No

by Brenda Nelson

Created on: April 04, 2009   Last Updated: April 19, 2009

Unless the father is one hundred percent willing to take on the whole role of parenting a child, he should have no say in the woman's choice to have an abortion. Even then, he should only be able to "offer" himself up as an option, but should not have any legal means of stopping a woman from having an abortion, even if it is his "child".

Sadly, many unwanted pregnancies are the result of unplanned sexual activity. The woman is left with a burden she does not want, and may not be able to care for financially or emotionally. While this in no way excuses the fact that she had some role in getting pregant to begin with, it cannot be helped that she still has to deal with the result. The fact remains that she faces the difficult choice to have an abortion. Why should she have to consult "the father"? Why should she require his permission?

The baby will grow inside the woman, not every woman feels the "joy" of pregnancy, for some it is pure misery and the "miracle" of childbirth is nothing short of painful torture, why should the man be allowed to force a woman to endure this? The father does not have to endure morning sickness, or any of the other problems most women experience. He will never be kept awake because of pains or restless legs and cramps. His life will not be put in danger as the result of the pregnancy.

The truth is that most women do not abort because of morning sickness. In these situations, they abort because they simply do not want a baby, and are not willing to endure nine months of carrying a child they do not want. Some are repulsed at the thought of a baby growing inside them, or do not want to be saddled with the burden of a child, but equally do not feel that adoption is an option. This is not about a womans right to abortion, it is about the males right to prevent her from having such.

Why should the father have any say in the matter? It is not his body. He got her pregnant, but except in a few cases, this was not the goal. Even for the woman, pregnancy was not her goal, so abortion certainly isn't either, but it is her choice.

Should a woman have the right to control what a man does to his body? Should a woman legally be allowed to dictate if a man should get a tattoo or shave his head? Of course not, so why should a man be legally allowed to dictate what a woman does to her body? Yes, the baby (or fetus) does have an effect on her body, and even her mind.

The woman might suffer long term effects if she has to take time off work. Although there are legal provisions against it, some employers do discriminate against pregnant women, and at some point during the pregnancy work may become unbearable.

Suppose the "father" were allowed to dictate the woman into keeping the pregnancy, then what? Will he be able to dictate for her to keep it? What if she does keep it, but cannot afford to support herself and the child, and he isn't a good provider? What if he has control of the child, will he have the right to demand child support from her? What if he forces her to continue the pregnancy, but she abuses her body with drugs and alcohol resulting in a problem to the baby? What if the pregnancy was the result of a date rape?

Suppose the roles were reversed, could a man force a woman to get an abortion when she did not want one? If we are to allow him to prevent her from having an abortion, it is only a matter of time before somebody tested the law to the opposite extreme.

There are too many questions, as well as legal and moral implications, to even consider allowing fathers to control a woman's right to the abortions. Obviously the best thing would be if these unwanted pregnancies did not occur in the first place. Unfortunately, we do not live in that world yet. For now what happens to the womans body, should be her decision, with the advice of her doctor, and nobody else.

Learn more about this author, Brenda Nelson.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.