Yes

by Rand E Oertle

Created on: July 23, 2009   Last Updated: July 28, 2009

At what point in the process of human progress is a father even considered necessary? Is it just as a sperm donor? Where is his value? How do we evaluate fathers? Is he to be considered a money tree with no consideration in the creation of humanity? In today's world fathers have been reduced to "necessary evils" to be demeaned and maligned by much of feminist thought. In a perfect world, the choice to have children would be a carefully considered joint decision. But we don't live in a perfect world.

Are all men perfect? No! Are all women perfect? No! Does the place of fathers in the lives of their children help or hinder the quality of their upbringing? If the question of the value of responsible fathers is positive, then a father has a right and responsibility to be heard in any abortion decision.

The problem with an issue like abortion is that it treats all pregnancies in the abstract. That is, there is no judgment as to how the pregnancy occurred, which is an untenable factor in making the decision. If the father is a one-night stander, then the mother is a one-night stander and the question for the father becomes: "How do I get out of this?" His reaction and that of the mother is roughly the same. Abortion is our "lazy" method of birth control, an inconceivable calloused and cold-hearted view of human life.

To frankly answer the question one has to make some unequivocal judgments. If the father is responsible, mature and conscientious why should he not have a say? Is the mother equally responsible? With these prerequisites then certainly the father should have a say.

The problem is that not all pregnancies occur under these circumstances creating the dilemma. Mind-boggling situations have been reported in news stories that cloud the issue. In the past year or so, there have been two stories that have a bearing on whether a father should have a voice in the abortion decision. A young man (27-years-of-age), was reported to have fathered 156 children with more than 100 women.

Without a doubt, he not only should be denied any voice, but a strong case should be made for his castration. He certainly will not be able to support those children and he is cavalierly giving fatherly responsibilities to the state, meaning taxpayers. The one-hundred women, on the other hand, chose to have the children, knowing that there would be no possible way for this "man" to support them or their children. Did they view those children as welfare cash producers?

Then there is the mother who had eight babies at once by artificial insemination to add to her six other children. Should the fathers who provided the sperm be given the right to demand that she have an abortion knowing that she was a welfare mother, and that their children would be put into a situation where they would be raised on welfare with no father or male presence in their home?

In these two cases, it is the children who suffer and are forced into a life of second class citizenship. That choice was made by an unfathomably irresponsible father in one case and the questionably sane mother in the other. Yet the father/fathers in the second case didn't have a choice and look what it created. Should those fathers have had the right to force the mother to have an abortion?

For humanity to be uncaringly accepting of uninhibited abortion is abhorrent in the extreme. Exception for abortion should be allowed in three possible cases: 1) life of the mother 2) Incest, and 3) rape. Unfortunately, courts apparently don't see the inhumanity of the procedure.

Whether the sex is out of passion, love or intention, at the instant the child is conceived, he/she has half of the father's genome whether one believes that life begins at conception or not. Every facet of the person-to-be is present at the beginning. Yet, the father has zero choice over the child's birth. In some societies that is not the case. The father has total control over mother to be. Do those who support uncontrolled abortion rights, consider that as a potential violation of female rights or a cultural and societal or religious choice?

The problem is that in all too many cases neither the mother nor father is worthy to make the decision. If there were no methods of contraception, then other conclusions could be reached. But that is "not" the case.

There is an immutable truth that the more a father is excluded from the responsibilities of fatherhood, the less commitment he will make and exercise. When a woman insists upon a male's commitment but then denies his right to participate in a life changing act, the more they push men into refusing to make the commitments they demand. It becomes a vicious cycle.

There is no concomitant discussion of a woman's commitment in her choice to have an abortion after having made the decision to have intercourse that leads to potential conception. Women have the right to say no. Men have the responsibility to respect that choice, but when a woman gives consent, the fundamental equation changes. That is the real choice for women, to choose to have sex or not.

Scientists have been working on a male birth control pill. That could have a monumental impact on the whole abortion issue. Should a man have the right to be included in the decision to abort his child? It's a definite yes, given the parameters listed above.

Learn more about this author, Rand E Oertle.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.