Elective Abandonment: A Male Counterpart to Abortion

Abstract

Two of the most influential arguments in favour of the permissibility of abortion were put forward in the latter half of the twentieth century by Judith Jarvis Thomson and Mary Anne Warren. The implications of these arguments for unwilling putative fathers have largely not been considered. Some have argued that Thomson's defence of abortion might allow a man under certain circumstances to terminate his parental responsibilities and rights. To my knowledge, nobody has considered the implications of Warren's argument for men. I will consider the implications of both arguments for men. I will argue that if they are successful defences of abortion then they are also successful in justifying a male counterpart to abortion which I label 'elective abandonment'. I will not be defending or attacking these arguments as defences of abortion, but will defend the claim that they apply as well to elective abandonment as they do to abortion.

Artificial Wombs, Thomson and Abortion – What Might Change?

“…Presumably the care of these children would be done through a mixture of adoptive parenting, foster homes and care homes, but, needless to say, the fi nancial cost to society would be large. This fi nancial problem would be 36 Brake (2005); McCulley (1998); Playford (2018); Sheldon (2003). 37 We say 'in principle' because men (who in the UK represent 93% of parents paying child support) do often avoid paying it.…”

“…39 Playford (2018). 40 See Brake (2005), Playford (2018) and Sheldon (2003) for a direct application of Thomson's argument to men, and also McCulley (1998) and Cohen (2008) for a legal discussion of this issue. 41 There are, of course, motherhood specifi c defences of abortion.…”