There is certainly legal precedent for relinquishing the responsibilities of the genetic father. For example, in Florida (and many other states):
Quote:
TITLE 43. DOMESTIC RELATIONS (Chs. 741-753)
CHAPTER 742. DETERMINATION OF PARENTAGE
Fla. Stat. § 742.14 (2005)
§ 742.14. Donation of eggs, sperm, or preembryos
The donor of any egg, sperm, or preembryo, other than the commissioning couple or a father who has executed a preplanned adoption agreement under s. 63.212, shall relinquish all maternal or paternal rights and obligations with respect to the donation or the resulting children. Only reasonable compensation directly related to the donation of eggs, sperm, and preembryos shall be permitted.
|
As far as "abortion" is concerned, in the U.S. the legal question is: How broad is the right to privacy? Roe v. Wade itself extended that right to include "distress" resulting from unwanted parenthood in general. Since both fathers and mothers can experience such "distress" then according to Roe v. Wade both sexes are similarly situated in regard to this privacy construal. Hence it could be argued that the equal protection clause applies here. The only difference in applying it to men would be to broaden the concept of "abortion" to include not physical abortion, but relinquishment of parental rights/responsibilities.
Here's the pertinent section of Roe v. Wade opinion:
Quote:
Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by child care. There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it. In other cases, as in this one, the additional difficulties and continuing stigma of unwed motherhood may be involved. All these are factors the woman and her responsible physician necessarily will consider in consultation.
http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Roe/#rop
|
Reverse the gendered language in this Supreme Court opinion, and it is equally true.
Certainly there is a double standard here, I don't see how that can be disputed. Planned Parenthood lists nine reasons why abortion is legal. Here's a summary of their reasons. Again, reverse the gender terms in this quote, and it is equally true:
Quote:
At the most basic level, the abortion issue is not really about abortion. It is about the value of women in society. Should women make their own decisions about family, career, and how to live their lives? Or should government do that for them? Do women have the option of deciding when or whether to have children? Or is that a government decision?
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2...tion-legal.xml
|
I'm not arguing that there should be any law requiring women to have abortions at any time. That would be absurd. However I do believe that if men's role and contribution as a parent are to be fully respected, then the potential mother needs to take the father's opinion /feelings /beliefs /desires about parenthood absolutely as seriously as she takes her own.