Advertisement

Abortion Decision-making — Taking Men’s Needs Seriously

  • Marie Fox

Abstract

The theme of this volume provocatively seems to signal that it is only the interests of women which are of concern in abortion decision-making. In this chapter I aim to explore whether this is a tenable position for feminists to adopt, given that in other respects feminism is progressing to the point where we acknowledge the need to recognize fully the complexity of abortion decision-making. For instance, feminist theorists have rejected the simplistic contention that the foetus can be dismissed as a clump of cells, and formulated a more sophisticated analysis of its status,1 although this has been achieved only after difficult and sometimes divisive debate. By contrast, there is little comparable debate about the position of men. As Kathleen McDonnell has pointed out: Though feminism has never actually worked out a position on the role of men in abortion, in practice we have designated only one appropriate role for them, that of the ‘supportive man’ … So to a large extent, what we have encouraged in men is a passive, auxiliary role in abortion, allowing them to participate in a way that is helpful, but perhaps not, in some important sense, truly meaningful.2

Keywords

Unborn Child Legal Abortion Child Custody Putative Father Illegal Abortion 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    See for instance B. Steinbock, Life Before Birth, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1992Google Scholar
  2. C. MacKinnon, ‘Reflections on Sex Equality Under Law’, Yale Law Journal, 1281 (1991), 100.Google Scholar
  3. 2.
    K. McDonnell, Not an Easy Choice: A Feminist Re-examines Abortion, Ontario, Women’s Press, 1984, p. 61.Google Scholar
  4. 7.
    In the UK this has been evident in a series of cases where judges have authorized doctors to proceed with Caesarean section deliveries notwithstanding the pregnant woman’s refusal of consent. See B. Hewson, ‘Women’s Rights and Legal Wrongs’, New Law Journal, 146 (1996) 1385Google Scholar
  5. 8.
    L. Clarke, ‘Abortion: A Rights Issue?’, in R. Lee and D. Morgan (eds), Birthrights: Law and Ethics at the Beginnings of Life, London, Routledge, 1989, pp. 155–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 9.
    On both sides of the Atlantic, academics have argued that husbands or putative fathers have viable legal arguments to prevent their partner aborting. See P. O’Neill and I. Watson, ‘The Father and the Unborn Child’, Modern Law Review, 38 (1975), 174–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. W. Teo, ‘Abortion: The Husband’s Constitutional Rights’, Ethics, 85 (1975), 337–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 10.
    See E. Fegan, ‘Fathers, Fetuses and Abortion Decision-making: The Reproduction of Maternal Ideology in Canadian Judicial Discourse’, Social and Legal Studies, 5 (1996), 75–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 11.
    For the role of the various interest groups which influenced the 1967 law see T. Newburn, Permission and Regulation: Law and Morals in Post-War Britain, London, Routledge, 1994, pp. 136–57.Google Scholar
  10. 12.
    J. Raymond, Women as Wombs, San Francisco, HarperCollins, 1993.Google Scholar
  11. 13.
    A. Neustatter (with G. Newson), Mixed Feelings: The Experiences of Abortion, London, Pluto Press, 1986.Google Scholar
  12. 14.
    G. Gilder, Men and Marriage, Louisiana, Pelican Gretna, 1986, pp. 106–7.Google Scholar
  13. S. Faludi, Backlash: The Undeclared War Against Women, London, Chatto & Windus, 1992.Google Scholar
  14. 15.
    The term is John Stoltenberg’s in Refusing to be a Man, Glasgow, Fontana/Collins, 1990. Martha Fineman has pointed out that the dominant theme in the fathers’ rights discourse is a perceived and generalized loss of male privilege rather than an attempt to redefine the notion of father. See M. A. Fineman, The Neutered Mother, the Sexual Family and Other Twentieth Century Tragedies, London and New York, Routledge, and New York, 1995.Google Scholar
  15. S. Crean, In the Name of the Fathers: The Story Behind Child Custody, Toronto, Amanita Enterprises, 1988, pp. 112–13.Google Scholar
  16. 17.
    J. Harris, The Value of Life, London, Routledge, 1988, p. 160.Google Scholar
  17. K. Mason, ‘Abortion and the Law’, in S. McLean (ed.), Legal Ossues in Human Reproduction, Aldershot, Gower, 1989, pp. 49–79, p. 58.Google Scholar
  18. P. Singer (ed.), Applied Ethics, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1986, pp. 37–58.Google Scholar
  19. 22.
    See D. C. Bradley, ‘A Woman’s Right to Choose’, Modern Law Review, 41 (1978), 365, 368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 29.
    See S. Sheldon, ‘The Law of Abortion and the Politics of Medicalization’, in J. Bridgeman and S. Millns (eds), Law and Body Politics: Regulating the Female Body, Aldershot, Dartmouth, 1995, pp. 105–24.Google Scholar
  21. 33.
    Of course these practical concerns are yet another reason for denying the legal claims of putative fathers. See I. Kennedy, ‘Husband Denied a Say in Abortion Decision’, Modern Law Review, 42 (1979), 324, 331; but it would be more reassuring if they were accompanied by a clear endorsement of the legal right of the woman to decide.Google Scholar
  22. 35.
    Van Dijk and G. van Hoof, Theory and Practice of the European Convention on Human Rights (2nd edn), Deventer, The Netherlands, Kluwer, 1990.Google Scholar
  23. 37.
    M. Brazier, Medicine, Patients and the Law, Harmondsworth, Penguin, 1992, p. 309.Google Scholar
  24. 39.
    For the position in North America see M. Walters, ‘Who Decides? The Next Abortion Issue: A Discussion of Fathers’ Rights’, West Virginia law Review, 91 (1989), 165Google Scholar
  25. C. Bell, Case-Note, ‘Planned Parenthood of Pennsylvania et al. v. Robert P. Casey et al.’, Feminist Legal Studies, 1 (1993), 91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 40.
    S. Crean, In the Name of the Fathers: The Story Behind Child Custody, Toronto, Amanita Enterprises, 1988.Google Scholar
  27. 42.
    As Richard Collier notes, the British media coverage of the campaign against the Child Support Act has, almost without exception, presented the grievances of the father as legitimate. See R. Collier, Masculinity, Law and the Family, London, Routledge, 1995, p. 209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. M. McCafferty, ‘Fetal Subjectivity and the Rise of Paternal Rights’, Irish Journal of Feminist Studies, 1 (1996), 7–25.Google Scholar
  29. 47.
    See R. P. Petchesky, ‘Foetal Images: the Power of Visual Culture in the Politics of Reproduction’, in M. Stanworth (ed.), Reproductive Technologies: Gender, Motherhood and Medicine, Cambridge, Polity Press, 1987, pp. 57–80Google Scholar
  30. A. Young, ‘Decapitation or Feticide: The Fetal Laws of the Universal Subject’, in Women: A Cultural Review, 4 (1993) 288–94.Google Scholar
  31. 49.
    See R. Colker, Abortion and Dialogue: Pro-Choice, Pro-Life & American Law, Indiana, Indiana University Press, 1992Google Scholar
  32. 53.
    R. Dworkin, Taking Rights Seriously, London, Duckworth, 1977, p. 199.Google Scholar
  33. 55.
    C. Smart, Feminism and the Power of Law, London, Routledge, 1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 56.
    However, in this regard it is worth noting Laura Purdy’s contention that feminist theorists are sometimes too eager to stress that seemingly opposing interests are in fact reconcilable, and that this may be unhelpful when those interests truly diverge. L. Purdy, Reproducing Persons: Issues in Feminist Bioethics, Ithaca, Cornell University Press, 1996.Google Scholar
  35. 57.
    See R. Petchesky, Abortion and Woman’s Choice, London, Verso, 1986, pp. 384–5.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marie Fox
    • 1
  1. 1.Manchester UniversityUK

Personalised recommendations