First I’ll go over why this idea is a logical incongruity, then I’ll go over why it wouldn’t work in “real life.”
In the past I used to be in favor of this concept, believing it was only fair. Women get the option to opt out after a pregnancy is discovered, so men should too: it’s only fair. This is a fallacy, however, because in this regard biology is, itself, unfair. The woman carries the child; she is the one whose body is directly affected whether the fetus is kept or not. Therefore, given that both choices directly affect her health and body, she should be the one to make the decision. If men carried children, the decision would fall to them. In the future, when out-of-body uteri are available (and I think they will be, although probably not in my lifetime), men and women ought to have equal say in whether the fetus is carried to term. But currently, because her body is the one that will be affected, it is ultimately her choice.
Men and women know that biology is unequal in this way. So, when having sex, both genders must be prepared for the consequences: women must be prepared to either have a child or have an abortion, and men must be prepared to have a child.* This is an ideal, of course, not a reality. Nonetheless, I see arguments that state “consent to sex is not consent to a child,” but considering the ever-present consequences of sex, it is, at least for the men involved, who do not have the choice of removing a fetus from their body. Like most feminists, I see pregnancy as primarily an issue of bodily autonomy: the subsequent life of a child is, however, a parenting issue. Now that the couple’s child is out of the woman’s body, it is completely a joint affair.
There is also this issue: if a woman has an abortion, she is abandoning a potential child; if a man has an “abortion,” he is abandoning an actual, living child. This is another biological incongruity, and until scientific strides are made, it will be this way. Men don’t have an option to abandon a potential child because they do not carry a potential child inside them. It is the child that suffers if men have the option to financially abort. Children should not be punished for their parents’ “mistakes”; they are innocent parties. Ideally this means that the child has both parents in his or her life, but at minimum it should mean it gets support from both parents (those who were responsible for his or her birth.)
Onto the real-world effects of this idea. First, it assumes that abortion is a great privilege, a choice that men ought to have. An abortion is not a nice thing. When I become sexually active I plan on using at least two forms of birth control, even though the pill by itself is over 99% effective-I am not the only one who thinks this way, and that ought to show something about how much an abortion is unwanted. The surgical, invasive procedure can be embarrassing and painful, physically and psychologically. The less invasive medical abortion causes incredibly painful cramps for hours upon hours. Abortions are not pleasant, nor are they accepted: a huge stigma against abortion exists in our society, making the argument of “women having choices that men don’t” more difficult, since for many, that “choice” is clouded with guilt and shame. Additionally, they are expensive, and often not covered by insurance. There are constantly bills circulating in congress regarding the limitation of access to abortion.
Let’s touch, again, on the psychological issue of having an abortion. Let’s say a woman is not prepared for a baby, uses protection, and knows the man does not want to be a father, but winds up pregnant anyway. She knows the “right” thing to do is to have an abortion (even though if people get wind of it they will likely call her a “baby killer”), and planned ahead of time to, if she had an unplanned pregnancy, get an abortion. But now that she is pregnant and thinks that there is something living inside her, she has a change of heart and cannot bear to go through with it. This happens often. In this instance, there is no unfair “choice” at all, not really. Sometimes, though it is frustrating, emotions can cloud logic-and they often do in such matters. Because she cannot bear to do what she views as a great wrong, the man should be off the hook? No. It’s not as though the average woman, who knows her partner does not want to be a father, gives birth anyway, to spite him: likely it’s because she couldn’t bear or didn’t want to go through such a procedure.
Many men, also, do not pay child support (sometimes it’s the woman who doesn’t, but since it’s mostly men, I am generalizing) even though it is legally required. When they are not required to pay child support, even fewer will. This will lead to more children living in poverty (for although it should be the case that women only give birth when they can support a child, it is not the case.) Again, it is the children who suffer. Both parents should be responsible for what they helped create, but since this will not be the case, someone is going to have to-and that someone will be the taxpayer. Taxpayers already help a good number of children in poverty through contributions to various welfare programs; if LPS is implemented, that number will be even greater. That is not economically viable.
There are so many things that should be focused on before legal paternal surrender is discussed. Birth control should be more accessible to women; abortions should be more accessible and less stigmatized; the child support system should be fixed, and for that matter, the family law/custody system should be fixed; there should be more birth control options for men; 1 in 5 children should not be in poverty. Once all these things are taken care of, then legal paternal surrender could work successfully in real life. Right now there’s no way it could, so people should focus on things that can happen instead.
Tl, dr:
-There’s no male equivalent to abortion because men don’t get pregnant. It’s biology that’s screwing people over, not laws.
-If LPS were to be implemented now, when abortions are not always easily accessible, when 1 in 5 children live in poverty, when it would likely increase taxpayer burden greatly, it would be harmful. Instead people should focus on things that can happen in the near future, like making birth control more easily accessible, and making more options accessible to men.
*That’s not to say that men should bury their emotions when it comes to their partner’s decision. Ideally it should be made as a couple, but legally speaking, it should be up to the person whose body it effects.
The Arbitrary Musings of a Sophomore 