Reproductive Rights for Men

In the great abortion debate, there are many angles and nuances to the arguments pro and con. Many assert right to life as a moral dictate while others demand freedom of choice as a medical imperative. There are religious considerations for life and humanitarian aspects for choice. In fact, if the matter is closely examined, it seems that all of the intangibles actually point in favor of life. The majority of religious beliefs point to the sanctity of life, and nearly all belief systems mandate a sanction against murder defined as the killing of the innocent. What could be more innocent than a burgeoning life in the womb of a mother? Even the great humanist philosophies, divorced from religion as most are, emphasize the sacrosanct nature of human life. All of these systems of thought, directly or not, rely upon the idea of humanity being the top physical lifeform on this planet, if not in the universe. All of these arguments, one way or another, make humanity the apex predator, evolution's end or most advanced product, or God's special, highest creation and mean that human life is special and sacred, regardless of philosophical bend.

There exists a necessary tension, developed as a resultant component of Enlightenment thought, with the still largely Western Legalist belief in individual liberty. In Occidental culture, as opposed to Oriental, the individual is the unit of primacy in legal and philosophical thought. Individual liberties, haphazardly in application, yes, are more important than group needs. This has been the crux of intellectual thought on governance since the close of the 17th Century. These arguments for liberty have, in the past century, made serious progress into the still largely group-centered cultures of the East. The idea of individual liberty has progressed only recently to support of the concept of abortion as a component of individual choice. Most of that thought component has come of the progrress of the women's suffrage movements in the West.

Before anyone seeks to object that I am over-generalizing or over-simplifying, allow me to qualify. The preceeding paragraphs represent an overview of the development of Western thought without consideration to practice. As in all things human, the ideals and reality never perfectly match. Even in ostensibly devout Christian Western societies, there are incidents of procreative choice, though they normally occurred post-partum in the form of abandonment or "pillowing". Sources differ on how frequent Westerners practiced infanticide, but given the general social stigma that would be associated with European Christian society from the 11th Century until the 19th, it can be understood that incidents would be relatively rare and occasioned by circumstances in extremis. Most accounts that I have found of infanticide in the West center around times of starvation, plague and war.

Additionally, despite Buddhist proscriptions against killing, Buddhism's spread into popularity in the Orient was relatively late, coming around the 15th Century into China. By the time that the teachings of Suharta Gautama reached the majority of Oriental people, a long tradition of pragmatism in regards to infant mortality had been established. The Oriental focus on the individual's subservience to the group made everyone expendable, especially undesired children. Gender selection, as much as resource scarcity, played a much larger role in Oriental infanticide than in Occidental. Buddhism's tenets of all things being meant permitted the continuation of the practice, as all actions can be seen as a part of the "balance" of the universe and "evil", such as infanticide, was an unfortunate but very necessary part of the equation. Furthermore, Oriental cultures tended to view infants as not human until they had proven their viability by survivng until what Occidentals call their first birthday. A fetus or child lost before the first birthday was usually treated about the same as a miscarriage.

So, in the end, most Western religious and philosophical thought tends toward the pro-life lobby of the abortion debate. Historically speaking, abortion as common and accepted practice is new and divergent. The growing acceptance of abortion as a means of birth control is a product of social change, emphasizing the rights of the individual, and increasingly, the female individual, in an increasingly secular and materialistic society. In the worst light, the acceptance of abortion can be seen as an extension of Western society's growing acceptance of selfishness.

One can argue that for women, abortion is their response to the irresponsibility of men towards children and the mothers of those children, particularly men of past generations. But it is ethically anathema to visit the sins of the fathers upon their sons, as this line of thought would have it. In modern Western society, also, it has become criminal to embrace the old standby option of familial fiscal and physical abandonment by men. Also, men were not the only ones guilty of such offenses in the past, and this must be remembered. One can argue also that conception and gestation happen solely in the body of the woman, and therein lies her right to determination. This is specious, as in most cases of "broken" families, the man's work efforts to assist in support come solely from his body, and not for a matter of months, but for years and with an equally uncertain outcome. Reproductive and parental responsibility fall upon two willingly participating people equally. And therein, as they say, lies the rub.

In most of Western society today, the US specifically, although parental fiscal responsibility falls equally upon the participants of the procreative act, the rights of men fall well short of those for women. The principle of equality under the law is well established in the US, though not always practiced, but it is not generally recognized in the areas of reproduction and parenting. Some states, Illinois for one, have recently made progress in this area, but most have not.
As things currently stand, reproductive and parental rights accrue, most generally, to women, while responsibility and liability accrue to men. Where equality under the law is a guiding principle, for one party to have greater leeway in choices that determine the future of another in a mutually consented "transaction" is an ethically and morally bankrupt condition. In contraception, men currently have three effective choices: abstinence, barrier, and surgical. Women have at least five: add pharmaceutical and abortion. There is progress in work on a pill for men, but that still leaves women with an additional choice, a choice which they are allowed without consideration for their male partner(s). And that choice has lifelong consequences for the man. Additionally, post-partum, women have yet another choice in which men have little say. It is generally impossible for a man to secure custody over children short of proving the woman unfit. The criteria for unfit parenthood, for women, are extremely difficult to prove.

So, women, in the matters of reproduction and parental rights possess, within the US legal system, an unfair advantage over men, giving men the onus of responsibility without the benefit of choice over rights. So long as child support, a mostly male responsibility, is enforced by law, then it is unethical and unequal to permit abortion, a solely female right. In these matters, men have been denied equality of protection as the rights of women largely determine the responsibilities of men.

Personally, I believe, as a purely practical measure, that abortion should be a family planning option, but not under the laws as they currently stand. Both parties must have an opt-out option, as in, should a man not desire a child, then he should be able to give money equivalent to the cost of an abortion, stating that as his intent and ending his obligation. This still places the financial onus on the man, but it gives him a right to go along with his responsibility. This is the only way that we can allow abortion and adhere to Western legal principles of equality.