Should Men Have the Same Reproductive Rights as Women?
Stephanie Fairyington has written a fascinating feature for Elle magazine that centers around a couple named Greg Bruell and Sandra Hedrick. Greg and Sandra are both divorced parents; Greg has two children and Sandra has a daughter – well, make that two daughters. The second, conceived with Greg, is at the heart of an intense debate about the reproductive rights of men.
Lisa Belkin, on her Motherlode blog, deciphers the two key questions asked in Fairyington’s piece. “If a man makes it clear before a child is conceived that he does not want to be a father, and if a woman agrees in advance that she will terminate an accidental pregnancy, should he have to pay child support when she changes her mind?” and “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?”
Over the course of their relationship, Sandra’s been pregnant twice with Greg’s child. She aborted the first pregnancy, even though she didn’t want to, because Greg thought their lives were too unstable. So when Sandra decided in early 2009 that she wanted to keep the second pregnancy, Greg was indignant. She’d ”vowed to Greg that if she conceived again, she’d immediately terminate.” But at 39, she realized “that this might be her last chance to have another child.”
“Infuriated about the miserable betrayal, Bruell told Hedrick it was over between them, for good…. Then, two months later, he was served with a lawsuit demanding child support for his unborn child.” So he contacted the National Center for Men, run by Mel Feit. Feit thinks “couples should sign a ‘Reproductive Rights Affidavit’ that spells out what to do in the event of an unplanned pregnancy.” This sounds like a great idea, although it’s legally unenforceable. According to Dean Schreyer of the Men’s Legal Center in San Diego, “parents have parental responsibilities. These are not rights, in the conventional sense. Parents are not allowed to use these powers and authorities if and when they so choose. They are required to use them on behalf of their children, at all times, no exceptions.” Meaning, if you have a baby, even if you don’t want it, you are still responsible for it.
But what about instances where parents relinquish their parental rights, as my biological father did? Parental rights are taken away all the time by family courts. In those cases, the parent is seen as unfit, but I wonder if there’s a way that men and women could give up their parental rights willingly – legally – as long as the other parent agreed. Women can willingly give babies to strangers through the adoption process (again, how much say do men have over that?), so why shouldn’t a woman be able to give a baby to the biological father of her child? Granted that she’s willing to carry the child to term, which brings us back to Belkin’s question.
Of course, things change, and people change based on the things that happen to them. Greg Bruell said himself, “At 42, I don’t have the same choices I had before. I needed to be more accepting of everything, of the circumstances.” In a fairy-tale ending, he is not only paying child-support, but helping to raise his new daughter, Ava, and considering a marriage to Sandra. Makes me think of that tried-and-true saying, “Everything happens for a reason.” It’s only that sometimes we’re forced and/or fortunate to realize the reason after the fact.
Photo: Spigoo via Flickr
You can do a single-parent adoption if one biological parent wishes to relinquish their parental rights and the other wishes to allow it (and absolve them of all financial responsibility). I know a couple of people who have done this when one wanted to raise the baby they conceived together and the other did not.
Interesting! I was looking for information on that today and it wasn’t readily accessible, but maybe I wasn’t searching the appropriate terms. Nothing under willing termination of parental rights brought that up. Single-parent adoption sounds much nicer.
Hmm… just did a little more digging and I can’t find anything on that topic. It’s a really fascinating subject. A friend read the title of my post and responded, “When they start having babies!” I think that’s how a lot of women feel.
A woman can give up her baby to the baby’s biological father, or rather, like Sierra said, she can relinquish her parental rights. I think that the issue in question is: Can she be forced to carry the baby to term to protect his parental rights? And can he (or she) “opt out” of child support because they weren’t part of the decision to create the child.
While I can empathize with Bruell, I think this is a slippery slope that could potentially give deadbeat parents an easy loophole for escaping child support.
I also think Bruell sounds like a guy who’s used to getting his way.
I’ve always thought it was unfair that men had no say in keeping a baby. I know that if I was a man, I’d be devistated if my significant other had an abortion. Could you imagine watching someone kill your baby and not being able to do anything about it?
In answer to the two questions that the article boils down to–I have always thought that a man should be able to opt out of parenting before a baby is born, in an ideal world. In an ideal world there is also an adequate social security net for single mothers. I don’t think a woman can ever be legally required to carry a child to term.
Bruell sounds like a teenager who doesn’t (after 3 kids?) realized that when you have sex, you automatically become responsible for what happens after that (conception, you contract a VD, etc.). I think it’s ridiculous for a man to tell a woman she must abort. Find a blow-up doll if you want to stick it somewhere with no responsibilities. Sounds like a major a-hole. I do side with Dads that actually want the baby more than the mom does, because they cannot physically prevent the woman from having an abortion. I think it is such a tricky area when a dad’s rights to be a dad force a woman to go through 9 months of pregnancy (not the worst thing in the world, I know
).
As far as planning an adoption, the laws regarding birthfathers vary by state. In some states, a man could block an adoption without any intention of helping to parent; thereby reducing a woman’s options to abortion or single parenting. Not ok, and I find it completely stupid that a woman could legally choose an abortion and end the fetus’s life without the father’s consent, but she can’t try to give a baby a better life through adoption without his consent. That just doesn’t make any sense and is very inconsistent. In other states, the man has to prove that he has supported the woman throughout her pregnancy – sounds a little better, but what if she never told him she was pregnant? I’m not sure there is a perfect solution, and my heart goes out to all the dads who feel that their rights were violated, as well as all the moms who had to make a tough call on their own.
Men do have rights in the adoption process, except perhaps in Utah. As Annie said, the laws vary from state to state. Most states have putative father registries, where a man can register publicly that he may be the father of a particular woman’s baby. As far as I know, all states require that a birth father have a certain amount of time to come forward to claim the baby. If the birth mother doesn’t know where he is, then an ad must be taken out in a paper with circulation in the area of his last known whereabouts.
The situation Annie mentioned happened to us. Expectant mom wanted to place her baby with us, but the biological father, who was abusive and had abandoned her, wanted to parent. The laws of the state she was in said that he could do that, without supporting her at all. She ended up terminating the pregnancy, because she didn’t want him to come back and hurt her. No, the state had no law covering abusive partners. The child couldn’t be taken away until he beat it. She didn’t want that to happen either.
Robyn – thank you for sharing that story. I hadn’t even thought about how a father’s parental rights might affect an adoption from the perspective of the adoptive parents. It’s heartbreaking that the birth mother in your case terminated the pregnancy to avoid her child being raised by an abuser, but it makes sense. Reminds me of the piece I wrote about a nun who was excommunicated for allowing an abortion to save the mother’s life. These decisions ae so much more complicated than a lot of people are willing to admit.
If a woman can choose whether or not to be a mother, a man should be able to choose whether or not to be a father. Basic biology makes the meanings of “to be a mother” and “to be a father” different, but the system we have discriminates on the basis of sex, which is unethical (and illegal).
It is not ethical for a man to require a woman to carry his fetus to term, for basic biological reasons and for the same reason no one is forced to give a kidney to a child who will die without one: no person can ethically be required to provide of their body to another living thing. Likewise, it’s unethical for a woman to force a man to pay for a child he does not want or one he doesn’t have parental rights to.
You can’t legislate morality, but the law should at least reflect it.
I have often thought it is a tragedy that men can only reproduce through the bodies of women. But, having carried two pregnancies to term myself, I found that an entirely NON-trivial experience, full of challenges to my health, emotional state, mental processes, and work performance. And both those children were wanted. The idea of being forced to carry a child to term when I never wanted to be pregnant — maybe even had conscientiously used contraception and had it fail — is horrifying.
Add to that the possibility that some guy who wanted a baby could plant it in my body without my consent (say, by promising to wear a condom and then not) … and then require me to spend the next nine months carrying it … yikes.
And there are people (some in the news just this week) who would insist that even a 12-year-old rape victim be required to carry the child to term. Even a woman whose own health was seriously compromised would not be permitted to abort. Or suppose I had gotten pregnant at 50 (entirely possible); what would be the effect on my health of carrying to term at that age?
So I feel compassion for the men who wish their children had been born. But I can’t imagine living in a place where they could require a particular woman to carry their fetus just because they want the baby.
If a guy wants a baby he should plan ahead, and have it with a woman who wants to carry it. Period.
A whole different question, if the father (or the law) can compel a woman to complete a pregnancy) is what happens to the mom’s life in the world while she’s carrying a baby she doesn’t want and will give up. In the two generations since I was a young mother the stigma against unmarried motherhood has been much reduced, but it is still there. Unlike the unmarried father, the unmarried pregnant mother must announce to everyone she meets, in every context, the fact of her impending parenthood — no matter how the baby was conceived — unless, like the Victorians, she simply drops out of work, school, and social life and disappears for five or six months.
Imagine the young lawyer working diligently toward making partner, with no present interest in marriage and/or motherhood. Accidentally pregnant, will she now take a leave of absence from her promising career? What will the office gossip say about that? (In my youth, even a girl who had an opportunity for a semester in Europe would be afraid to go — because an absence that long would breed rumors that she was pregnant. When she returned friends and neighbors would quiz her to make her ‘prove’ she had seen Paris or wherever and not just hid until the baby was born.) Suppose she continues to work through the pregnancy — will she face the ‘when is the baby due’ question from every new client, every new judge, at every new deposition? Will people she hardly knows congratulate her? How many colleagues will greet her advancing belly with ‘I didn’t know you were married.’ ? And what about her standing in the firm? Will those who make hiring and promotion decisions take this pregnancy as value-neutral? or will they conclude that it is evidence of poor judgment? (How many law firms hold unmarried sex against their male associates?)
Parental rights???????? Is sickening that the baby will never have a say on his/her will to come into this world, let alone the kind of parents that he/she will get. Lets make this easier for the people that do not want kids: Men get fixed and women get a histerectomy. That way you will be 100% sure that a baby will not come and ruin your lives, selfish bastards.
Rosana’s solution would be a lot easier to consider if the modern American surgeon didn’t refuse, on a regular basis, to sterilize a patient who is ‘too young’ and ‘hasn’t had children yet.’
[...] written before about a father’s rights surrounding reproduction, questioning whether or not a woman should be forced to terminate or carry-out a pregnancy based [...]
My fiancee got a vasectomy. Bruell could’ve done that, or used condoms, especially after their first “oops” he should NOT have solely relied on her. Men DO have options. And as long as you find a reasonably secular doctor (read not Catholic) it’s easy for a guy to get snipped.
To Mr. Bruell, after reading the article in ‘Elle’ — did YOU ever hear of condoms? Don’t go boo-hooing now if you could not take your share of responsibility for birth control then…