I thought it would be interesting to pose this question because it doesn’t presuppose the supremacy of either side of the abortion issue. Instead it is a question that might show contrast between different viewpoints on the same side of the issue.
In order to explore this issue, I am going to pose a hypothetical.
Lets take a situation where a woman purposely pokes holes in her lovers condom with the hopes of getting pregnant. In this case lets say she does get pregnant and has effectively made a decision that is completely contrary to her lover’s wishes. He might have strong reservations about population control, he might not be ready for the temporal and financial responsibility of raising a child, or many of the other reasons that a person might have not to carry a pregnancy to term.
Shouldn’t he have a right to decide not to have a child?
For many of us, this issue is about autonomy. The right of a person to not have their body violated by state or citizen is fundamental. But with rights go responsibility and visa versa. A man is held to a level of responsibility for providing for his offspring, and he should have rights that are at least commensurate with that.
If you believe abortion isn’t murder, and that there is no crime in the removal of a healthy fetus from it’s mother’s womb, then I think you should be open to the possibility that in the hypothetical laid out above, a forced abortion would be nothing more than the retrieval of stolen property. The traumatic invasion of the woman for the 10 minute procedure would be balanced against a lifelong traumatic impact that the father didn’t want.
Hopefully you’re getting the point, which is that the stronger our case against abortion=crime/murder, the stronger the case for the rights of the father.
I appreciate your comments.