As I was reading IHM’s blog the other day about how a 15-year-old girl got pregnant outside marriage, I found myself engaging in a tangential debate on the rights of men regarding accidental pregnancies. Now I have written extensively in the past about my support for equal rights of women. I never considered myself a “feminist”. For me, “human rights” are all that is needed. IMHO there’s no need to further divide it into “women’s rights”, “gay-rights” etc.
It seems a part of established custom that a man provide child support for his own offspring until they are adults. This makes sense – no mother should have to ever raise a child on her own when the man was equally responsible. But then I thought, what if the man never wanted a child in the first place? It seemed unfair to me that the woman at any time can decide to abdicate responsibility as a parent either by having an abortion, or by giving the child up for adoption. The man however, has no say in the matter at all after the woman is pregnant – a detail which can ruin his life.
I began searching around, and came across this article in “The Time” magazine regarding a man’s right to choose. Here is the case that exemplifies the problem:
Matt Dubay, a 25-year-old computer programmer in Michigan, was ordered to pay child support after his former girlfriend had a baby. He says he had made it clear when they were dating that he did not want to have children; she had said she couldn’t get pregnant anyway because of a medical condition. When she did get pregnant, he argues, she could have chosen to have an abortion. So shouldn’t he have a choice as well, about whether to support a child he never wanted to have?
Edit: I should note that the girl in this case openly admitted that the guy never wanted children and that she told him that she couldn’t get pregnant. The law is such that it’s irrelevant. The father is expected to pay child support regardless of intentions and protective measures.
Now I’m aware that a large number of cases where the father is ordered to pay child support deals with irresponsible behavior on the part of the man. Casually having sex, impregnating a woman and leaving is deplorable and I’m not saying there should be no consequences for the man whatsoever.
But laws are made for all people and for all situations. You cannot have a law that is unfair to even a small segment of the population. This is why well-written laws are replete with exceptions, and special situations which narrow down the scope and target only those whom it is meant to address. Having a blanket rule saying that all men should always pay child support for every child they have regardless of the situation is not a good law. Because it ignores situations where the child was truly “accidental” in spite of all precautions to the contrary.
As an aside, this is also why I’m against the draconian “dowry laws” in India. Many have said that the abuse of such laws is restricted to only a small segment of the population and since it benefits the overwhelmingly large percentage of women, the law should not be changed. In my opinion this is extremely myopic, unfair, and hurtful. We have the principle of equality before the law and the ideal of justice for everyone. Not merely justice for the majority. We should not tolerate a law which ignores even a small segment of people and is blatantly unjust to them.
Coming back, there’s no doubting that it is the woman who has to bear the direct consequences of pregnancy. I am in no way suggesting that the man should have veto rights over her decision to keep the child or not. It’s unthinkable that the law should force women to either abort or keep the baby under any circumstances.
I am saying however, that the man should have at least some rights over his legal parenthood. I’m not advocating a complete abdication of responsibility here. I would be in favor of the man paying the woman some form of compensation for an abortion since she is the one undergoing the mental and physical trauma. What I am not in favor of however, is equating a woman’s discomfort with an abortion to a man having to pay child support for the next 18 to 21 years of his life. The latter is more severe than the former.
We can go one step further. It’s possible that a woman doesn’t like the idea of an abortion. That it’s too mentally and physically exhausting. In this case, I think both the man and the woman should be able to decide whether or not they wish to give the child up for adoption. According to the law today, only a woman can make the decision to give the baby up for adoption. But once the child is born, doesn’t the father have equal rights to the hilt? I feel that the man should also have the capability to do the same. If the mother wants to keep the child, then she should have to pay for that luxury. Again, I’m in favor of the man providing a form of one-time compensation to the woman for all the inconvenience and trauma the mother undergoes.
As it stands right now, a man can only have sex if he is prepared to pay child support for the next 18 years if the woman decides to keep the baby. A woman on the other hand, can have sex in the full knowledge that she has a way out and that she never has to ruin her life to deal with a baby she never planned for. In legal principle therefore, a man can never have sex merely for pleasure alone. A woman can.
For example, my wife and I have decided never to have children. If however she gets accidentally pregnant one day and refuses to abort, I have no say in the matter whatsoever! I’m forced to be a father despite my wishes and am forced to pay through the nose – again despite my wishes. This ruins my life, my plans, and everything that I hoped for. Whereas my wife doesn’t have to live with the same burden.
Is this fair? Do you feel that Matt Dubay was unfairly treated in the example above?
The morning after pill needs to be available off the shelves, that’s my opinion.
In reply to gayatri.life.unordinary
I agree – that would certainly help a lot of cases.
But what do we do if the girl decides overnight to keep the baby and not make use of the pill like happened in the case above?
” You cannot have a law that is unfair to even a small segment of the population.” Actually, as you said, the laws have exceptions and also interpreting the law is what the courts are for. For that small section of cases that fall into the gray area.
In case of Matt, if he could prove that the matter was discussed beforehand and an agreement was reached which the girlfriend is now reneging on, the verdict should have gone in his favour.
In reply to The Bride
There was no need to prove it – the girl admitted as much beforehand. The facts of the case were never in doubt. This wasn’t a “he said/she said” debate.
As the laws currently stand, there is no room for interpretation. The law is clear that the father has to pay child support regardless. The court can’t come up with its own exceptions without a clear mandate from the legislature. And that’s why the question of unfairness comes in.
Here’s the Wikipedia page for those who want more info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dubay_v._Wells
In reply to bhagwad
Bhagwad,
Though this was discussed over at IHM’s I am posting my comment here since this is where I got the ref from and it builds into my subsequent points. This is the point I felt the maximum distance from, the most unreasonable:
“A man must have sex if – and only if – he is prepared to have a baby on the off chance that a contraceptive fails.” Kind of (yes).
As a somewhat traditional, orthodox or even possibly conservative middle-class man, it serves purposes that I support: responsible long-term relationships and commitment. Small problem is it does not seem *fair*
while the Bride says it applies equally to both parties it certainly does seem to me *the woman has many more opportunities and options to decide on the pregnancy (both ways)*. So it seems to me it would be more honest to accept there is no “equal application” here. It seems very unfair that a guy should get dinged for pregnancy and support if he used contraceptives and they failed and the lady then insisted on carrying the pregnancy to term. the responsible use of contraceptive by either party indicates their non-consent to pregnancy.
2. This scenario does not apply to Matt Dubey since he did not use contraceptives. Every time a man has unprotected sex he is IMO giving consent to being a father (possibly). That he trusted his GF to not get pregnant has no bearing on this.
3. The law is possibly too harsh, even harsher than theBride’s stand. I remember reading horror stories abt women impregnating themselves with semen from a discarded contraceptive, with the men then having to pay child support.
This would mean that men are responsible not just for contraceptive failure: they are responsible to destroy any seed or otherwise place it beyond the reach of a partner looking to impregnate herself Hopefully we can all agree on this one, its too much an ask :-)
Since I read it on a site that was heavily loaded with pro-men commentary, almost paranoid, I discounted it. I wonder now though.I’ll try looking it up.
thanks
Jai
In reply to Jai_C
In the case of Matt, it wasn’t that he trusted the girl not to get pregnant. The girl told him that she could not get pregnant medically. To mandate the use of contraceptives even when one of the partners is medically incapable of bearing children is overkill IMHO.
Supposing the man has a vasectomy, no reasonable woman would deem it necessary to also insist on the use of a condom or indeed use contraceptives herself – like taking the pill. In Matt’s case, this was obviously a freak accident – one that could happen to anyone.
Yes, there have been ridiculous cases like the one you cited above. In one situation, the man was forced to pay child support to a woman who used his sperm after oral sex to impregnate herself! But these are clearly one off situations. Regular women just don’t do that. So while I believe that the law of course needs to be made more clear to deal with these cases, it doesn’t really apply to those situations we are interested in discussing here.
In reply to bhagwad
I am afraid I dont see Matt’s situation as a freak accident. It seems very reasonable to me that a woman especially would continue to take precautions inspite of a partner saying he has undergone vasectomy, and Matt’s case is even weaker than this: he was capable of fathering a child and in unprotected intercourse, he essentially did all that God/FSM/Ma Nature required him to do for bringing one into being.
He has my sympathy, and I do not particularly like the GF’s behavior here for going back on her verbal assurances. It is very possible that men who have come to know about this steer clear of her even if she was interested in a relationship with them (or probably dont even initiate any date).
It is also likely that women who know Matt doesnt consider himself a father and denies the reality of the existence of his daughter will be giving *him* a wide berth.
I agree with theBride in one aspect: a pregnancy crystallizes things one way or the other and causes the relationship to take a decisive turn.
thanks
Jai
In reply to Jai_C
Well that’s true – a pregnancy will certainly change things :D
But I don’t agree that contraceptives are necessary when one of the parties has had a medical operation. After all, one can say that the purpose of a vasectomy is to remove the use of contraceptives in the first place!
I agree with you…But isn’t it hard to prove that a couple had agreed not to have children unless it’s in writing? Also, if a man has been ‘tricked’ into having a child, then he should be absolved of all parental and financial responsibilities towards that child…
In reply to Sraboney
In the case above, the girl admitted everything – there was no question of “proof”.
In my mind, there are two issues. One – what is the law? Two – can it be proved?
So far, even the first condition isn’t satisfied. As the case above shows, the girl openly admitted that the guy informed her beforehand that he didn’t want a kid and that she told him that she couldn’t get pregnant.
It didn’t matter because the law is clear that regardless of the motivation etc, once a woman gets pregnant, the guy has to pay child support.
In reply to bhagwad
Was it really an accident? Or was she lying? There is a huge difference morally between these cases. And is there a way to prove it? Not that it would make a difference according to the law (as of now).
The law is an ass sometimes. That’s why I gave up after one semester… sometimes I just couldn’t see the logic or justice.
You are talking only about the rights of man and woman. What about the child? even if its existence is accidental
In reply to HamActor
Well, we’re considering that the child doesn’t exist as a living person when the abortion takes place of course…
In reply to bhagwad
I think HamActor was asking about after the child is born (adoption, etc.). I don’t know how this will work. The child doesn’t have any say in adoption (or many other things like religion, schooling) anyway .
Some random thoughts:
1)Was the pregnancy an accident? I mean a real accident like it happens with cars, a fall, etc where you could not have anticipated it or done anything to prevent it.
Don’t the persons engaged in sex know that pregnancy is likely? In my view it is not an “accident” but an an undesired consequence of an act , a consequece they would rather have prevented and probably tried and now don’t want to accept when prevention failed.
This accident does not deserve as much sympathy as a genuine accident which is beyond human control.
2)May be the law is protecting the unborn child. It did not ask to be born out of wedlock. Why should the father have all the pleasure of casual sex without committment and make an innocent child pay for a lifettime for the Father’s pleasure ?
3)If the boy was not interested in having the baby born, and had made it clear, why is he now wanting to have a say in the matter of what the girl must do after getting pregnant? It’s her body. His contribution is merely a single sperm and a most pleasurable contribution which he gave willingly and it was not extracted from him by force or fraud. He may perhaps be justified in saying that he owes no maintenance, but for 2) above, but he cannot feel he is being victimised by the law if the girl wishes to go ahead with having the baby without his concurrence.
4)It is not for nothing that scriptures in all religions recommended sex only within the bounds of matrimoney and had moral laws against adultery. Today, adultery is no big deal and we have abandened a time honoured custom of treating sex outside marriage as sinful
But seeking to escape its natural consequences and beating one’s chest pathetically and calling oneself a victim of the law is not a reasonable stand.
Am I too old?
Okay, go ahead, poke holes in my arguments.
Regards
GV
In reply to G Vishwanath
Thanks for commenting GV :)
I think in today’s world, what is “natural” and “unnatural” is blurred. For us, abortion is as “natural” as anything else – like getting a root canal operation. So perhaps before contraception, pregnancy was a natural consequence for sex. But today for example, my wife and I have decided never to have children, but that doesn’t mean we haven’t had sex :D . So indeed, a pregnancy would be pretty much an accident.
And you seem to imply that the father is more responsible for the pregnancy than the mother!
As for the rights of the child, we are assuming that the fetus isn’t a “human being” until a certain amount of time has passed. Before that, it’s just a clump of cells – much like a plant.
Finally, I don’t think the boy is interested in dictating to the girl whether she should have an abortion or not. His only concern should be about the consequences on his life if she decides to go ahead. Having to pay child support for the next two decades gives him a pretty high stake in the outcome don’t you think?
In Matt’s case it’s easy, he and his partner are not married…What if they were?
In reply to Sraboney
Wow – that’s a googly!
The other issue is what if a man wants to be involved in his child’s life but his ex (especially if they weren’t married) doesn’t let him?
In reply to Sraboney
Well I don’t know about India, but in the US at least there are well defined rights for fathers, regardless of married status. Unless it can be shown that the father is a well defined threat to the child – in which case the courts might order supervision of parenting time. But the bar for “threat” is pretty high.
What would happen in a possible scenario, where the man wants to raise the child as a single father, but the woman wants to either abort the foetus or give the child for adoption? Does the law allow for the child to be raised by the father? Or will it give preference to the mother’s wish?
In reply to Mandooka
The decision to abort/not to abort belongs solely to the woman. In the US, both the mother and the father have to consent to adoption…
In reply to Mandooka
In such a case it would mean that this man wants the woman to carry his child to term for him. Isn’t it like surrogacy? Which still should be the woman’s choice.
Quite an interesting article Bhagwad and of course gave a very brief insight into whats what. Just going through so many thoughts in my minds and thus not able to think of any new questions after going through all the comments. Will come back if I can treasure out any new question…