Jim and Sue had been planning to have a child for two years. Finally, she became pregnant. However, their marriage had been a rough one, and by the time she was in her third month of pregnancy they had decided to divorce. At that point, both parents were ambivalent about the pregnancy. They had both wanted the child, but now things were different. Sue finally decided that she did not want to raise a child alone and did not want to raise Jim’s child. She wanted to get on with her life. However, Jim had long wanted a child, and he realized that the developing fetus was part of his own because he had provided half of its genetic makeup. He didn’t want Sue to end the pregnancy. He wanted to keep and raise the child.
Do you think that Jim had any moral rights in this case, or should the decision be strictly Sue’s? Why or why not?
In my view, Jim has moral rights in this case and he should be consulted before Sue decides to end her pregnancy. As he is the biological father, he should have the right to have a fair say in the birth of the child, only if he is willing to assume complete responsibility for the child's upbringing, as Sue is not interested in raising his child. If we were to flip the situation around where Sue wanted the baby but Jim did not, he would probably have to abide by her decision and may even end up paying child support. In this situation as well, Jim should have the choice to decide whether or not to abort the child.
Get Answers For Free
Most questions answered within 1 hours.