After last post’s focus on an ethical issue surrounding end-of-life care, this post we are examining the opposite end of an individual’s life. As one navigates the murky waters surrounding the topic of abortion, matters are further complicated when one considers the role of the father. Module 7 of Queen’s University’s Health Ethics, Law and Policy course provided excellent context in the form of the legal case between Jean Guy Tremblay and Chantal Daigle and a philosophical analysis by Philosophy Tube’s Olly.
Although Jean Guy Tremblay argued “yes” in the previously linked court case, I would disagree. From an ethical standpoint, this seems like the easier of the two questions to tackle. According to the Criminal Code of Canada, “a child becomes a human being within the meaning of this Act when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother” (Government of Canada, 2021). Legal jargon aside, this means that a fetus is not considered a human being until after its birth. This simplifies the ethical issue as the only remaining individuals to consider are the father and the mother.
As discussed throughout the course and my previous blog post, Advance Directives, individuals who have demonstrated capacity have the right to make informed decisions about their own medical care (Ubel et al., 2018). As an abortion is a medical procedure that affects the health of the mother and not the father, the father should NOT have the right to prevent or compel a woman to undergo this treatment.
This question tends to spark a lot more debate than the first one. Before I present my stance on the issue, let me explain the compelling evidence for both sides. In 1996, Stephen Hales wrote an article titled “Abortion and Fathers’ Rights.” Here, he suggested that an expecting father should be able to relinquish all moral and financial responsibility through a written, legal process that would occur before birth (Hales, 1996). He justifies this stance by suggesting that men and women should have equal moral rights and duties and that because women have the opportunity to undergo an abortion, men should too.
More recently, Christine Overall released “Why Have Children?: The Ethical Debate.” She counters Hales’s argument by reminding the reader that an allowance of a financial abortion from the father would ultimately result in the child paying the penalty (Overall, 2012). Her conclusion is as far from Hales’s as realistically possible by suggesting that the father should always be liable, regardless of the circumstances. Olly, from the previously linked video on Philosophy Tube, ultimately agrees with her. He brings to light the irony that men could shed the “burden” of paying child support by fighting harder for women’s rights.
Like most ethical situations, this ethical dilemma exists on a spectrum. Although I am much closer to Overall’s view than Hales’s, I fall somewhere between the two. For starters, I agree with Overall that the individual who stands to suffer the most is the unborn child. Although progress is being made with each passing year, we are not yet at the point where women see all the same luxuries as men in terms of wealth and occupation. With that in mind, there are two main differences between my view and what Overall suggested in their book.
Firstly, I think the context of how the child was conceived matters. If any form of deception or dishonesty exists surrounding the circumstances under which the child was conceived, the father should be offered the ability to “opt out.” An example of this would be if a female lied about using contraception before engaging in sexual intercourse with a male. In this example, only the female would be privy to the true risks associated and therefore the father shouldn’t be held accountable for his actions.
Additionally, I think the financial situation of both the mother and father should be taken into consideration. While my limited understanding of economics prevents me from pinpointing an exact number, I think this is something that must be looked at. Consider the hypothetical example of an extremely wealthy businesswoman who becomes pregnant with the child of a construction worker struggling to make ends meet. If she chooses to raise the child independent of the father, is the limited amount of money he can contribute absolutely necessary to ensuring the child has a good upbringing?
In conclusion, I believe that prospective fathers do not have the right to prevent or compel a woman to have an abortion and, barring the sliver of the cases that meet the previously listed criteria, better be ready to deal with the consequences of their actions.
What do you think?
– Michael
Disclaimer: I am a male who doesn’t have children at present but would like to one day. I’m in a stable monogamous relationship and would contribute the necessary time and money to raise my child should the unexpected happen. I believe it is important for the reader to understand my paradigm to understand any biases included in my blog.
References
Government of Canada. (2021, February 24). Consolidated federal laws of canada, Criminal Code. Justice Laws Website. https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/?wbdisable=true
Hales, S. D. (1996). Abortion and Fathers’ Rights. In J. M. Humber & R. F. Almeder (Eds.), Reproduction, Technology, and Rights (pp. 5–26). Humana Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-59259-450-4_1
Overall, C. (2012). Why Have Children?: The Ethical Debate. The MIT Press.
Ubel, P. A., Scherr, K. A., & Fagerlin, A. (2018). Autonomy: What’s Shared Decision Making Have to Do With It? The American Journal of Bioethics : AJOB, 18(2), W11–W12. https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2017.1409844