Equal Rights?

The Case
There is a current court case with the following facts (as presented by that smarmy ass, Anderson Cooper, on CNN—I miss Chris Brown!):
A dating couple decided to have sex. He made it very well-known in the relationship that he did not want children. The woman assured the man repeatedly that she had a medical condition which precluded her from getting pregnant. Based on her stated medical condition, they agreed to have sex without contraception. She somehow got pregnant and he is now required to pay $500 a month in child support for a child he did not want. He is suing to voluntarily give up all rights to the child and be dismissed from all responsibilities relating to that child (including paying child support, visitations, etc.).

Anderson Cooper brought in a “resident ethicist” who seemed to completely miss the point of the lawsuit as presented. The ethicist’s argument boiled down to “if the man didn’t want children, he should have used a condom or abstained from sex.” This argument ignores that:
• The couple in question was dating, so it is perfectly reasonable for them to make the choice to have sex.
• The woman claimed, whether factually or erroneously, that she could not have children. She claimed it was a medical impossibility.
• The man made the woman aware on multiple occasions and prior to sex that he did not want children. So the woman knew this going into an intimate relationship with him.

If these facts hold up in court, and discounting any attempt by the woman to “trap” him by falsely claiming she could not get pregnant (I have yet to find any discussion about this, so presume that her inability to have children is not in question), it seems clear that the man had a reasonable expectation that it was impossible to father children through unprotected sex with this woman.

It could be argued in this particular case that, by agreeing to have sex with him knowing his position, the now ex-girlfriend has entered a legally binding verbal agreement with him. Her decision to have and raise the child is clearly antithetical to that agreement. Since she has not honored their legal agreement, the agreement could be dissolved and the responsibility for breaking it is hers alone.

Different Rights under the Law
Men and women have an equal opportunity to abstinence and contraceptives in order to avoid pregnancy. Abstinence is the only method that is absolutely, 100% guaranteed not to produce children. Many medical conditions also carry a reasonable expectation not to produce children. For example, if a woman has no ovaries or eggs, or the man is infertile, both sides can expect the sex not to produce children. However, every form of contraceptive has some chance that a pregnancy can occur, and couples who use contraceptives are making a tacit agreement to accept those risks when they agree to have sex and use contraceptives.

When an intimate encounter results in a woman getting pregnant, whether by chance or design, the man stops having any rights concerning the pregnancy while the woman still has three available options: custody (keeping it), abortion (getting rid of it), and adoption (giving it away).

This disparity can cause some interesting scenarios:
• If a man is clear about not wanting children, the woman can ignore the man’s wishes, have the child, and force him to pay child support for a child he has repeatedly stated he did not want.
• If a man desires to have children and expressly makes that opinion clear in the relationship, the woman can choose to abort the baby without considering his wishes or consultation with him.

If the woman knows the man’s position and it has been stated clearly, why would she choose to do something contrary to that position? I can only think of a few possibilities: she lies to him about her own intentions, she thinks he will somehow “change,” it is a “medical miracle” (like this case seems to be), or she is directly opposing his position for some reason (either to “keep him in her life” or to hurt him in some way).

Since any fetus is quite literally 50% hers and 50% his (it takes exactly one egg and one sperm and each parent contributes exactly 23 chromosomes in a standard pregnancy), and the repercussions from the pregnancy affect both parents, why doesn’t the man get at least some say in what happens to a pregnancy?

It is absurd to even suggest that a man could somehow legally compel a woman to have an abortion against her will. No court in the land would ever consider passing that law. If a woman decides to give the child up for adoption, the man who doesn’t want a child is satisfied and the man who wants the child can sue for custody and can adopt the child. But, and here is where it gets tricky, if a woman chooses to keep and raise a child against the man’s express wishes, the man’s only current option is to pay child support (if he can afford it) or become a felon by not paying it (if he cannot afford it or refuses to acknowledge it).

Why doesn’t the man have a legal recourse to remove himself from this circumstance? Men could sign some form of Emancipation from Parental Responsibility clause or contract giving up all rights and responsibility to the child he does not want and refuses to support. In essence, he has aborted the relationship without aborting the pregnancy (which the woman apparently wants).

If this court case is found to have merit, whatever resolution is reached will have to be carefully worded in order to allow men as little “wiggle room” as possible, otherwise current so-called “dead-beat dads” will have a plausible ‘out’ for not paying their mandated support. On further reflection, it may even be impossible to write a law that is constructed in such a way as to provide the request without also allowing ample room for abuse.

Conclusions
Any court rulings concerning reproductive rights are a very touchy issue. These issues strike right at the core of humanity—it pulls in gender differences and biases, it is affected by religious and philosophical opinions, and it deals with issues that are extremely private and strongly held.

In a perfect world, each couple will discuss their reproductive needs prior to committing any sexual act. They will form a consensus that will be open and honest and will not waiver if the unexpected happens. People will not lie to one another in order to force the circumstance they want to happen. Until that perfect world is created, we should take a hard look at any ruling that favors one sex over the other and see if we cannot find some middle ground in which to provide for both sexes’ reproductive rights.

Further Reading
BBC Americas

CNN