Unlike most topics of abortion, this paper is not about whether a woman has the legal right to end a pregnancy with an abortion, but whether or not it is ethically justifiable to ruin a father’s relationship with his unborn child (Father’s rights, N.D., par. 1). Different circumstances call for different measures to be taken, but when a father wants his child, the outcome should be obvious.
Because of the infamous court case Roe v. Wade, women everywhere have the right to terminate a pregnancy, with or without the father’s consent. A father legally does not even need to be informed of an abortion taking place. The writer is not arguing that all abortions are wrong, or that all sperm donors would be good fathers, but for those men who make an attempt to care for their unborn child, they should have the option of having their child.
Suppose a young couple is in their second year of college. The couple accidentally gets pregnant, and both the mother and father consider an abortion. In this case, there is no reason for the abortion to be objected. Now imagine the same couple getting pregnant. But this time, the father does not want an abortion, and the mother does. Even though he has created half of the fetus being carried by the girlfriend, his rights and the fetus’s right to live are not enforced by law.
When abortion is brought up, the arguments are usually in defense of the pregnant woman. Arguments range from the mother not being financially or emotionally stable, to not being physically healthy to carry out a pregnancy. Some women just do not want to have children. Specifically, the arguments presented here reflect women’s need to have equality with men. First, women have the right of privacy to their own bodies, provided by Roe v. Wade. Second, women have a bigger lifestyle change once they become pregnant. Third, and most importantly, women feel that gender equality is hindered once a woman becomes pregnant.
Before Roe v. Wade, an abortion was only legal when a woman’s life was in jeopardy. Norma McCorvey, named in the court case Jane Roe, falsely stated that she had been raped, and wanted to have an abortion. But because her life was not at risk, the abortion was not performed, and she went to court over the debate. The United States Supreme Court ruled that abortion could not be limited based on the previous guidelines of a woman’s health (USCCB, 2005, par. 1).
Today, women use this case to make abortion acceptable for many different reasons. Because the Constitution does not clearly define a person as also being a fetus living inside a woman’s body, the Supreme Court said that a fetus is only a “potential life” (USCCB, 2005, par. 2). The fetus is being carried in a woman’s body, and the woman has the right to do what she wishes with her body (Kolbert, 1992, par. 1).
Even though women have the Roe v. Wade court case and the subsequent right to their bodies, where does a father’s rights come in? A child is not...