A man’s right to choose?
A men’s rights group wants to give fathers the option to deny child support in the case of an unintended pregnancy. the plaintiff in their lawsuit, Matt Dubay, was assured by his girlfriend that a medical condition made her infertile. Then she got pregnant, and now he has to pay child support.
Many men tell stories of getting “caught” in such a situation, and complain that women have more reproductive choices than they do. Unless the Supreme Court repeals Roe v. Wade, they’re right. Maybe a man should be able to formally refuse child-support while his partner is pregnant if he can show that she deceived him. This would no doubt lead to some nasty legal battles, in which judge and jury would have to decide thorny cases of he said/she said.
It seems to me the only way to avoid endless litigation would be to suggest that men sign a legally binding agreement with their partners. This agreement would detail the forms of birth control the each will use, and the course of action they both will take following any unintended pregnancy — either keeping the child, abortion, or adoption. If the woman violates the agreement, the man doesn’t have to pay child support.
This would lead to one uncomfortable consequence: if a woman became pregnant and decided she wanted an abortion, but abortion wasn’t in the agreement, her partner could legally force her to carry the child to term. This possibility would likely bother pro-choicers. But the opposite situation — a man requires his partner to have an abortion as per the terms of their agreement — would bother pro-lifers just as much.
Signing an agreement with your partner before getting in bed isn’t the most erotic thing to do. Then again, neither is putting on a condom — but for many, a little pre-coital fumbling is a small price to pay for security.