Roe v Wade v Paternity

Sure, babies are adorable. But not everybody wants one. There's often a great deal of contention between the co-creators of the would-be baby as to whether or not to have it. Here's where we get into the area of Roe v Wade. This "abortion" question is a hot issues in both the religious and political arenas. Without renewing the debate here, let's just, for the sake of argument, except "a woman's right to choose" as a given.

From there, I look at several situations:

Best case scenario: Both the mother and the father want the baby and both will contribute to the raising and the welfare of the child. This scenario would also include the mutual decision to terminate the pregnancy, or have the baby and then place it up for adoption ...although "best case" seems an inaproprate description for these circumstances.

Next case scenario: The mother wants the baby and decides to singularly raise the child. In this case the mother may tell the father but he doesn't want the child, or the mother may not even inform the father of the pregnancy. In either case, she assume complete responsibility. Although there are those who will argue that a single-parent home is somehow deficient, (Quayle v Brown), there is much evidence to the contrary.

Bad case scenario: The father wants the child but the mother doesn't, and since it is her right, she opts to terminate the pregnancy. Although I think this is unfair to the father, there are no other options. You can't force [her] to endure the pregnancy against her wishes ...even if the intent were to relinquish the child at birth.

*Overlooked scenario: I modified this post (3/22/06*) to include the situation where the mother carries the child to term and then places it up for adoption without having notified the father of the pregnancy or the adoption. Myriad cases of adoption have been overturned because the father's rights had been circumvented.

New case scenario: The father doesn't want the child, but the mother does and decides to have it, and then, forces the father (under current laws) to provide child support. The argument here is that if the [agreed] intention was not to conceive, the mother, (if she does decide to keep the child), should not be able to force the father into this alliance.

See the "news article" about the court case surrounding this very question. The article is posted in the BBC News (Int'l version), however, if that link has somehow expired, you can view "my copy" of the original article.

I agree with the argument that a man should have the right not to be a father, but on the other hand, I do feel that if he does father a child, he should [at the very least] support it. So what are his options?

Some say he should have [had] a vasectomy, which is allegedly reversible. But you're dealing with delicate microsurgery and why would one take such a chance unless it was intended to be permanent. Others simply say to abstain. Sure, that's right up there with "just say no" and "let them eat cake". Think of all the problems in the world that would be eliminated, (or wouldn't exist in the first place), if "abstention" were truly a viably option.

So what rights does the father have?

Perhaps as self protection they both should sign a sort of prenup ...or in this case, call it a precoit. This precoital agreement would clearly state that if, despite precautions, a pregnancy did result, the father would be faultless, and the mother, could at her discretion, terminate the pregnancy. However if she should decide to have the baby, she would assume complete responsibility ...and the father would relinquish all rights.

Quote of the Week: "It's easier to stay out than to get out."