitriol down considerably.

  I realize that absent parents are "forced" to pay child support. Forced taking of income, while often unfair and ina poorly designed system, still does not approach the invasiveness of requiring either a termination or the continuation of a pregnancy.

  If I were the persons advocating such a course, I would be very careful. Because that is a slippery slope, and I don't want to live in a world where the assertion of one party's rights so overcome the other's, that she and her body are not her own. Once this is okay, what is next? Men would not be immune. Perhaps if a woman decided she wanted to be pregnant, her partner could be forced to donate sperm, at police headquarters, pursuant to a court order, because her decision was the one that counted this time.

  I think, let's just think about the practicality and logistics, and reform what can be reformed.

  —ReganaD Read ReganaD's other letters
  Permalink
  Flag
  Click "Submit Flag" if you feel this post is inappropriate. Explain why below if you wish.

  Cancel