Women's lives look markedly different when they are able to decide if and when they become parents, writes Catherine Deveny. Why should men not be given the same opportunity?

Picture this. A couple has been dating for a few months — having a great time drinking, talking, shagging and wandering through each other's worlds.

They may have even discussed children, and one or both has made it clear they don't want any. The couple's use of contraception has also made implicit their desire to not become pregnant.

But in the spirit of "Q: How do you make God laugh? A. Tell her your plans", suddenly, this hypothetical couple is dealing with an unexpected pregnancy.

After the initial shock, she has decided she wants to keep the child. He, meanwhile, has no interest in becoming a father. Now what?

I have recently come to the conclusion that, as a feminist, I support men being able to opt out of fatherhood early in a pregnancy via what is known as a financial abortion.

I believe a woman should not be forced to become a mother any more than a man should be forced to become a father. If a man has not said, "I want to have a child with you now-ish", it is fair to assume he doesn't, and therefore should be able to legally withdraw from becoming a parent.

It would also be less traumatic for children, and more empowering for women.

What is a financial abortion?

A financial abortion (also known as a paper abortion or a statutory abort) would essentially enable men to cut all financial and emotional ties with a child in the early stages of pregnancy.

This means he would opt out of all rights, privileges and responsibilities of parenthood in a binding and not reversible decision, similar to sperm donors. But sperm donors' actions are only motivated by the possibility of creating a child without becoming a parent. No slap and tickle.

The idea of financial abortion first emerged in 1998, when Frances K Goldscheider, a sociology professor at Brown University, proposed that men should be given the opportunity to decide whether or not to accept the rights and responsibilities of fatherhood.

A decade later, the concept was tested in the high profile US case of Dubay V Wells, in which a man, Dubay, challenged his obligation to pay child support to his ex-girlfriend, Wells, who found out she was pregnant after they had broken up.

The presiding judge ruled against Dubay, saying, "If chivalry is not dead, its viability is gravely imperilled by the plaintiff in this case". However, the case ignited an important public debate.

As Mel Feit, director of the National Centre for Men in the US, said at the time:

"Women now have control of their lives after an unplanned conception but men are routinely forced to give up control, forced to be financially responsible for choices only women are permitted to make, forced to relinquish reproductive choice."

And yet there are currently no laws anywhere in the world that enshrine a man's right to opt out of parenthood.

In Australia, the biological father of a child is legally required to pay child support; he also has legal rights alongside social expectations.

A right-wing Swedish group recently campaigned, unsuccessfully, to allow men to "legally abort" an unborn child until the 18th week of pregnancy — and it's likely the issue will receive a lot more attention in the near future.

The 'litmus test' for financial abortion

Of course, there are lots of details to pin down: how far into the pregnancy should men be able to opt out of parenthood? How would they go about proving it was clear they didn't want to have a child? Could the child access information about their biological father, and if so, when?

(There are many ways technology could assist in proving, before conception, that a man has no desire to become a father. Technology allows us to sign an online petition, enrol to vote or register to be an organ donor — surely it could just as easily allow men to list themselves on a "no kids yet" register?)

A topic like this also raises anecdotes about women "lying" about their contraception in order to "trap" men into having babies, and of men who agree to having children then abandoning them. But these "what ifs" muddy the discussion.

In order to fully engage with the concept, let's assume abortion is safe, affordable and accessible, and the intention of the couple not to get pregnant is mutually understood.

Then, the litmus test is simple: Is it fair for people to be forced to become parents against their wishes? If it's not fair for a woman to be forced to bear a child or have an abortion, it follows it's not fair for a man to be forced to become a parent.

Less traumatic for children, more empowering for women

Some will argue men frequently "opt out" of parenting anyway; women are then left "holding the baby" and so what difference would financial abortion make?

But if there was an opportunity for men to opt out — blame free — of fatherhood earlier, there may be fewer cases of men abandoning their children later in life. Surely it would be less traumatic and disruptive for the child if its father opts out early in a pregnancy than if he abandons it (and its mother) after it is born?

Opting out of fatherhood sooner makes it clear it's not the particular child he's rejecting, but fatherhood itself.

The transparency of financial abortion would also empower women, as they'd be fully aware of the responsibility they'd be taking on.

A woman who chooses to continue a pregnancy from which a man has opted out would do so under no illusions, and be answerable to no one.

It should also be noted that two parents do not guarantee a safe, loving environment for a child, particularly if one or both are unwilling. Plenty of kids with two parents are raised in poverty; plenty of kids with one parent are raised comfortably. Plenty of poor kids are raised in happy families, while plenty of "well off" kids are raised by parents who don't love or care for them.

'You take the risk, you pay the price'

When I linked to Zoe Lawton's article on this subject on my Facebook page recently, some of the arguments made against financial abortion by those responding revealed some alarmingly archaic views.

One of the more common cases against it is the notion that, by having sex, you are taking a risk and therefore must "pay the price" if you get pregnant.

But haven't we moved past the thinking that people should be punished simply for engaging in pleasure? Do we really want our children to be conceived by force?

I believe every baby should be wanted, and every parent should be willing.

When we consent to having sex, we do not automatically consent to becoming a parent. If, when a cis male and cis female have vaginal sex, their contraception fails, it doesn't mean both people have to become parents. The options are abortion, adoption, parenting together or sole parenting.

Aren't men obligated to provide for women?

Another problematic argument levelled against financial abortion is that a woman's decision to have a child should never be questioned.

There is an unspoken assumption that a woman has no responsibility to consider the practicality or financial viability of having a child because it's "the man's job" to provide for his family. But this kind of thinking is founded in oppressive heteronormative values and belongs in the 1950s.

The word "responsible" comes up whenever fatherhood does — the idea that men should "step up" and "do the right thing" and support their own flesh and blood. But surely the best thing for men to do is be honest up front if they don't wholeheartedly want to become a father?

Unfortunately, there is still an expectation in society that men should provide for women; indeed, many women and men prefer and expect it.

This default setting is evident in the way men are expected to ask women out on dates, the cliche of men proposing to women, the common practice of women taking their husband's surname, and the fact women do most of the unpaid childcare and domestic labour in the home, while men are expected to earn most of the family's income.

'Abortion damages women'

Also worrying in the debate about financial abortion is the conviction that abortion itself is a scarring and emotionally traumatic procedure for women and parenting a child is always the better alternative.

But that's not necessarily true. Like many Australian women, I have had an abortion. It's one of the safest and most commonly-performed medical procedures in the country.

And although the decision to have one is difficult for some, for many it's not, and the overwhelming emotion after the procedure is relief. What's more, just because abortion may be a hard decision for some, does not mean it shouldn't be made.

Having children is usually, but not always, hard — it's even harder on your own.

Society needs to stop infantilizing women. Women are responsible for their choices and actions and can choose to have an abortion, adopt out or sole parent on their own. A pregnancy is not a "magical blessing" — it's a biological consequence.

If a woman chooses to continue with a pregnancy she should be able to without having to rely on the biological father for financial and or emotional support. If a child is born to a sole parent in this country, they are, along with the mother, a vulnerable Australian citizen who deserves to be supported by our government if need be.

Nothing in life is 'risk-free'

Legislating financial abortion — along with requiring that reproductive choices are made clear on the public record — would likely encourage people to be even more careful with contraception, have frank discussions about parenthood earlier in the piece and, if and when women decide to have a child, they'd have more realistic expectations of what they are in for.

Of course, nothing is risk-free.

There are consequences for everything. But we need to start challenging moralistic ideas about the "blessing of conception" and be more practical about how it actually affects people's lives.

My life is so different to the generations of women before me because I had the opportunity to decide when I became a mother, with who, and how many children to have.

I would like everyone — male or female — to have the same opportunity.