Massively Misunderstanding "A Father's Reproductive Rights"

By Dave Andrusko

Lisa Belkin writes for the New York Times at its "Motherlode" site, subtitled "Adventures in Parenting." A piece she wrote yesterday--"A Father's Reproductive Rights"--is a reflection on an article in Elle Magazine called "The Parent Trap."

Considering that the Times audience is likely overwhelmingly pro-abortion, I was surprised to see a piece like this in the Times.

I have not had time to read the Elle article written by Stephanie Fairyington, but what you get in Belkin's short column is disheartening in the extreme. It's the story of what happens in circumstances where there is (or isn't) an "understanding" among an unmarried couple what will happen if they conceive a baby.

One example of "a father's reproductive rights" is this question. Should he have to pay child support if he made it clear in advance that he didn't want to be a father and when the mother had agreed in advance to have an abortion if she becomes pregnant--but then changes her mind and carries the baby to term?

The very next example Belkin cites is, "If a couple find themselves unexpectedly expecting, and she wants to terminate but he says he will take full responsibility for the baby after it is born, should he have a legal right to require her to carry to term?"

And around and around it goes--necessarily unsatisfactorily. Why? Someone who commented online has part of the answer.

Because this way of addressing parenthood frames the relationship between parents and children (born or unborn) "in terms of 'rights' rather than responsibilities." If women can summarily and without involvement of the father abort their child, it's tempting for (some) men to conclude they have no obligations if their child is born. This [il]logic could apply when they had talked in advance or not and could extend to insisting she abort even when she does not want to.

"So now men are demanding that same power of life or death over their unborn children," the online commentator continued.

Poised as a clash of rights may allow couples to avoid the elephant in the room--their child--but it is exceedingly unhelpful.

In our culture, "rights" can only be exercised by those with power, leaving the unborn's right not to killed out of the conversation.

Moreover rights-talk acts as a powerful solvent that dissolves any sense that we have ethical and moral responsibilities not only for the consequences of our actions but TO the consequences of our action: a helpless unborn child.

Or for those locked into "rights," another way of looking at this is that our "rights " change when we have intentionally, or otherwise, created a new life. It changes from the "right" after the fact to obliterate the result of our actions to the "right" to assume the mantle of moral maturity that accompanies parenthood.

Please send your comments to daveandrusko@gmail.com.