HECTOR HERNANDEZ | staff writer

A man in Michigan evokes Roe v. Wade to get out of paying child support, asking what is encompassed in parental responsibility.

A man in Lansing, Mich. sued for the protection of his male reproductive rights after his ex-girlfriend - who had told him she medically could not get pregnant - had a child and the courts required him to pay child support.

He felt if a woman has the choice of aborting her child or giving it up for adoption as a method for avoiding responsibility, the man should have the choice to decline the responsibilities of an unplanned birth. He wanted an abortion but could not get one; and now he feels he should be free from the burden of child support.

That is where this issue lies—at the parents’ attempts to avoid responsibility.

Looking at the processes and protections provided for the abortion rights, one can observe the vast contrasts in the treatment of mothers and fathers with unwanted pregnancies.

Mothers have many choices and the great power of life or death, while the father has the choice of either providing support for the mother’s decision or being a fugitive from the law. Even though the child is also his, the father has no say in the decision to abort.

Male reproductive rights, as sought in the lawsuit, would give men the choice to side-step the financial responsibilities of having a child in place of having the choice to abort.

It is believed that adding this kind of provision would bring equality among the mothers and fathers with unwanted pregnancies.

When considering male reproductive rights, one must consider the possibility of an opposite situation, which is a reality in the world we live in.

In this opposite situation, the mother wants an abortion while the father wants his child. As the law currently stands, the father has no say, no rights, allowing the mother to have her abortion and leaving the father to grieve. In this case, the father just wants the right to be a father.

If the proposed lawsuit were somehow successful, it might lead to some provision for the fathers to protect their unborn children. It could lead to a requirement of the consent of both parents for an abortion.

It would also provide a convenient way out for fathers who do not want to support their children, something that has been a continual concern. It also happened to be the main motivator for the lawsuit.

When given this choice, the courts decided to protect the most immediate sufferers of the situation - those children who are born. And in my opinion, this is a good place for them to stand.

Paternal neglect is already a problem with unplanned pregnancies. How much more of a problem would it be if it a man could simply choose not to be a father?

The safety and protection of the unborn seems too difficult to maintain in our society, so we must do what we can for those that are born. This means rejecting any idea of a man’s freedom to escape responsibility.

As a society, we need to ensure the support of women who decide to take on the responsibility of having and raising a child, especially single mothers. It is ridiculous and completely unreasonable to expect mothers to shoulder all accountability, and if they feel unable or unwilling to do it alone, pressure them into abortion.

We especially need to back those brave enough who make that decision, believing they will have little or no help. Laws requiring and seeking out support from fathers must be kept to ensure these mothers and their children are provided for.

The main focus should be on the fact that if this law had been passed, it would allow fathers to pressure expectant mothers into abortions. If they know the father can leave and not share responsibility they might fear raising the child on their own and bail out. This fear could possibly lead to an unneccessary increase in abortions.

Even if a law was passed requiring the consent of both parents, the woman might give in to the pressures of the man if he is not required to support her if she goes against his wishes.

If this lawsuit were successful in making the changes it seeks to make, it would give the negligent fathers great powers of manipulation over the mothers. These powers might deprive children of healthy living conditions.

The right to abortions comes with many sticky entanglements and must be carefully restrained within the boundaries of the law. This recent attempt to expand those boundaries called for the equality of fathers and mothers, but has many hidden negative implications. It asks for greater room in which to act irresponsibly.

Mothers and fathers alike need to step up to responsibly and quit this search for ways to be rescued out it.

This “Roe v. Wade for Men” is part of men’s crusade to escape responsibility. For the father, it becomes a matter of giving to, or refusing him, the rights he should have as well as the rights he should not have. This has just given us another exposure to the legal and moral mess of abortion.