The question of reproductive rights for men keeps popping up in the media. Three cases are discussed in
this article in the Boston Globe.
1. A man slept with a woman who claimed she was both infertile and on birth-control. She got pregnant, he is suing to avoid paying child support. (This case has been called "Roe v. Wade for men".)
2. A woman and a man (then husband and wife) went through infertility treatment, resulting in the creation of embryos. He signed agreements granting his wife control of the embryos in the event of a divorce. After the divorce, she wishes to implant, he objects, the court sides with him.
3. A man finds out from an adoption lawyer that he has a son which will be adopted. The man expresses a wish to claim paternity and raise the child. His request is denied as he failed to enter the "putative father registry" within the time limit after the birth of the child, which he did not know about at that time. He is suing to block the adoption.
Thus, the reproductive rights of men end at the boundary of a womans body, which sounds good to me, except: The first case can be paraphrased as: "if a man does not wish to suffer the consequences of his sexual behavior he ought to keep his pants zipped." Which to me is too close for comfort to the similar argument for women: "if they do not wish to suffer the consequences, let them keep their legs crossed" Yet I know several lefty, feminist persons who would argue for the man's responsibility to support his offspring, regardless of the circumstances of its conception. For me, this gender unequal policy is damaging to both sexes, and detrimental to any notion of equality. Perhaps everyone ought sign pre-coital agreements? Wait, second case would seem to indicate the weaknesses of such a ridiculous plan! Even signed agreements can be ignored should the signer suffer a change of heart. And the third case? And the law that allows a woman to put a child up for adoption without informing the father? Yes, there might be very good reasons for her to wish this, but does he not even have the right to prove his fitness as a parent? Especially since she could decide to raise the child herself and demand child support from him. It is a hairy issue, but I feel that progressives have a duty to stir such muddy waters because we support abortion, a womans right to choose, and a womans right not to suffer the burden of motherhood without due financial support from the father. But are there some limits, where the right of the woman begins to encroach on those of the man?
Perhaps not the most important question facing the nation or the world, but I am interested in opinions on this, should you have two spare braincells to rub together.