Feature
- Do You Hate Your Partner, Too?
- California Teen Avoids Heavy Sentencing by Passing the Buck
- Wanna Buy Your Teenager a Padded Push-Up Bra?
- Vampires in Texas!
- These Guys Are As Bad As Westboro Baptist Church
- Funny Letters Sent to Women's Magazines
- Women's Ski Jumping: Still Not a 'Real' Sport
- Will the World Be Pro-Choice Soon?
- Are We Getting Too Lazy to Even Divorce?
- Forever 21's Maternity Line: Glamorizing Teen Pregnancy?
A recent piece by Stephanie Fairyington in Elle, “The Parent Trap: Paternal Rights and Abortion,” tells the story of Greg Bruell, a divorced father of two, who leaves his pregnant girlfriend, Sandra Hedrick, also a divorced single parent, after she refuses have an abortion. Bruell and Hedrick had agreed to terminate any future pregnancies (Hedrick had already had one previous abortion) because Bruell did not feel that they were a stable family unit, as both were recently divorced and struggling to balance working and caring for the children they already had. In order to avoid becoming pregnant, Hedrick began taking the pill, however, the antibiotics she was taking lowered the effectiveness of the medication, thus she conceived. Hedrick felt conflicted about having another abortion and ultimately decided that she wanted to keep the child because she felt that this might be her last chance given her age (39). Once Bruell decided to leave and Hedrick sued him for child support, things began to get interesting.
The first abortion that Hedrick had was primarily a result of Bruell’s coercion that they were not in a good situation to add more children. Indeed, Hedrick, who wanted to have the child, agreed to go along with this because she did not want her relationship with Bruell to end. Hedrick stated, “If Greg wasn’t beside me on the table, I don’t think I would have gone through with it.”
This is frighteningly similar to the choice that a woman featured in an abortion-related piece from New York, felt she had to make in order to keep her boyfriend from leaving her:
“Basically, 99 percent of it is him … But see, that’s where it comes down to my percent. I have three kids already. So, he leaves, and now I have four children and no dads.”
In line with these sentiments, Bruell felt he did not have to pay child support for a child he was, “deceived into becoming a part of” (and maybe it’s just me, but this seems a tad hypocritical, as he was the one who got Hedrick pregnant and could have himself taken more responsibility for ensuring that there was a backup form of birth control, i.e., condoms, as no contraceptive is foolproof). But Bruell then contacted the National Center for Men, a “fathers’ rights” group, which decided to file suit on his behalf on the basis that he, too, should have a say in Hedrick’s abortion decision. The Center and Bruell argued that while the ultimate choice to have the procedure should be made by Hedrick, if the child were to be born, Bruell should not be financially responsible.
Although Bruell did eventually decide to drop the suit and has since gotten back together with Hedrick to help raise their new baby girl, the ideas put forward in the Center’s “Roe v. Wade for Men” efforts are quite troubling and represent an incredibly twisted view of equality. While I do somewhat agree that a man should not be forced to pay child support if he makes it clear before a pregnancy occurs that he will not support a potential child, so too should a woman not be forced to give birth (or not give birth) if she does not feel comfortable with it. Efforts to include men’s opinions in reproductive rights discussions are important, as they help to show that abortion is not a black and white decision (thus why Hedrick and many other women facing unplanned pregnancies often feel confused and conflicted about what to do) and can give women the support and advice they need to make the best possible decision for their particular situation.
What Bruell (a wealthy trust-funder, incidentally) and his buddies at the National Center for Men advocate is coercion, plain and simple, and does not foster equality as it is based on a man’s ability to use his financial position (something he enjoys precisely because his gender is given more educational and employment opportunities than most women receive), to force a woman to make a decision she may not agree with, because she is afraid of the consequences of going against her male partner’s will.
While it is fair for a man to be allowed to express his feelings about an unplanned pregnancy, it is not fair to use any methods to intimidate a woman into having an abortion (or not having an abortion), since, as Salon’s Mary Elizabeth Williams argues, he is not the one that must bare the physical and emotional tolls associated with aborting or keeping the child. Williams notes correctly that, “choice for a man is still frequently as close as the nearest door,” as it is quite easy for a man to deny an unplanned child and face none of the repercussions that a woman must. If Bruell and any of the other members of the “fathers’ rights” were to consider the unique burdens that women must face in reproductive labor and childcare, they would be far less likely to support measures that would deny anyone the right to make choices about their own body. Abortion should remain, as President Clinton once said, “between a woman, her doctor, her conscience, and her God” (if she chooses to believe in one), and no one else should have any legal or moral right to make that decision for her.
You Might Also Like ...
-
-
14
I feel very strongly about this. My biological father did this to my mom and left her while she was pregnant with me because she refused to get an abortion. I can count on my hand how many times I saw him, and I’d run out of fingers and toes for how many times we went to court because he refused to pay child support. I realize now that having a child you don’t want is hard, but it is such bullshit that men just get to run off if they please. If you do not want to shoulder the responsibility of a child, then either keep it in your pants or wrap your willy.
It’s such bullshit that women get to run away after the baby’s born.
If you don’t want to get pregnant, either use a condom, or keep your damn legs shut.
And if that isn’t okay to women, it’s not okay to men.
Can we just get rid of Uncle Tom already? His vitriol for men and anyone else not of a struggling minority group has worn thin very quickly.
Vitrol for men? Ha!
I can’t think of anything much more reasonable than calling out euphemistically named “men’s right’s” groups for the bullshit they’re pushing. There certainly could be situations where paternal rights aren’t respected, but it’s fairly obvious that this isn’t one of them, and rather neatly shows that the organization is bunk.
For such contentious subjects, it is essential to figure out who is actually making a point, and who is just pushing an agenda. Good post, and well written.
I’m going to not bother addressing each of the issues in this post, as we’ve been over many times the fact that women and men have equal opportunities, but men take them more often.
The point at hand is the inequality.
The woman could have used a condom as well.
When a woman finds herself accidentally pregnant, people don’t think it’s okay to say “well, you should have used more protection – now you’re stuck with it”. It’s not considered okay to say “well, don’t have sex if you aren’t willing to deal with the consequences”.
Why is is suddenly okay to tell a man not to have sex if he doesn’t want to deal with the consequences.
Sure, both are responsible for protecting themselves. But once a baby exists, men have no more rights at all. They have to sit back and wait for whatever the woman chooses. A man who desperately wants the baby, and would be happy to raise it with no additional financial support can beg, but not convince the woman not to abort his child. A man who doesn’t want a kid, whose girl agreed that they wouldn’t, can do nothing at all if she changes her mind, AND can be held financially responsible.
I agree, there there should be no pressure on a woman to abort. (in fact, I’m against it, but willing to ignore that for the point of this.) There should also be no pressure on a woman to keep the baby. In the end, out law states that that choice is hers alone, and I see good reason for it.
But the financial penalties of raising it are no longer on one person. Are no longer biologically only the woman’s issue. And that we can equally legislate.
Men should have the right to ‘legal abortion’.
Women have the right to remove the child with no further penalties.
Men should have the right to say “if it were me, I would abort this child. I want nothing further to do with it”. He would then not be considered the father, not be required to pay child support for a child he doesn’t want, and have no further rights or responsibilities to the child. For him, it doesn’t exist – just like with a woman who aborts.
The woman, if she wishes to carry the child to term, has the choice of keeping and raising it herself, or giving it up for adoption.
That would be legal equality fit around the biological issues we can’t change.
For men, escape is NOT as easy as the nearest door. Men are held prisoner by a system that gives them no choice in whether their children are born (fair, due to biological realities), and no ability to choose whether they are a part of raising their child (men very rarely win custody).
A man can be held hostage for child support, yet child support payments are not monitored, and a man cannot require that his payments actually go to support his children. A man can be granted visitation rights, but the same court that would garnish his wages or throw him in jail upon losing his job for missing a payment will rarely demand that his rights to be involved with the children are upheld.
Men can be required to pay lifetime alimony, despite any future changes in the comparative earning power of the former couple. Men can be held financially responsible to a child who turns out to be not biologically related.
Family law is one area where the inequalities are sharply tilted in favour of women.
Sure, there are definitely valiant women and deadbeat dads out there. But that impression has gone so far that people seem unable to believe that poor (unfit) mothers and honourable fathers exist as well.
Gotta agree with Kai here , It is and should always be the womens choice to abort or not , but the fact a man has no defense if a women decides to “Forget” her birth control despite prior agreements not to have a kid.
And I can speak from experience I had a girlfriend that I had to regularly remind to take her pill (better believe I wore a condom) but as pointed out no contraceptive is perfect , after a bit I left because I was not ready to have a child , even more so on ” Accident “.
Turns out not long after she “Accidentally” had a child with another guy , and last I knew she was still a single mom and not by choice (I still share friends with her so I hear the stories of her fishing for a husband).
Admittedly women like her are in the minority but the fact I know at least 5 other guys who have dodged the same bullet with different women at least implies that its a bigger issue then most would believe.
I find it absolutely maddening that there are women out there that are like that. It’s infuriating, and I’m glad you got away from her before you got suckered into a bad situation.
Once a woman is pregnant, I think it’s no one’s choice but her own what to do with it. Her boyfriend/husband/fuck buddy wants her to have the kid and she doesn’t want to? Too damn bad for the guy. Same goes for the other way around. Unless he wants the egg magically implanted in him for 9 months, he shouldn’t have any rights whatsoever. Is that unfair? Maybe.
The problem I have, though, is with the situation described in the article. The couple’s prior agreement to not have more kids is a huge gray area, and I’m not entirely sure how to respond. I think they both should have been using some form of birth control individually if a child was such a huge issue (or just had a vasectomy), especially since there was already 1 abortion. I find them both at fault, but I kind of think he shouldn’t have to pay child support.
Why shouldn’t she just have a tubal?
Perhaps he doesn’t want to permanently remove his options either?
Male conception-preventing pills would be a great thing, but even that can’t be counted on.
We can equalize biology, but we can give equal legal rights.
[...] What Rights Should Fathers Have In Abortion Decisions? – Zelda Lily [...]
The choice to get an abortion should be the womans. If two people have a child together and then one leaves after said child is born they should have to pay support. However I thought about this and I think if she decides she wants the kid, and the male is open from the moment they find out that he does not want this child, that he would wish for her to get an abortion and they break up because of this before the child is born he should not have to pay support, she knew her options and knew he didn’t want the kid so it becomes her responsibility. But I restate that if he is still involved with the woman when the kid comes then at a future date goes back and says he didn’t want the kid in the first place so he shouldn’t have to pay child support I call bullshit that by staying he consented to having this child in his life. I’m feverish with stomach flu and not sure this made sense so sorry if I’m not clear.
The biology is unfair – so how can the law be fair? There is no way to give more rights to one side without infringing the rights of the other side.
[...] justice and equality. Too bad you can’t actually explain that one to the innocent lives taken by Roe v. Wade, ironically legislated by the Court back in those dark “zero women” [...]