When it comes to reproduction, men and women really ARE different
| March 17th, 2005Hugo is going to be appearing on Glenn Sacks’ show again, this time to debate “choice for men.” I was rereading my old posts on the subject (if you’re curious, they are here, here, here and here), and I came across this post I wrote in the comments, which I thought was worth “promoting” to its own post.
Question: Is it really accurate to say that both parties have the opportunity to unilaterally prevent reproduction?
Making this statement, I am making some assumptions. First, that “you can chose not to have sex” doesn’t count as control, simply because we don’t accept that argument when referring to anti-choice positions (ie “if she doesn’t want to have a baby, she shouldn’t have had sex”).
The thing is, this argument assumes that the exact same standard should apply to both men and women; put another way, it assumes we should treat women and men the same. 99% of the time, I’d agree with that. But here’s the thing: when it comes to bearing children, men and women are NOT at all the same. Treating them as if they are doesn’t make sense.
To see what I mean, consider this question: Is it discrimination that men’s room provide urinals (letting men get in and out faster, leading to shorter lines) while women’s rooms don’t? Shouldn’t we treat men and women the same and provide them both with urinals?
Men and women are physically different. That means that we pee differently, which would make it foolish to treat men and women the same when it comes to bathroom fixtures. And it means that we have different roles in childbirth, which makes it foolish to act as if men and women are similarly situated when it comes to childbirth.
Both men and women should have every reproductive choice biologically possible. For men and women both, that means they should have the choice not to fuck, if they don’t want to. For men and women both, that means they should have access to every kind of birth control. And for women, that should mean access to abortion.
Cutting either men or women off from their biologically possible options is wrong, in my view. But “abortion” just isn’t one of men’s biologically possible options.
To say “well, if an argument’s valid for women, then it should be valid for men as well” is true most of the time - but it’s not true in a discussion of abortion, because men can’t have abortions. Men and women are not, when it comes to this issue, identically situated; and it’s illogical to act as if they are.
UPDATE: Be sure to check out this related post by Lorenzo at Unimpressed.net.
March 17th, 2005 at 3:20 am
Abortion is certainly one situation where women can, should, be treated differently.
It never ceased to amaze me how changes to abortion laws are always proposed and pushed for by male politicians who will never have to make the choice and will never understand what making that choice entails.
This comment was written by Le Driver.Report this comment to the moderators
March 17th, 2005 at 6:40 am
“Men and women are physically different. That means that we pee differently, which would make it foolish to treat men and women the same when it comes to bathroom fixtures.”
Since women can learn to urinate in the male fashion, then in the name of equality they should be required to do so. Right? You’re just letting social construction of urination get in the way of equality.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
March 17th, 2005 at 7:15 am
Well, under your logic Robert, since you can shut-up, you should be required to do so, right? Why let the social construction of a debate get in the way of a knee-jerk, oversimplified reaction.
Men can also learn what it’s like to be penetrated during sexual intercourse. Does it then mean we should require them to, in order to equalize the genders?
This comment was written by Belle.Report this comment to the moderators
March 17th, 2005 at 7:20 am
I think there’s definitely an element of social conditioning involved in the way we urinate…though I don’t know what an entirely natural way would look like - maybe there would still be a gender difference, like male and female dogs?
Back to abortion - I don’t see a problem with giving men the right to abortion exactly the same as women have. How about all people having, in the event that they become pregnant, the right to abortion? Men may never need to exercise the right, at least not in the foreseeable future, but that’s an inequality in biology not the law.
This comment was written by Sarah.Report this comment to the moderators
March 17th, 2005 at 7:23 am
Yet another alleged feminist failing to recognize the transformative wonder that is the female urinal.
http://www.restrooms.org/urinals.html
This comment was written by Richard Bellamy.Report this comment to the moderators
March 17th, 2005 at 7:42 am
The Sanistand assumes that all women wear skirts with snap on underwear underneath.
This comment was written by Belle.Report this comment to the moderators
March 17th, 2005 at 7:55 am
Robert:
What, and men can’t learn to urinate in the female fashion instead?
This comment was written by acallidryas.Report this comment to the moderators
March 17th, 2005 at 8:25 am
There are biological differences between males and females, yes. But does that forgive the vast *legal* differences *created*? As a male, I would prefer to have a choice, legally enforceable, about my legal parenthood at some point *after* ejaculation. I don’t want one bit of legal control over a female’s body. I want a greater measure of control over my legal status.
I suspect highly successful, reasonably convenient, temporary birth control for males (in addition to condoms) will be the only thing that actually reduces this tension. But until that happens, the debate and search for equity needs to continue.
This comment was written by Douglas.Report this comment to the moderators
March 17th, 2005 at 9:01 am
It’s not the presence or absence of urinals that make potty parity an issue; it’s the total number of fixtures. If men’s rooms and women’s rooms both start out with three toilets, but the men’s room gets three urinals as well while the women’s room gets a mirror and a little chair, that’s not exactly equal.
This comment was written by zuzu.Report this comment to the moderators
March 17th, 2005 at 9:13 am
For men and women both, that means they should have access to every kind of birth control. And for women, that should mean access to abortion.
Men and women are not, when it comes to this issue, identically situated; and it’s illogical to act as if they are.
1. I agree with Sarah. It is not illogical to treat men and women as if they are exactly the same. It is consistent with Amp’s top comment I excepted to say we DO treat men and women as the same: They each have a right to have an abortion. If men can not actually have abortions, it is, as Sarah says, an inequity in nature, not law.
2. Douglas is absolutely right that this inequity “in nature”, and facial equity in law, is used to create a huge inequity in reality. This is the same as right-libertarians saying that the himeless have the same right to refuse shitty work conditions as Warren Buffett, or that people in wheel chairs have the same right to use the stairs as people who can walk. These facial legal equities create huge inequity in reality. In this case, it creates an inequity that is hugely unfair to men.
3. Despite my #2 above, I have no sympathy at all for Douglas’s position. I agree with the standard Western liberal position that where liberty and equality conflict, liberty should win. Giving men an equal right to abortions after ejaculation would neccesitate giving men some measure of control over another person’s bodily integrity. Creating reproductive equity is not worth sacraficing this level of freedom for the women.
Douglas should not ejaculate into women he does not want to be the mother of his children.
This comment was written by Decnavda.Report this comment to the moderators
March 17th, 2005 at 9:15 am
“himeless” = “homeless”
This comment was written by Decnavda.Report this comment to the moderators
March 17th, 2005 at 9:15 am
As a male, I would prefer to have a choice, legally enforceable, about my legal parenthood at some point *after* ejaculation.
This comment was written by Omar K. Ravenhurst.So help me end poverty and ensure that children don’t need support payments.
Report this comment to the moderators
March 17th, 2005 at 9:22 am
Decnavada, I think that Douglas was proposing that a prospective father have a right to disclaim legal fatherhood (and so support payments, etc). This is at least on the surface different from requiring the mother to have the child, although in practice it might well have the same effect.
This comment was written by Dylan.Report this comment to the moderators
March 17th, 2005 at 9:57 am
Dogs don’t urinate differently according to gender. They urinate according to dominance. If two male dogs live together, the dominant dog will lift one leg to pee, while the subordinate will squat. Just another interesting “social construction of urination” (great phrase, Robert).
Also, I know lots of men who sit to pee– at home or in private bathrooms. How nice to have the option when you’re at a basketball game or out in the woods.
This comment was written by Susan K.Report this comment to the moderators
March 17th, 2005 at 10:12 am
Decnavada: I think you miss my point in the same way I felt Amp’s original post did. I’m not seeking *any* control over someone else. Reproductive equality doesn’t have to mean giving men the right to demand a woman abort his child. As it stands, a female would have too much control over *me*. There *must* be a more even distribution of power and responsibility than we have. Do we disgree on the depth of powerlessness a male has currently?
For me personally, the issue is moot. I’ve been sterilized.
Dylan: I’m not proposing anything specific - I wish I had a convincing solution! But something involving legal disavowal of paternity is the only good place I see to start looking for a solution. Omar points at one of the problems with an overly simplistic solution. But I also think *really good* male birth control would take all the importance out of this matter.
Omar - Wealth unlimited enough to so completely change society is so unimaginable I can’t engage with that as a solution to this problem. It is, however, a worthy journey in its own right.
This comment was written by Douglas.Report this comment to the moderators
March 17th, 2005 at 10:47 am
Having debated some of these advocates in the past, “choice for men” is not necessarily linked to abortion, but whether you have to be a “dad” after the baby is born. Unfortunately, I find that the argument gets fuzzy after that. The fact is, you are a biological father. You can walk away and never acknowledge the kid. It’s done all the time. However, I get the impression that the “choice for men” people want me to agree that this is morally and ethically a good thing, which is a somewhat different argument. Or that they should never have to pay a cent of child support. And I don’t necessarily disagree. If the contribution to this kid wasn’t above recreational sperm donor status, I don’t know that the mother would necesarrily want you to be the acknowledged father. Especially if you’re going to do nothing but project frustration and hostility upon the innocent child. And all so you can (maybe) get a couple of bucks each month?
On the other hand, “choice for men” gets twisted into wanting veto power over maternal moveaways, visitation on demand (even if you’re in jail), or even custody when it suits these fathers too. So it seems that parental rights or “choice for men” comes down to whatever the advocates want it to mean. If you want to walk away with no responsibility, we’re all supposed to applaud you. On the other hand, if you want to jerk the mom around, keeping her from moving from where she could get a job (even if you never married her and haven’t paid child support, or child support in a timely fashion), we’re supposed to support you too. Or if you want to punish her by threatening her with a prolonged custody fight.
All rights. No responsibilities.
This comment was written by silverside.Report this comment to the moderators
March 17th, 2005 at 12:16 pm
Due to the inherent inequalities in the genders, women have the choice to have the child or not. I believe men should have the choice whether to be involved or not. There is your equality. In our culture women can make men pay and suffer for a brief encounter, and I have friends that have been trapped into child support payment by a woman that never loved them and only wanted a child (and their money). Eliminate the incentive; remove the responsibility of support from the men. Child bearing is already a woman’s responsibility, and if she didn’t have a safety net, a woman might use more discretion with whom she procreates. That might even appease conservatives on some level, since it encourages marriages (or some form of legal union) in which the men can assume responsibilty by choosing to marry.
The answer is not to put urinals in the ladies’ room, nor to remove them from the men’s room. I don’t care to sit down in public if it can be avoided (you know why, folks). The whole issue of “equality” is patently ridiculous. None of us are equal. We are all different, with different natural abilities, appearance and upbringing. The whole equality debate stinks of entitlement, which is also false. No one is entitled to anything in this world. If you have more than most, good on you. I call that good fortune, you call it what you will. I am fortunate to be a relatively heathly, physically fit and mentally strong individual, but many people lack those characteristics. Are they equal to me? Well, their life is equally precious, but to say they have the same capabilities as me is preposterous. This can be broken down along any line you choose: ethnic, socio-economical, physical, mental, gender, geographic. We all have our own features that make us unique.
Responsibility is a fabrication. Rights are what matter. What someone does with my sperm after it leaves my body shouldn’t be my concern. Possession is still 9/10 of the law, right? This whole debate smacks of sexual repression. We still need to evolve; the 60’s didn’t finish the fight.
This comment was written by Joe.Report this comment to the moderators
March 17th, 2005 at 12:46 pm
While I agreed that Amp’s solution (i.e. the status quo) is highly unfair to men (although I am OK with that), “unfairness” and “powerlessness” are two different things. There is absolutely nothing “powerless” in the reproductive situation of men. You can choose not to be a father by not ejaculating inside of a woman. Unless no one explained to you that recreational sperm donation can result in a baby, I see no powerlessness at all. How on earth would a female have any control over you (or the hypothetical fertile you) at all? I do not see it.
I was going to add another point to my first post above, but left it out because I thought it irrelevant, but it turns out not to be. There is something else that trumps equality between the adults besides the freedom of the adults. That is fairness to the child. Each parent voluntarily engaged in an activity they knew could lead to the birth of child. Each parent, individually, is responsible TO THE CHILD, for the child’s welfare. In legal jargon, the parents are jointly and severably liable to the child. This is not 50%/50% liability, it is 100%/100% liability. In 50-50 liability, if one of the persons liable dies penniless, the other still only owes their 50%. With joint and severable liability, if one liable party dies, or simply skips town, they other is still liable for 100%. I am using legal terms here, but I believe in joint and severable liability of parents to their children as a MORAL concept. What this means is that the fact that fulfilling your responsibility to the child might create un unfairness between you and the mother is IRRELEVANT to your moral responsibility to support the child, and it would be unfair TO THE CHILD to allow you to sever these responsibilities just to create fairness between you and the mother.
To recap:
This comment was written by Decnavda.1. It is immoral to let either parent avoid duties owed to the child in order to create fairness or equity between the parents.
2. It is unfair to the father to let the mother decide whether or not have a child after sex without consulting the father, but any attempts to create fairness or equity betweeen the parents on this issue would impermissibly infringe on the liberty of the mother, and liberty trumps equity and fairness.
3. Men have the liberty to avoid being in this unfair situation by not ejaculating into women they do not want to be the mother of their children.
Report this comment to the moderators
March 17th, 2005 at 12:50 pm
Omar - Wealth unlimited enough to so completely change society is so unimaginable I can’t engage with that as a solution to this problem. It is, however, a worthy journey in its own right.
Try googling the terms, “Basic Income Garauntee” and “Negative Income Tax”. The United States currently has the wealth necessary to end poverty by legislative fiat. The continued existence of poverty is a choice that our society (and all others, currently) has made.
This comment was written by Decnavda.Report this comment to the moderators
March 17th, 2005 at 12:56 pm
I’m forgeting the details from my Celtic Women course, but weren’t rape and paternity tied together in pre-Christian Ireland? As a partner in a consensual sexual encounter, a man agreed to accept paternity of any children he might father. If he chose to post-conception withdraw his consent to the encounter, the woman could withdraw her consent as well, leaving him open to a charge of rape.
This comment was written by Mary Root.Report this comment to the moderators
March 17th, 2005 at 2:13 pm
Due to the inherent inequalities in the genders, women have the choice to have the child or not. I believe men should have the choice whether to be involved or not. There is your equality. In our culture women can make men pay and suffer for a brief encounter, and I have friends that have been trapped into child support payment by a woman that never loved them and only wanted a child (and their money). Eliminate the incentive; remove the responsibility of support from the men. Child bearing is already a woman’s responsibility, and if she didn’t have a safety net, a woman might use more discretion with whom she procreates. That might even appease conservatives on some level, since it encourages marriages (or some form of legal union) in which the men can assume responsibilty by choosing to marry.
Oh, of course it would appease conservatives as it would unilaterally impost 100% of the costs of childbirth on women, and women alone. It would take an already unequal situation — one that disproportionately penalizes women with the health risks, emotional risks, the 9 months of work in carrying a pregnancy, the million dollars in lifetime income reduction, the significantly increased risk of assault, domestic violence and murder — and excaserbate it by removing any vestiges of the financial costs — which in virtually all cases will total far less than merely the foregone lifetime income of women who have children, much less the economic costs of caring for that child and any childcare services that may be necessary to continue working — and any legal obligation to that child without, of course, decreasing in any way the rights of the father as the decision of whether or not to terminate legal obligation is solely his, and thus he can chose to retain all rights to that child if he so chooses.
I’m sure conservatives would love it
This comment was written by Lorenzo.Report this comment to the moderators
March 17th, 2005 at 2:53 pm
Giving men the choice of whether or not to be involved in their offsprings’ lives may actually result in more abortions. If a single woman knows she can’t afford to care for her child, she may be more open to the option of terminating her pregnancy.
This comment was written by Hestia.Report this comment to the moderators
March 17th, 2005 at 3:18 pm
To clarify what others have implied, we’re addressing two distinct types of liberty interests.
- Should a man have the same rights that a woman has to control his genetic material after sex? And if not,
- Should a man have the same rights that a woman has to evade legal responsible for a child he did not intend to produce?
“2. It is unfair to the father to let the mother decide whether or not have a child after sex without consulting the father, but any attempts to create fairness or equity between the parents on this issue would impermissibly infringe on the liberty of the mother….”?
Sounds good. But what constitutes an impermissible infringement?
1. On the one extreme, there’s compelling the woman to undergo an operation to end the pregnancy. Yeah, that’s quite an infringement.
2. But should a woman have the right to refuse to take a “morning after”? pill, even assuming that the pill has no effects other than to terminate (or prevent) a pregnancy? Arguably, yes. If such pills violate the woman’s values, for example, arguably the woman should have the discretion to refuse even over the man’s objections.
3. Should a woman have the right to refuse to take the morning after pill even if she promised the man that she would? Again, arguably yes. Breach of contract may warrant remedies, but it is unclear that abortion is the appropriate remedy.
4. Should a woman have the right to demand that the father be financially responsible for a child he did not want, and which he urged her to abort via the use of a morning after pill? Arguably yes, kinda. Arguably the financial responsibilities are due the child, not the mother, and neither parent should be able waive the other parent’s responsibilities on the child’s behalf.
5. On the other extreme, imagine that pregnancies could be terminated by either the father or the mother simply by use of a remote-control devise, without physical pain to either party. (Setting aside the Silent Scream issues). Would anyone object to men having equal access to such a device?
Under this hypothetical, men and women would have greater equality. But inequalities would remain because the man would still not experience the other aspects of pregnancy: The discomfort (or pleasant sensations, for that matter). The bodily changes. The social expectations. Any uniquely motherly attributes you believe pregnancy engenders.
In short, if abortion did not involve tampering with a woman’s body, should men have equal say in abortion? Or do the other aspects of pregnancy - the sacrifices, the conspicuousness, the “motherly expectations,”? if you will - by themselves give the mother exclusive standing to say whether a pregnancy should end?
This comment was written by nobody.really.Report this comment to the moderators
March 17th, 2005 at 4:50 pm
On number 5, I would still object to men having an equal access to the termination device if we assume the fetus is still growing inside the mother’s womb. It would still be violation of her bodily integrity to allow him to use a remote-contol device to reach into body and make changes without her consent. But if, in the more likely sci-fi scenario, the fetus is growing in an artifical womb in a lab, then I think the right to terminate should depend on what the parents agreed to before the pregnancy.
- Should a man have the same rights that a woman has to control his genetic material after sex?
Why the hell should he? Durring sex, he volunarily gave his genetic material to her. If he wants to keep control over it, he should be more careful where he puts it.
Rights are what matter. What someone does with my sperm after it leaves my body shouldn’t be my concern.
Unless you shoot it around in a way that injurs a third party, in this case by creating a helpless third party. Maybe you owe nothing to the mom. But you owe everything to the child. Including not only direct support, but also a renumerated caretaker.
This comment was written by Decnavda.Report this comment to the moderators
March 17th, 2005 at 5:02 pm
I’m with decnavda. The remote-control hypothetical seems a little like saying it’s not a violation of fourth amendment rights if the police can use satellite technology instead of actually tossing your home–or that it’s not quite rape if you’re passed out. A woman should have the right to say what is done with her body, regardless of the physical hardship involved. That’s one argument, but not the only one, against forced childbearing.
Also, the man only has to assume the obligation of child support if the woman assumes a greater one, that is, custodial parent.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
March 17th, 2005 at 5:13 pm
In most cases the rearing of a child is “more” successful” if there are two parents contributing to care in a number of ways. There are males who impregnate and leave. There are women who seek children as meal tickets. There are also other combinations. What it boils down to is that you have liberty or equality when you can afford it.
This comment was written by George.Report this comment to the moderators
March 17th, 2005 at 5:28 pm
I think some attention must be paid to the question of the contractual arrangements between the conceiving parents, and their intentions and expectations at the time of intercourse.
The best solution to the problem of women trapping men into child support (which I gather does sometimes occur) is for the people involved to execute a contractual agreement before having sex, spelling out their jointly-agreed responsibilities and intentions in the event of conception. This is also the solution to the problem of men fathering children and then vanishing into the mist, which I gather also occurs.
A man should be absolutely free to, up front, disavow any obligation towards or responsibility for a child. (That disavowal should also be an automatic waiver of parental rights.) A woman should be absolutely free to, up front, disclose her intention of aborting any child produced. (And those disclosures would probably in and of themselves bring a crashing halt to a lot of ill-advised romances.)
The state in its current policies is basically acting as the woman’s parent, overriding her wishes and requiring fiscally responsible behavior of the man involved. This is unconscionable; women should be free to make irresponsible decisions, and to live up to the consquences of those decisions. Men should be free to be equally irresponsible. The state’s only role in all of this should be to enforce any contracts that the consenting parties have signed.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
March 17th, 2005 at 6:02 pm
Robert -
This basically was the celtic system mentioned above. If a couple had sex “under a roof,” meaning other people knew about it and it was known to be consensual, the man was considered to be responsible for supporting any child born to the union.
If on the other hand, they went out to the “bush and brake,” without anyone knowing, the woman had to raise any child born on her own, but the man had left himself open to charges of rape.
So in your world, would sex without a contract legally be considered statutory rape?
BTW - you should also ask for a pony!
This comment was written by Mary Root.Report this comment to the moderators
March 17th, 2005 at 6:24 pm
I need two ponies and a speederbike; I’ve got three instances of “under a roof” to please, here.
Disputes over children arising from sex without a contract should be handled on an ad hoc basis by a civil court, under some general code that assigns roughly equal responsibility for a child to each party, but which leaves judges and juries lots of discretion. (That’s what happens now if a dispute arises between people who are doing business without any kind of contract.)
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
March 17th, 2005 at 9:20 pm
The best solution to the problem of women trapping men into child support (which I gather does sometimes occur)
This is what we call a Pyrric victory. The ‘trap’ also involves the woman being jointly legally and financially responsible for the child.
I still prefer the opt-in version of “Choice for Men,” but I can just never get the men’s-rights folks onboard. Dunno why.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
March 17th, 2005 at 9:31 pm
I still prefer the opt-in version of “Choice for Men,”? but I can just never get the men’s-rights folks onboard. Dunno why.
I’m sure you’ve laid that out before, but what’s that plan?
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
March 17th, 2005 at 11:13 pm
I think my inevitable death is drastically unfair. Moreover, my short life span is not universally held: there are trees that can live centuries. Why is no one taking action is end this inequality between us? I want to live 400 years too! (note: I don’t also want to be immobile and lack a central nervous system: I’ll keep the inequalities that favor me, thank you)
This comment was written by Julian Elson.Report this comment to the moderators
March 18th, 2005 at 12:14 am
I’m very uncomfortable with Decnavda’s statements like “Douglas should not ejaculate into women he does not want to be the mother of his children” and “During sex, he volunarily gave his genetic material to her. If he wants to keep control over it, he should be more careful where he puts it.” Because the same line of argument is frequently used to argue against abortion except in cases of rape. The argument goes, “If the woman didn’t want to have a child, she shouldn’t have had sex, she shouldn’t have accepted that genetic material.” Pro-choice people do not accept that line of argument on women, and the only difference between women and men on this point comes with non-consensual intercourse, i.e. rape.
To refuse to accept the argument for men does not mean that men should have the right to demand abortions. That would indeed be a violation of the woman’s bodily integrity. What would be fair is to say that, if women have the option (via abortion or adoption) to refuse to accept the responsibility of parenting, men should have that refusal option too. This could mean that he has the right to give up all financial responsibility on condition that he gives up all parental rights as well. But on the other hand, I find Joe’s argument, “if she didn’t have a safety net, a woman might use more discretion with whom she procreates,” to be appalling. This turns it into financial blackmail. It’d be every bit as bad for a man to financially pressure a woman into having an abortion as it is for a woman to pressure a man into financially supporting a child when she permits him none of the rights or joys of parenting. I don’t believe there’s any blanket solution here: it’d have to be judged in individual cases.
Joe also totally misses the point when he writes, “The whole issue of “equality”? is patently ridiculous. None of us are equal. We are all different, with different natural abilities, appearance and upbringing.” No, Joe. What our different natural abilities et al mean is that we are not IDENTICAL, not that we are not EQUAL. Warren Buffett has more money than I do, and he’s probably smarter than I am, but we each have one vote. We each have the right to trial before a jury of our peers should we be charged with a crime. Our wives each have the right to have an abortion. We are thus equal, and that’s what Jefferson meant when he wrote “All men are created equal.” In the world as it is, of course, our opportunities to exercise these rights may vary greatly. But to the extent that this is true, it is inequality, an inequality that is to be mended as much as possible.
This comment was written by Simon.Report this comment to the moderators
March 18th, 2005 at 3:28 am
Simon, I share your discomfort with Decnavda’s “men should be careful where they put their semen” arguments, but I think there’s something missing here. I think that you would be right, and Choice 4 Men arguments would be right, if there were only two people involved: the man and the woman. There aren’t, though: there is a man, a woman, and a child. The problem is, if you have a mother who wants to have that child, and a man who repudiates his responsibility/rights to the child, then I think this is perfectly fair as far as the man and the woman are concerned, but it is not fair at all the the child (who, by the way, is the least responsible of the parties, and thus should be least subjected to negative consequences of decisions made by the other two, insofar as is possible).
The way I see it, someone has to bear the unfairness here. I can think of three positions, each of which distributes the unfairness to a different party:
The current position: Men are treated unfairly, because they have no choice in whether they have a child or not (after sex), and they also have no choice about whether to support that child. If part of the process happens in the woman’s body, she controls it, and both parents must be responsible for the child if the woman decides to carry it through, even though that is exclusively her decision.
The Choice 4 Men position: Children are treated unfairly, because a mother can have a child without either adequate means of support or appeal to the father for support. This means the child may not be well-supported. As, in fact, 1/4th of children in the U.S. are not (in the sense of living in poverty).
The father-enforced abortion position (no one actually supports this, as far as I know, but it does illustrate how you can distribute the unfairness to the woman): Men can either demand the women carrying their embryos abort or not, but if they don’t demand abortion, they are obliged to support the child. Naturally, this is a big violation of the woman’s liberties.
As I said before, I think that children who didn’t even exist when the decisions were made are a particularly egregious place to put unfairness. I think everyone would admit that the father-enforced abortion idea is simply to severe a violation of women’s liberty to countenance. So, that leaves us with the current position. Not a great place, but better than the alternatives.
This comment was written by Julian Elson.Report this comment to the moderators
March 18th, 2005 at 3:30 am
Simon- The reason the statements of mine you quote cannot be turned onto women is the bodily integrity question. After sex, men do not have a bodily integrity concern with the sperm they voluntarily gave to another person, while women do have a bodily integrity issue with sperm that is now in their bodies.
This comment was written by Decnavda.And AGAIN, your proposed solution of allowing the man to back out of all rights and responsibilities after sex, is, yes, a fair solution between the adults, but it completely unfair to the child, who has a superior claim to fair treatment than either of the adults. I think this is the third time I have made this point on this thread, and I will make it again the next time someone offers the same solution without addressing the rights of the child.
I do reluctantly support allowing the father to disclaim all rights and responsibilities for child if done in writing and signed by both the mother and the father BEFORE sex or implantation. This is the sperm donor situation, and strictly speaking it is not fair to child either, but this is the only practical way to have sperm donantion, which is a good thing, and few women will sign off without the financial resources to care for the child. So while it is a technicnal violation of the child’s rights, practically far more children will be better off as a result of allowing this option.
Report this comment to the moderators
March 18th, 2005 at 3:36 am
My last post was cross-posted with Julian, who shares my analysis of the fairness issue and my insanity at engaging in blog debates during the 3am hour.
This comment was written by Decnavda.Report this comment to the moderators
March 18th, 2005 at 4:27 am
Yes I can just imagine the Fathers4Justice movement demanding the right to determine when their estranged wives can and can’t have an abortion. Or worse still when they must have an abortion, “I’ve changed my mind love, I want my sperm back”.
I do think women should be given urinals though. And highlight some of the excellent developments in the area:
http://www.p-mate.com/eng/intro.html
http://www.urban75.org/photos/glasto/glasto014.html
This comment was written by Cruella.Report this comment to the moderators
March 18th, 2005 at 5:48 am
I sorta like mythago’s “opt-in” scenario, but at the same time have reservations. While this would be work out quite well in my situation (I earn a decent living, am already the sole support of my daughter, and “opt-in” would mean I would never have to worry about a future custody or visitation battle with someone who has been nonexistant in my child’s life), I don’t think this is workable for many women.
As a practical matter, most women are not going to choose either abortion or adoption, even if they know or suspect that they will receive no child support. My decision to carry my child to term and raise her was unrelated to financial concerns. Look. I’m a working class woman. I already have very little control over most financial concerns. Beyond being a saver, not a spender, I do the best I can with what little I have. Every time I see one of those articles about how much it costs to raise a child, I kick back and laugh. I already know I won’t be bankrolling my girl’s “Harvard education”. If she goes there (or a similar school) it will be on scholarship. I already know I won’t be buying her a car when she turns sixteen; she’ll be walking, biking, or riding the bus like I did at her age.
In other words, I already knew that in the event of birth control failure, I would be a mother, because the alternatives were unthinkable to me. And like my parents, and their parents, and so forth…..I would just do it. Period. There are more women who will follow this route than the others, statistically.
The “choice 4 men” crowd seems to think that no one ever has a conversation before having sex. The biodad of my daughter knew long before any sexual activity was taking place that in the event of birth control failure I would be raising a child, not obtaining an abortion or seeking adoption. He also knew I was using birth control, because he could watch me putting it in! He also had the option of using a condom, which he chose not to do. He never felt at the time that I had somehow “duped” him into fatherhood; but after I ended the relationship because of his newfound meth habit and refusal to enter rehab, he tells all and sundry that he was “duped” into fatherhood (this, despite no effort to obtain child support). Go figure. Many of the divorced women I know were told the same thing by their exes after two, three or more children that were produced in the context of a married relationship. “You just had those kids to get child support!!” None of those women were stay-at-home moms. The “duped” claim seems to be standard operating procedure at the end of a relationship, completely unrelated to actual circumstance.
I don’t see how a “contract” could be enforced. The conversations most people have before sex are not usually witnessed by anyone, and frankly most of the men who are inclined to abandon a pregnant woman and/or any child are not going to admit that beforehand. They’d never get laid, and they know that. Many women who really thought they would consider abortion or adoption find that they really can’t after pregnancy. Breach of contract? No. The bonding process starts before birth, and this process varies amongst women. It’s partly a physical process. Just like pregnancy takes place inside a woman’s body, the bonding process does too.
I still think the safest assumption is that sex between unsterilized men and women can result in pregnancy, even if birth control is being used properly. And that if a child is born, unless both parents agree to give that child up for adoption, both parents should contribute to that child’s well being. Choice 4 Men simply wants the right to strong-arm women into having abortions (or adoptions), either by a presigned contract or by financial fear. Kinda reminds me of Playboy championing abortion rights; hint: they aren’t doing it because they believe in feminism. Hell, “Choice 4 Men” isn’t even advocating responsibility for paying for an abortion.
This comment was written by La Lubu.Report this comment to the moderators
March 18th, 2005 at 6:49 am
Robert, the “Choice for Men” argument is an opt-out plan (or, as they cluelessly call it, a ‘paper abortion’): unmarried men have a certain amount of time to decide they don’t wish to be on the hook as dads and can opt out, freeing them from child support if the woman decides not to have an abortion.
The problems with this are pretty obvious. It adds to the woman’s burden, not knowing for sure whether a man who seems happy about the pregnancy will opt out, possibly at a point where it’s too late for her to afford or obtain an abortion. From a lawyer’s POV, there are all kinds of ways to game the paperwork on this, and then there’s the problem of genuine error; it’s too easy for a woman to rely on the unenforceable agreement not to opt out.
Opt-in means that unmarried men have no rights nor responsibilities whatsoever regarding a child they’ve fathered, unless and until they ‘opt in.’ This solves problems from the men’s-rights POV, namely no surprise daddyhood (how can you opt in on a kid you never knew about?) and the biology of pregnancy doesn’t set a very narrow time limit. From the mother’s POV, she isn’t tempted to rely on a legal responsibility that might evaporate. It’s very clear whether the guy has put his money where his mouth is, so to speak.
Really, though, I tend to agree with Julian and La Lubu; there’s a third person involved here.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
March 18th, 2005 at 7:01 am
A big monkey wrench in paternity discussions like this is welfare reform. Mothers are required to track down the men who had impregnated them, or they do not receive benefits. The purpose of this isn’t to protect the child or to ensure that the child is adequately supported - it is to repay the state for welfare money it gives the mother. Many single mothers do not want either the money or involvement of men who are not interested in supporting the children they sire. However, if they apply for welfare, they are required to name him and the state will go after support. I have run into countless single women who found themselves caught up in ugly custody fights because they went after the guy for child support. That was a big mistake. I think that most single mothers are better off without the child support. It leads to too many problems for them and their children. On the other hand, I agree with Silverside that Choice4Men is mainly about male convenience. These guys don’t want to pay child support when they impregnate women. They want the ability to walk away. They want the courts to revoke child support obligations they have when they find out years later that they are not the biological father of their children, even when they have suspected for many years that they may not have been the father, and even though they have acted all these years in the legal capacity of father. They are big on “paternity fraud,” although most men who demand paternity tests learn that they are, indeed, the father of the child. Many of these men demand paternity tests as a means to stall court proceedings requiring them to pay child support. While they are arguing about child support and “fraud,” they also demand sole or joint custody and visitation on demand. They want to prevent the mother from relocating with the children, and they want the ability to interfere with the way these women run their lives solely because they bore a child with her. Choice4Men is about avoiding responsibility and interfering with how women lead their lives.
Although I don’t agree with these laws because of the mess they’ve made of child support and the problems they’ve caused for mothers and children as well as fathers, laws in many states will recognize an unwed man as the father of a child solely because of DNA. This was due to welfare reform trying to soak the poor for money, and it is also due to fatherhood and marriage initiatives that are trying to unsuccessfully recreate the intact married family in order to raise children. These programs have caused a multitude of problems.
This comment was written by Trish Wilson.Report this comment to the moderators
March 18th, 2005 at 10:04 am
“I can think of three positions, each of which distributes the unfairness to a different party:
Option A - “The current position: Men are treated unfairly….
Opt. B - “The Choice 4 Men position: Children are treated unfairly….
Opt. C - “The father-enforced abortion position: [Women are treated unfairly]“?
Opt. D: If Mom refuses Dad’s request for an abortion, she thereby becomes responsible to indemnify (reimburse) Dad for financial obligations for Kid. That is, Dad’s assets could be attached for Kid’s benefit or ““ as Trish Wilson notes ““ to compensate the state for providing benefits to Kid. Dad could seek compensation from Mom; but to the extent that Mom lacks resources, Dad’s outta luck.
This option protects the interests of the innocent 3d party (Kid, or the state acting on Kid’s behalf) to the same extent as Option A, while permitting the consenting adults to allocate responsibility between themselves.
But Option D does not solve the problem of the Mom who objects to abortion and who has sex under the false pretense that Dad was willing to be financially responsible for any resulting kid. Only Option A seems to remedy this problem. Option A would be consistent with a modified Robert proviso, however: Mom should be able to contractually agree to indemnify Dad, although Dad would bear the burden to prove that Mom had made such a deal (by producing a written contract or otherwise).
Are there any circumstances under which Mom should have the right to abrogate (rather than merely indemnify) Kid’s claim on Dad? For example, what is the current law regarding bona fide sperm donors? If someday a genetic test proves that Kid was the product of the sperm I left with a sperm bank, could I become liable? Should I? Or is it fair that Mom can unilaterally choose to have Kid and impose the cost of Kid’s welfare on the state, without any recourse to my assets?
This comment was written by nobody.really.Report this comment to the moderators
March 18th, 2005 at 11:47 am
I know my thoughts focus on worst-case scenarios. When everyone is acting in good faith, legal issues rarely arise. If the male is not acting in good faith… well, that’s not the circumstances I’m concerned with. The law already catches them pretty well. It just also catches everyone else in the same net. What law exists to protect against bad faith by a female?
Bodily integrity is more important than financial integrity. But is 20 years of financial integrity so completely insignificant as to be irrelevant?
One thing occurs to me in all the comments about the child’s rights. What is so holy about *two* incomes of indeterminate size over one income of a different indeterminate size? If a child deserves a certain amount of support, what amount is that? Shall we not allow couples to have children if they fall under a certain joint income? Two sources of emotional support don’t seem relevant, since the courts don’t compel that.
In a proper nuclear family, a child’s standard of living rises and falls with the parent’s fortunes. With child support payments, my understanding is that the man’s legal obligations are nearly impossible to adjust downward. I know things have evolved that way to deter cheating, but it seems worth keeping in mind. Currently a mother+child is likely to be *better* supported by mandated child support than by an active father/husband. (Forgive the presumption of custody, obviously.)
This comment was written by Douglas.Report this comment to the moderators
March 18th, 2005 at 12:46 pm
One thing occurs to me in all the comments about the child’s rights. What is so holy about *two* incomes of indeterminate size over one income of a different indeterminate size? If a child deserves a certain amount of support, what amount is that? Shall we not allow couples to have children if they fall under a certain joint income? Two sources of emotional support don’t seem relevant, since the courts don’t compel that.
I think you just blew away the “it’s for the children” arguments of posts above.
In summary, reproductive rights has absolutely nothing to with children rights. It is about creating slaves for the state.
This comment was written by teg.Report this comment to the moderators
March 18th, 2005 at 2:29 pm
What is so holy about *two* incomes of indeterminate size over one income of a different indeterminate size?
Nothing. That’s why a sperm donor isn’t required to pay child support, and why it’s legal for one parent to be at home.
The issue isn’t number of incomes. It’s each parent’s obligation to support their children, so the rest of us don’t have to.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
March 18th, 2005 at 2:52 pm
Douglas finally addressed the issue of the child’s rights, but he blew away nothing. He just blew it.
It is not two incomes vs. one income that is relevant. If it were, we could start randomly assigning two adults to take care of each child born. The relevant question is: Which persons engaged in voluntary actions that were necessary for the creation of a helpless human being? If the baby was the result of a consensual sexual encounter, then there are two people who are liable to the child for the child’s welfare, the mother and the father. If the woman was raped, the father should in theory be solely financially responsible, but of course that will be dificult since he should also not be out of prison before the child is an adult. If the father was raped (6 billion people on the planet, I’m sure at least 3 were concieved this way), then no, the father should have no responsibilities to the child unless he wants to. From a deontological standpoint, a doctor who assists a couple with reproductive technologies should also be responsible for the child’s welfare, but I think it is good policy to exempt these doctors from such responsibilities for practical reasons similar to the ones I described above when I endorsed letting sperm donors off the hook. A woman geneticist who clones herself should be solely responsible for the resulting child. No, two is not a “holy” number, it just biologically happens to be the number of resposible parties in the vast majority of cases.
Morally, the mother and father both owe the child emotional support, but there is not a practical way for the government to compel that.
Currently a mother+child is likely to be *better* supported by mandated child support than by an active father/husband.
What color is the sky in your world?
In summary, reproductive rights has absolutely nothing to with children rights. It is about creating slaves for the state.
What are talking about and how is it relevant to this discussion?
This comment was written by Decnavda.Report this comment to the moderators
March 18th, 2005 at 2:54 pm
mythago-
Could you give me lessons in how to make a point in the fewest possible words? They beat that skill out of you in grad school.
This comment was written by Decnavda.Report this comment to the moderators
March 18th, 2005 at 3:55 pm
What are talking about and how is it relevant to this discussion?
The discussion is about why woman have reproductive choices and men have none.
A child dose not exist until a woman exercises her choice. Why should a man be responsible for someone’s else’s choice?
This comment was written by teg.Report this comment to the moderators
March 18th, 2005 at 5:08 pm
Men do have a choice. They can choose not to ejaculate into the woman. The fact that the other person has a choice for a longer period does not stop them both from being jointly and severably liable for the creation of a helpless person. If you and friend split a six pack of beers and then you hand him your car keys so he can go get more beer, should you not be liable to the resulting innocent quadraplegic just because there was twenty minute lag time after he drove away where you could not stop him from driving the car, but he could have pulled over and parked the car?
This comment was written by Decnavda.Report this comment to the moderators
March 18th, 2005 at 5:31 pm
If I go to Las Vegas and lose $1,000. Can I come to you and make you responsible for my choice to gamble? What if I have a kid and I am now short on rent: does this make it acceptable?
you hand him your car keys
I think that would make him responsible ALSO. Did he have the choice not to give him the keys? Did he have the choice not to take the keys?
This comment was written by teg.Report this comment to the moderators
March 18th, 2005 at 5:35 pm
Men do have a choice. They can choose not to ejaculate into the woman.
But this argument is soundly rejected by feminists in the case of abortion; women have a choice not to have sex, too, barring rape. (Which isn’t the focus here.)
How is it that this argument is valid when applied to a male, but objectionable when applied to a female?
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
March 18th, 2005 at 6:01 pm
teg-
I fail to see how your Las Vegas hypo has any relevance here. Unlike a father, I have no resposiblity for your decision to gamble or for your kid.
Is the other person ALSO responsible? Of course. I never denied the responsibility of the mother for the child. See above for the concept of joint and several liability.
Robert-
This comment was written by Decnavda.Did you read above? I wrote:After sex, men do not have a bodily integrity concern with the sperm they voluntarily gave to another person, while women do have a bodily integrity issue with sperm that is now in their bodies.
Report this comment to the moderators
March 18th, 2005 at 6:11 pm
Men do have a choice. They can choose not to ejaculate into the woman.
This a C4M strawman. You haven’t solved the double standard. You have only shifted the double standard. Why does “spreading legs” NOT imply consent for woman?
This comment was written by teg.Report this comment to the moderators
March 18th, 2005 at 6:15 pm
Yes, but that’s an obviously predictable situation, Decnavda. If a woman has vaginal sex with a man without some kind of barrier method, she knows that she’s going to have sperm in her. She’s choosing to accept that. It’s the choice that serves as the locus for moral responsibility, not the sticky details.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
March 18th, 2005 at 6:19 pm
Is an emotional bond a concern of bodily integrity? “Forced” adoption seems to avoid one thorn. Especially if the mother had first right to adopt by herself or with some willing partner.
As for voluntarily giving sperm - what of when they don’t? Is sterilization or abstinence the only choice you suggest men have? Deceit, reversals of earlier statements, and so on?
I may not be making my point about wealth very well, but I feel like there’s an honest problem with your argument that needs to be addressed. If we care about the resources available for a child, shouldn’t we care about some concrete reference, rather than just whatever both parents happen to have?
This comment was written by Douglas.Report this comment to the moderators
March 18th, 2005 at 6:23 pm
TYPO: Why does “spreading legs” NOT imply choice for woman?
This comment was written by teg.Report this comment to the moderators
March 18th, 2005 at 6:24 pm
To lurkers and others- This is to notify you that I will no longer be responding to teg because I perceive his comments as too illogical to allow for rational argument. In his last post he accuses me of being on the Choice for Men side and of not believe that women have also made choices for which they should be responsible. I think my past posts have made it clear I take neither of those positions. Either teg is incapable or unwilling to understand what I am saying, or I am incapable of writing my thoughts in a way to make them understandable. Regardless of which of us is the idiot, comunication between the two of us now obviously useless.
This comment was written by Decnavda.Report this comment to the moderators
March 18th, 2005 at 6:30 pm
Robert- it is precitable to BOTH. Women get to have the choice longer. SO? Men should know this ahead of time. Any other option harms her bodily integrity but not hers, or is unfair to the child.
Douglas-
This comment was written by Decnavda.Sterilization, Abstence, or a woman you can trust and whom you would not mind raising your child. Those are your options, yes.
Report this comment to the moderators
March 18th, 2005 at 6:36 pm
Decnavda: I’ll agree that is the way things are currently. And *might* be the most equitable solution currently possible. Do you at least agree that it places the largest burden on an unwilling father? If so, would you agree that a solution that involved equal burdens for all sides would be preferable, if one exists? It *seems* that you are arguing that you like matters the way they are.
This comment was written by Douglas.Report this comment to the moderators
March 18th, 2005 at 7:04 pm
Because everyone - male or female - should have the right to control their own biology in whatever way they want to prevent pregnancy. For men, this might include using birth control, steralization, non-coital sex, or abstinance. For women, it’s pretty much the same list, plus abortion.
However, although the list of options differs, note that the principle - “everyone gets to control their own body” - is exactly the same for women and men. There’s no double-standard.
You’re like someone saying that since short people can’t reach the top shelf, we should pass a low forbidding tall people from using the top shelf, either, in the name of “fairness.” And if we don’t pass that law, you call that a double-standard. That’s not fair or logical; it makes more sense to say that everybody has the right to use whatever shelves they can reach.
I agree that it’s unfair that women and not men can be pregnant (although in 95% of cases, that unfairness ends up benefiting men). I also think it’s unfair that some people can be NBA pros and others - no matter how hard they try - can’t. Nature isn’t always fair.
I’m not against the idea of trying to use the law to create fairness where nature fails - but all the proposals I’ve seen regarding this particular unfairness have such negative side effects that they actually lead to a net increase in unfairness.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
March 18th, 2005 at 7:10 pm
Douglas wrote:
Ideally, yes. I’d favor a mixed-market socialism that guaranteed every child (and every parent) the minimum necessary for a middle-class life, paid by the government. Then every child would have a concrete minimum, and there would be no need to force non-custodial parents to pay support if they didn’t want to.
However, that’s not politically possible at the moment. Many Americans, and certainly the ruling political party, are passionately against the idea of strong state support for all families. Since the best solution - one that provides a concrete minimum - isn’t politically viable, we have to settle for a solution that is less than the best.
In the current political reality, the best we can do is create laws that force noncustodial parents to support their children financially. This won’t work in 100% of cases; but it will reduce poverty in a number of cases. And it’s better than nothing.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
March 18th, 2005 at 7:37 pm
You’re like someone saying that since short people can’t reach the top shelf, we should pass a low forbidding tall people from using the top shelf, either, in the name of “fairness.”? And if we don’t pass that law, you call that a double-standard. That’s not fair or logical; it makes more sense to say that everybody has the right to use whatever shelves they can reach.
I’ll remember that you said that the next time we argue affirmative action. :P
Because everyone - male or female - should have the right to control their own biology in whatever way they want to prevent pregnancy. For men, this might include using birth control, steralization, non-coital sex, or abstinance. For women, it’s pretty much the same list, plus abortion.
OK. So if a man and a woman have sex and the woman gets pregnant and the man doesn’t want the baby, what mechanism do you propose for him to control his own biology? That baby is half daddy. The inconvenience and the health risk are the mother’s, but his biology is no longer in his control; it’s in her control. Since the woman can terminate the pregnancy, it seems only fair that the man also have that right, or (since the woman might want the child regardless of his actions) the right to disavow the kid. Which, as I understand it, is the Choice4Men position.
I should perhaps note that I find that position contemptible and irresponsible, and that any man who would have sex with someone and then bail on the responsibilities that may follow is…well, I don’t have any words strong enough. I don’t approve, let’s just say that. But if we have this control of our own biology that you assert, the Choice4Men position appears an inexorable consequence.
(The Christian position, of course, neatly sidesteps this particular swamp by simply acknowledging that life is a gift, not entirely within our control, and that we should joyfully accept new life when it comes, even if that new life is not what we had in mind.)
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
March 18th, 2005 at 8:26 pm
Because everyone - male or female - should have the right to control their own biology in whatever way they want to prevent pregnancy. For men, this might include using birth control, steralization, non-coital sex, or abstinance. For women, it’s pretty much the same list, plus abortion.
This does not address the accidental cases, the cases of deceit (fraud), or even (in some states?) cases of statutory rape.
This comment was written by teg.Report this comment to the moderators
March 18th, 2005 at 9:10 pm
This does not address the accidental cases, the cases of deceit (fraud), or even (in some states?) cases of statutory rape.
True. It doesn’t need to. We’re discussing the rights and responsibilities between consenting adults.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
March 18th, 2005 at 9:11 pm
Why does “spreading legs”? NOT imply consent for woman?
Actually, it does. That is, the law does not consider whether or not a woman meant to get pregnant in determining whether she has parental rights and obligations. A woman who falls into a coma, is raped in her sleep, and wakes up eight months pregnant does not get to have an abortion because she didn’t *choose* pregnancy. And if she’s married, her husband will be the presumed father, and she can’t give the kid up for adoption without his consent.
The only differences are that women have a narrow window of time to obtain an abortion–thus freeing BOTH her and the father from parental obligations–or, if she is not married and the father is absent, in SOME states she may unilaterally put the child up for adoption. Of course, she’s still on the hook until the child is adopted.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
March 18th, 2005 at 10:43 pm
For myself, I’m far more interested in cases of fraud. When pre-existing agreements go sour or trust is broken, that’s when I’m worried. If everyone’s behaving honorably, none of this seems to matter.
Mythago, have you been reading the Brothers Grimm again? *g*
This comment was written by Douglas.Report this comment to the moderators
March 18th, 2005 at 11:59 pm
The Misogyny of “choice for men”
Via Alas comes this entry on so called “reproductive choice for men” and supposed unfairness of men being equitably responsible — in theory — for any child produced by an unplanned pregnancy while a woman retains options such as the…
This comment was written by Unimpressed.net.Report this comment to the moderators
March 19th, 2005 at 5:06 am
For myself, I’m far more interested in cases of fraud. When pre-existing agreements go sour or trust is broken, that’s when I’m worried.
What fascinates me is how the media picks this up and reports it. It’s always the g uy that’s the injured party, like the recent case where a guy claimed that the woman he was involved him inseminated herself to trap the poor bastard.
The desire of some men to control women irrevocably doesn’t get noted enough.
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
March 19th, 2005 at 7:08 am
Douglas, exactly how does one prove that they have been defrauded in this instance? Like I said, no one witnesses these conversations. And I was using a barrier method, and my barrier method failed. I got pregnant. My partner knew long before the relationship became sexual that in the event of an unplanned pregnancy, I would not choose either abortion or adoption, but motherhood. He still cries “fraud”, even though there is no penalty for him, as I do not receive and have not pursued child support.
I don’t know how I can say it any simpler: a risk of pregnancy should be assumed by both parties, when an unsterilized man and/or an unsterilized woman engage in sex!
Why do some of the men here have such a problem with this assumption? It’s basic sex ed! I don’t know a single premenopausal, unsterilized woman, who does not assume a risk of pregnancy, even when using birth control. Not one. Ya think this might have something to do with the fact that pregnancy impacts our bodies?
So, in answer to teg’s obnoxious question about “spreading her legs”; yes, by engaging in consensual sex, a woman is tacitly accepting a risk of pregnancy. Not carrying a child to term, and not legal child abandonment of the sort advocated by “choice 4 men”. When a man engages in consensual sex with a woman, he is tacitly accepting a risk of pregnancy also. With me so far?
So. Both partners are accepting both the risk of pregnancy, and the risk that a child can result from that pregnancy! Why should the man not get veto rights over this pregnancy? Because it isn’t taking place in his body. Regardless of a woman’s decision, she will have a daily reminder of her decision in the form of her body. Whichever choice she makes, it will have lifelong consequences on her physical health and bodily integrity. The woman has the right to make decisions (including her form of birth control) over her body because she is the only person who will have to live with that impact to her body. Still with me?
So. Both parties recognize the risk of pregnancy is real. Both parties should also recognize that this pregnancy is not likely to result in abortion or adoption, statistically speaking. And both parties, since they engaged in consensual sex, should be responsible for the resulting child (if the child is not placed for adoption by both partners).
I am sympathetic to a man who wants to avoid the responsibilities of fatherhood. That’s understandable. However, by engaging in sex with a premenopausal, unsterilized woman, he is already accepting that risk. The risk is greatly reduced if birth control is being used, but it is not eliminated. If he seriously want to avoid paternity, but does not want to eliminate the future possibility of fatherhood, he still has several choices open to him. He can choose postmenopausal women as partners (not all of whom are old; some women enter early or very early menopause as a result of chemotherapy). He can choose women who have had tubal ligations as his sexual partners. He can masturbate, or engage in mutual masturbation with his partner. And of course, he can use condoms to reduce—but not eliminate—his risk. There are other options too, but you ought to get the drift. He does not have to cross sexual activity off his list of pleasurable experiences. He just needs to recognize the parameters by assuming a risk of pregnancy and acting accordingly, as women do. And he needs to recognize that because pregnancy takes place solely in the woman’s body, that he will necessarily have fewer choices than the woman, as Amp said.
Look. Life is not risk free. Assume that pregnancy and parenthood can result from sex, and go from there. You will then be able to make the correct decisions for yourself based on your personal risk tolerance. Capisce?
This comment was written by La Lubu.Report this comment to the moderators
March 19th, 2005 at 9:33 am
It’s been written above that the men’s rights movement “seems to think that nobody has a conversation before sex.” Unfortunately, the same sarcastic remark has been made by the anti-abortion movement about abortion rights. “You want a choice? You had one when you decided to have sex.” (Again, this doesn’t apply to rape, but rape is not the issue here.)
Decnavda’s bodily integrity argument is entirely applicable to the issue of male-forced abortion. But I agree with Decnavda that male-forced abortion would be an appalling solution. We’re talking about some other way for the man to disclaim responsibility, specifically financial responsibility for a child he didn’t want. (And again, if he should have thought of that before having sex, then a woman who wants an abortion should have thought of that before having sex.)
The problem with the bodily-integrity argument is that it states that the man, once the sperm has left his body and entered the woman’s, has no property rights in it. Fine, I’ll accept that. But if that’s the case, then why must he bear financial responsibility for something he has no rights in? That’s the question I was asking from the beginning. The bodily-integrity argument is not an answer to my question: it’s the basis on which my question was asked.
Julian sort of has an answer: we have to be unfair to somebody, so make it the father. I hope Julian realizes that this too is appalling. Julian says that the problema rises because there’s three people involved: the third is the child. So I would like to ask Julian this: if the woman decides to have an abortion, is there then a third person involved?
If yes, then abortion is much unfairer to the child than any haggles about financial responsibility could be.
If no, then we’re back to the original problem: that the woman has a unilateral right to decide whether a third person is involved or not, and the man, who rightly is exclu