Most of the discussion around abortion and abortion rights concerns the woman. After all, she’s the one who carries the child. She’s the one whose body will be used by the child to become a person etc..
Along the same lines, we don’t want a world in which a man can legally or otherwise coerce a woman into having an abortion. That seems as wrong as the people who want to change the laws so that women can’t access an abortion if they think they need it.
BUT — and here’s the big one.. how much say should a man have in situations where he may WANT a woman to carry his child to term, but she doesn’t want to? Some Father’s Rights advocates would say that if he’s willing to take full responsibility for a child he fathered, she ought to carry that child to term — especially if he’ll support her during her pregnancy. That makes me a bit uncomfortable — at best, but I can see how, if she decided that would be ok with her — it’s like giving a child up for adoption at birth, only the adoptive parent is the biological father.
How about the other side — when a man doesn’t want to be a father, but the woman wants to carry the child to term? Some people argue that he should be able to relinquish his parental rights and along with them, his parental duties of support. The idea is that if the woman wants to be a mother badly enough to have a child with a man who doesn’t want one, then she ought to be ready to fully support and raise a child on her own.
The trouble with this position is that it leaves the most important person out of the equation, the child — it seems unlikely to me that this kind of scenario really has the child’s best interests as a long-term goal.
I suppose my best advice to both women and men is to be very sure your birth control works — and only have sex with folks you’d like to be parents with…