by Rose Calder

Created on: June 07, 2009

Of the many arguments involved in the ongoing abortion debate, one of the most often-heard is the tricky matter of whether or not the man involved in the unwanted pregnancy deserves to have a say. Those who are for such a thing say is it is because part of his chromosomes are involved in the creation of the fetus, thereby granting him the right to have a legally-supported say; for those who don't support such a measure, they refer back to the right of bodily integrity, which states that only one person has the right to make choices regarding said body, which (in the case of abortion) refers strictly to the woman in question. In this case, I'm going to have to go with the latter. When it comes to an unwanted pregnancy, the only one who gets a legally-supported say in whether an abortion takes place or not is the woman, not the man.

Notice that I said "legally-supported". That is because I do believe that a man in such circumstances has a right to his feelings and opinions on abortion, and that he does have the right to make such things known to his sexual partner. That's only fair, and I also believe couples should have discussions about what they would prefer to do in the advent of an unwanted pregnancy long before sexual intimacy takes place, so that both parties are aware of their stances regarding abortion. It may not make for the best pillow talk, but at least that way both the man and woman involved know where they stand.

But does the man deserve a legally-supported right to say anything? No, I think not. To grant such a right would complicate an already complicated situation further, as well as creating some legal precedents that are enough to make anyone uncomfortable.

By granting a man a legal say in whether or not a woman can get an abortion or not, he is being granted the right to make demands of her bodily resources. This is in direct violation of the precedent set by McFall vs. Shimp, wherein a man was denied the right to force his cousin to donate his bone marrow. Mind you, McFall had cancer and without the bone marrow transplant, his death was imminent. But even so, the courts sided with his cousin against him, stating "...a society which respects the rights of the individual, to sink its teeth into the jugular vein or neck of one of its members and suck from it the sustenance for another member is revolting." In other words, the court recognized that one person cannot be forced to give anything of their body unwillingly for another.

• 1
• 2
• Next Page >>