It takes two to tango, so if a couple finds out they’re unexpectedly expecting, it’s only right if the father pitches in to support the child. But what if the couple had an explicit agreement in place that they’d do everything in their power to prevent pregnancy, and barring that, would terminate a pregnancy – and then the mom changes her mind?
Those are the thorny details revealed in this month’s ELLE. The reluctant father in question, Greg Bruell, didn’t want to force his girlfriend, Sandra Hedrick, to abort the pregnancy, but he didn’t want to be financially responsible for a child he made clear even before conception that he didn’t want. From the piece:
“It seems dicey for women to argue that our distinct biology gives us special rights, considering our long history of being discriminated against based on that same biology. And I wonder about the practical costs of excluding men. The assertion that women have unquestioned dominion over reproductive decisions seems to help cement the notion that fathers are minor players in the life of a family. Yet women are crying out for men to assume a larger share of the burdens (and joys, hopefully) of parenthood.”
Read the piece – there are some interesting twists – and tell us what you think. Should men have to be fathers against their will, or does the possibility of fatherhood go hand in hand with sex?