Hugo 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.
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.
“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.
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?
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.
Yet another alleged feminist failing to recognize the transformative wonder that is the female urinal.
http://www.restrooms.org/urinals.html
The Sanistand assumes that all women wear skirts with snap on underwear underneath.
Robert:
What, and men can’t learn to urinate in the female fashion instead?
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.
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.
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.
“himeless” = “homeless”
As a male, I would prefer to have a choice, legally enforceable, about my legal parenthood at some point *after* ejaculation.
So help me end poverty and ensure that children don’t need support payments.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.)
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.
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?
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
“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?
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.)
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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?
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?
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?
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-
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.
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?
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.
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?
TYPO: Why does “spreading legs” NOT imply choice for woman?
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.
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-
Sterilization, Abstence, or a woman you can trust and whom you would not mind raising your child. Those are your options, yes.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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 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.
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.
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*
Pingback: Unimpressed.net
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.
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?
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 excluded from having a casting vote here, nevertheless has to bear the burden of a decision he may have had no part in (aside from that of having had sex in the first place, which is just as much the woman’s responsibility and which the bodily-integrity argument has no relevance to).
I think I should add that we’re talking about really hard cases here. 99% of the time, I hope that a man who discovers that his partner has become pregnant, through no intention of either of theirs (maybe birth-control failed, as it sometimes does; maybe they’re just young and ignorant) will accept her decision to have the baby and agree to support it.
In the old-fashioned morality, when John Lennon discovered his girlfriend Cynthia was pregnant, he did the honorable thing and married her posthaste. The marriage dissolved after some four years, and one could not say that Julian Lennon had a very satisfactory relationship with his father even when the old man was still around, but John did accept his continuing financial responsibility.
On the other hand, there are gruesome cases where a woman gets pregnant deliberately to gain a hold over her partner, sometimes deceiving him as to whether she’s capable of becoming pregnant. (I’ve known women who strongly disliked condoms and used IUDs or implants or some such instead. What if the woman was lying?) There aren’t many women like this, but there should be some recourse against them.
That’s why I think this should be decided on a case-by-case basis. In most cases, the man should bear the responsibility. But in the rare case that a psychopathic woman comes along, there should be an out.
Simon, if you think there are no psychopathic men who deliberately ignore or sabotage contraception, you’re mistaken. What recourse should there be against them?
You make the same mistake as some of the ‘choice for men’ people, which is to presume that only men have a legal and financial responsibility to their children. They don’t.
mythago, why does a statement of the existence of psychopathic women get taken as a denial of the existence of psychopathic men? The two are not contradictory. Nothing I said assumes that women have no financial responsibility towards their children. It’s insane to presume I did. That’s simply not the topic right now, because a woman’s financial support doesn’t have the particular bind that a man’s does. The particular male binds are the topic of this thread. This blog has hardly ignored the problems of pregnant women.
Simon, what do you mean that a woman’s financial support doesn’t have the particular bind that a man’s does? Women pay much more out-of-pocket to support their children than child support ever covers. Her child needs shelter, food, clothing, medical treatment, and education expenses. That doesn’t include extracurricular activities that both single and divorced mothers pay for out-of-pocket. You make it sound as if fathers are forced to cover all of the expenses of children when that is definitely not the case.
That’s simply not the topic right now, because a woman’s financial support doesn’t have the particular bind that a man’s does.
Noncustodial mothers who pay child support would be surprised to learn this.
The topic is issues about contraception and decision-making. To suggest that one of the problems is women (rather than men and women) who deliberately lie about or sabotage contraception is an attempt to slant the discussion, and to pretend that only men pay for children they don’t want. (Again, any custodial parent whose ex doesn’t pay his or her share of the child support would be surprised to learn that they mysteriously have no financial obligation toward their kids.)
To suggest that one of the problems is women (rather than men and women)…
I agree with you, Mythago.
But that logic appears to cut no ice with local feminists when the issue is one where women have the primary complaint, rather than men. When it’s women with the primary complaint, attempts to broaden the problem to one suffered by both genders are attacked as “distractions” from the “real issue”.
If saying that women physically abuse men is a distraction from the problem of “male violence”, then how come saying that women pay child support isn’t a distraction from the problem of “contraceptive decision-making”?
(Oh, right – because the real question is always “whose ox is being gored” – and if it’s a woman, then whatever logical construct will support her side is the logical construct that carries weight.)
where women have the primary complaint, rather than men
The ‘primary complaint’ in this case being an assumption that virtually all lying about and deceiving one’s partner in regard to contraception is done by women. That’s the problem to which *I* was referring.
If you want to talk about who pays child support, you should probably define ‘child support,’ i.e. whether you are talking about court-ordered payments from a non-custodial parent (usually the father) to the custodial parent (usually the mother), rather than support money provided by each parent for the children’s care.
My God, Trish and mythago, your mischaracterization and slanted responses have all the signs of malevolence that you unjustly attribute to me. I don’t believe you’re really trying to be ignorantly hostile, could you not do me the same favor?
The particular bind that men are in, that I’m referring to, that was discussed in my earlier posts and many other people’s, is that the man has no voice in deciding whether the woman will bear the child. That’s all. A noncustodial mother was not in that position.
You want to talk about the problems of noncustodial parents of either sex, fine: but that’s not the point that was being discussed above. It was the particular question of the man’s voice in whether there was to be a child at all. Decnavda, for instance, opined that the man expressed his opinion when he had sex with the woman in the first place, and anything that happens after that is not his responsibility. Except such financial responsibility as may come his way.
And I certainly never meant to say that because a noncustodial father bears a financial responsibility for the child, that the custodial mother has no financial responsibility. I cannot imagine how I could have been taken to say otherwise, particularly after already denying that I said that. Unless you want to characterize everyone who raises questions about the fair course of action as neanderthal “father’s rights” whiners. I really, really resent being pushed into a pigeonhole I’m making every effort to distinguish my views from.
The particular bind that men are in, that I’m referring to, that was discussed in my earlier posts and many other people’s, is that the man has no voice in deciding whether the woman will bear the child.
That’s a very different issue than women deceiving their partners in order to get pregnant without the man’s consent. The issue of being trapped takes on a different color if you’re talking about a man who didn’t bother with contraception, chose not to use it, or deliberately sabotaged it, doesn’t it?
What’s missing here is the realization that women’s choice to bear the child is not absolute, either. It depends a great deal on how soon she finds out she’s pregnant, what her financial resources are, and her local laws. Even liberal states offer a narrow window to choose abortion. And as the “Baby Jessica” cases make pretty clear, women do not have a unilateral right to give up a child under any circumstances.
ANYONE who has sex is taking the risk that a baby will result. Women have the abillity, due to the fact that the baby is physically in their bodies, to choose abortion up to a certain point. That’s about it.
I also cannot imagine how, when I observed that psychopathic women exist, how that could have been taken as a denial that psychopathic men also exist. The psychopathic men just didn’t happen to be the subject here, and they’ve been amply discussed elsewhere.
And then, when I say that they both exist, mythago responds to that by saying that I tried to suggest that those men are not a problem. What can a human being do to avoid such slander???
Of course psychopathic men exist, and they’re apparently a much bigger problem than psychopathic women. They’re merely not the problem facing a man who feels he’s been tricked into fatherhood. That’s all.
Do I really have to post a treatise giving my views on the entire complex subject of relations between men and women every time I want to express a thought on some tiny sub-section of the field? If I think a few men (carefully distinguished from the vast majority of prospective fathers) are in a problematic situation, how is that to be taken as some kind of neanderthal declaration that men are good and women are bad?
What’s missing here is the realization that women’s choice to bear the child is not absolute, either. It depends a great deal on how soon she finds out she’s pregnant, what her financial resources are, and her local laws. Even liberal states offer a narrow window to choose abortion.
Yes, that’s true. But the reason it was missing is that Decnavda and I, and the others contributing to the earlier part of this discussion, were talking within a context of assumed abortion rights. We could hardly have been missing that important point if we had not been talking within that context. Gee whiz, give us some credit for a little intelligence, won’t ya?
I understand that you’re saying that, once sex has happened, a man has no legal right to control if he becomes a father. Considered this way, I can see that men have no voice in if there is to be a child at all.
What I don’t understand is, can you give me any persausive reason to consider the matter that way?
In the real world, we don’t suddenly come into being the moment after we’ve made a woman pregnant. All the choices we make that lead us to that point actually exist. You’re saying “well, if we ignore the fact that all those other choices existed, men have no voice”; but why should that rather essential fact be ignored?
Let’s say that Robert and I are entering into some contractual obligation together. So I sign the contract, obligating myself to it, and I mail it to Robert’s office. Robert tells me he’s going to take a week and let his lawyers look it over, and then if it all checks out he’ll sign it.
For that week, I’m in the position of having already signed the contract; I can not unsign it. Robert, on the other hand, can sign it – making both of us responsible for its obligations – or he can tear it up, freeing both of us of its obligations.
As far as I can tell, your view is that this is an unfair situation, because Robert can choose whether or not the contract happens, but I cannot. I have no voice in whether or not we enter into this obligation, because once the contract is in his possession, he can choose and I can’t.
Can you see why that seems, to me, to be a bizarre way to look at obligations?
If you can give me a logical, persuasive reason why we should pretend that none of men’s choices before pregnancy happened existed, then maybe I can buy your claim that men have no voice in deciding if a child is created or not. But I really can’t imagine what such a reason would be.
Simon, it’d be easier to give you credit if you weren’t putting so much effort into feeling personally insulted, okay?
The problem with “assumed abortion rights” is twofold: one, that it’s assumed that a woman can get an abortion simply because she wants to, and two, the old canard about the rich and poor having the right to sleep under bridges and beg for bread.
That is, we can talk about an ideal nation where women who want an abortion can always get one. That’s not always the case, and even in places where a woman has the RIGHT to an abortion, she isn’t guaranteed ACCESS to one. (I mean, I have the right to own a Lamborghini, but funnily there’s not one in my carport.)
Ditto adoption; if a woman doesn’t obtain an abortion because she won’t (i.e. is pro-life) or can’t, she is not ‘off the hook.’ If I got hit by a car tomorrow and woke up from a coma next October to find out I was pregnant, I wouldn’t have the right to abort just because I didn’t agree to be pregnant. I wouldn’t even have the right to give the child up for adoption without my husband’s consent–as with most states, he’s presumed the father of any child I bear.
Yes, it is true that women have MORE control over the outcome of a pregnancy than men do. As Amp rightly says, that has way more to do with the mechanics of reproduction that some meanness to men.
As a footnote–there has been at least one ‘frozen embryo’ case where a judge ruled that the mother DID NOT have the right to impregnate herself, even though this was the only way she could become pregnant, even though her then-husband willingly participated in creating the embryos. Since the fetus was not in her body, she had no right to force her ex-husband to become a father.
So I sign the contract, obligating myself to it, and I mail it to Robert’s office
Sucker. Now your ass belongs to me.
(Eww, what am I going to do with your ass? Burn it, I guess. Bonfire party!)
mythago, it’d be easier not to feel personally insulted if the responses to my post had not been personally accusatory. It’d have been very easy for you to write about the other problems in this general subject area, the ones I didn’t discuss, without saying things like, “Simon, if you think there are no psychopathic men” or “You make the same mistake as some of the ‘choice for men’ people.”
Yes, absolutely: abortion is not a casual decision, and it’s not always easy to get. Nor is it a casual thing to go through even if the decision is made. Nor is giving a born child up for adoption easy to go through, as has been pointed out in other threads here.
I’m just making the side point: though at certain times, in certain circumstances, women have that option, men do not ever have that option. That’s all.
It’s not the result of meanness to men. But it can result in some unfairness, in some cirumstances, and way back uptopic we were discussing that unfairness and how it should be apportioned.
Amp, all I can say about your analogy is that, if you sign the contract and give it to Robert, then I think you should have the same right to change your mind and ask Robert to tear it up, and expect Robert to accede to your wishes, that Robert himself has to tear it up before signing it and/or filing it.
But that’s not true of abortions. If I, a man, impregnate a woman, and we both intend to have the child, then: 1) if the woman changes her mind and decides not to have the child, she is, THEORETICALLY and LEGALLY, entitled to have an abortion. (Whether she can actually have one is, of course, another matter.) She is also entitled to give the child up for adoption. But: 2) if I’m the one who changes my mind, my sole right in the matter is to advise her of my view and ask her to take it into consideration. I have no right to expect her to do it, whereas I do think you have the right to expect Robert to tear up the contract in the parallel situation.
Now, you’re saying that the man made earlier decisions that caused him to become a father: his impregnation of the woman didn’t happen in a vacuum. And this is true. But the point is: the woman also made earlier decisions that caused her to become a mother (always excepting the case of rape). Her being impregnated also didn’t happen in a vacuum.
Thus far, the man and the woman are in identical situation. Any sauce for the gander about his having to bear the responsibility for his earlier decisions is also sauce for the goose.
It’s after impregnation occurs that the difference begins. The woman, at least in some times and in some circumstances, has a choice that the man doesn’t have. The only bearing that financial responsibility has on this is that if the woman feels she cannot bear her share of the financial responsibility, she can – however traumatic it may be – give up the child. But if she feels she can bear her share, then the man must bear his share, without having had a casting vote in the matter. Nor do I see any way he fairly can be given a casting vote, for requiring her to have an abortion would violate her bodily integrity, and requiring her to give up the child for adoption on his say-so would also be abhorrent. This puts the man in a particular bind that we, proponents of abortion rights, do not wish to see the woman be in.
Actually, legally, in most states (or maybe all states?) the woman cannot give the child up to adoption over the father’s objections. So that unfairness that you’re claiming, doesn’t actually exist. Once the child is born, assuming the father has made his wishes to be involved clear, the parents are in identical legal situations; neither one can unilaterally adopt, and if either one becomes a single parent the other one may end up paying child support.
The only unfairness is during pregnancy, when – due to biology – women have a choice men don’t. Women also face significant risk and discomfort during pregnancy that men don’t.
That is unfair, although as a net outcome I really don’t know which sex it’s more unfair to. But the unfairness is based in biology, not discrimination, and I really don’t see any way to fix it.
* * *
The rest of this isn’t a response to Simon, because I don’t think Simon is advocating “choice for men.” But this is why I think “choice for men” fails to actually make things fairer.
Let’s suppose that the father doesn’t want to have a child, but an unintentional pregnancy occurs, and the mother can’t or won’t get an abortion. Months later, a child is born. What happens next?
1) The father is treated unfairly, in the sense that he has to pay part of the costs of raising a child, when he’d rather not.
2) The mother is treated unfairly, in that she alone goes through a pregnancy, she has to raise a child by herself, and she alone suffers opportunity costs.
3) The child is treated unfairly, because s/he doesn’t have the full emotional support of both parents.
All three parties are treated unfairly. That’s not good, but sometimes life is unfair.
Now, what happens if we do “Choice 4 Men.”
1) The father is freed of absolutely all obligations and responsibilities.
2) The mother is treated unfairly, in all the same ways as before, PLUS she alone now has to pay 100% of the financial costs of raising a child.
3) The child is treated unfairly, in that s/he lacks emotional AND financial support from one parent.
To me, the first situation – in which all three parties are treated unfairly – seems the fairer one. After all, if there has to be unfairness, the fairest thing to do is to distribute it between all parties involved. And even if the father didn’t have as many choices as the mother, that’s not the same thing as claiming he had no choices at all.
The Choice 4 Men situation, in contrast, redistributes all unfairness away from the father by making the situation worse for the mother and child. The only way you could call this “fairer” is if you care only about the father’s situation, and consider unfairness to the mother and child not at all a concern. That doesn’t seem fair to me.
Actually, legally, in most states (or maybe all states?) the woman cannot give the child up to adoption over the father’s objections.
If that’s the case, I stand corrected. But does that apply only if the parents are together? What if they’re separated? In that case, I’d consider it unjust for a custodial mother to not be able to give up the child without the consent of a non-custodial father. Provided that, if the mother does want to give the child up, the father has first right of refusal on custody.
Your argument on fairness/unfairness makes sense, provided that the pregnancy and having the child are really a burden on the woman. Some women consider it so. Some don’t. But there’s a more important point: In any case, in an abortion-rights environment, the mother has that option not to bear her burden if she considers it unbearable. The man has no such option.
I’m just making the side point: though at certain times, in certain circumstances, women have that option, men do not ever have that option. That’s all.
Sure. The flip side of that is that there is a burden men do not and cannot have, because of biology. Signing a “choice for men” affidavit is not like going through seven weeks of pregnancy and paying for an abortion, or carrying to term and giving up a child. It’s not perfectly symmetrical and it can’t be.
Some women consider it so. Some don’t.
It is a burden, period. Pregnancy and childbirth have permanent physical effects and have a risk of injury and death. Of course, this is a burden many women gladly bear for the sake of the resulting child–but pregnancy alone has financial and physical consequences, however much a child is wanted. (New daddies who have sympathetic morning sickness aside, it’s not the same.) And as I said, while the man has no such option, the degree to which the woman does have an option is not as great as many of us would like to believe.
But does that apply only if the parents are together?
If the parents are married, Mom’s on the hook, period. If the parents are unmarried, it various enormously from state to state. You probably remember ‘Baby Jessica,’ whose adoption was nullified when it turned out the mother had lied about who the father was (and dad had never consented to the adoption). In Oregon, I believe that if the father is not present or involved with the pregnancy, he loses his right to assert paternity at some point.
(Social-services agencies are big on getting unmarried dads to sign a “pat ack” (paternity acknowledgement) at the hospital, when they’re all full of the glow of new fatherhood and not so much on being scarce when child support is due.)
Amp, you forget another unfairness–by giving men the choice to opt out, the mother’s ability to make a choice about her pregnancy is affected. A pregnant woman knows that (at least in theory) the father has no right to stop her from aborting, and if she carries to term, they must jointly agree to put the child up for adoption OR both be financially and legally obligated to the child.
With “Choice 4 Men” (what’s with the “4”, anyway?), the woman can’t count on the father’s support at all. She has to gamble on whether she can trust a man who agrees to be a father, knowing that at the last second he could change his mind.
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.
I stated eary in this thread that I find the “solution” I advocate to be horribly unfair to men, but that it is the best bad solution available. Amp’s and mythago’s arguments since I have been offline have convinced me to modify that from “hooribly unfair to men” to just “unfair to men”, but I still think men bare the brunt of unfairness in the best bad solution. I would support any solution that you could think of that will eliminate the unfairness to men without violating the bodily integrity of mothers or deprive a child of the support of either parent.
Amp seemed to suggest that he would accept “Choice 4 Men” if we had a BIG (Basic Income Gaurantee) at a medium income level. I’m unsure if that would satisfy my moral intuitions, but if conservatives said they would agree to such a BIG if and only if we liberals agreed to Choice 4 Men, I would accept the deal before my next heartbeat. How many C4M advocates do you think we can get to accept this deal?
Amp-
I pretty sure it is standard contract law that you can revoke a signature on a contract at any time before the other party signs, unless you have recieved conpensation for giving up your right to revoke your offer (creating an “options contract”). Of course, in your hypo, I doubt Robert has a bodily integrity issue involving that signed peice of paper on his desk.
La Lubu – proving fraud – I haven’t the vaguest clue. For my next trick, I’d move on to clarifying rape/consent accusations! Written intentions would be best.
Let me make explicit the scenario I carry around in my head. Prior to intercourse, a man and a woman discuss birth control. They determine neither one has any desire for a child, the woman is on hormonal birth control, and they will use a condom. Perhaps the woman even afirmatively states a willingness to have an abortion (just to stack the deck ALL the way).
They proceed to have sex, and the woman turns up pregnant later. And decides she wants to keep the child. What then?
(I’m not stating *anything* about the frequency of this situation, or the presence or absence of other scenarios. Just that this situation exists, and deserves some consideration.)
The problems are indeed asymetric – that just seems to suggest the solutions probably need to be too.
There are several things above I’d like to come back to, when it’s not 3:00A. Some compelling, some spurious, I think. :) At the very least I’ve picked up a thing or two that I need to mull over at length for myself.
Decnavda- I’m sorry, I missed that statement. Or as likely forgot about it by the time the thread rolled down to my question. We really just seemed to be arguing at cross purposes, and I wanted to clarify the base.
As for C4M, I’ve never even been near their website. I only know about them by their vaguely disreputable reputation. :) Some sort of basic income guarantee sounds wonderful. Alaskans, at least, seem to go along with it, and remain reasonably conservative at the same time.
Douglas, in your scenario, I would say that both parents should then contribute to the welfare of that child. By having consensual sex, both agreed to the risk of pregnancy and the consequences that arise. The choice remains the woman’s, because it is her body that is pregnant. If the pregnancy took place in the male body, it would be his choice!
See, C4M thinks that every time birth control fails, it is due to “fraud”. They also seem to believe that getting an abortion, or placing a child for adoption, is the physical, emotional, and ethical equivalent of getting a haircut. They are also adamant that anything less than C4M is somehow sending the message that men must be celibate to avoid fatherhood!
What is wrong with the assumption that sex between an unsterilized man and woman can result in pregnancy? And that in most cases, the woman will choose to carry the child to term and keep the child? Why can’t this be the assumption? It seems to be the most reasonable assumption. With that as your starting point, you then have a better handle on how you should act accordingly. Financial advisers will instruct people to have savings to cover a possible job loss; this does not mean that most people will lose their job, or that they have to go to work sweating bullets and biting their nails for fear of a layoff. It just means be prepared. And in the pregnancy scenario, it means be prepared for possible parenthood, if you and/or your partner are not sterile.
Here’s the thing: let’s say C4M was enacted. Let’s say that the man had the opportunity to present his female partner with a contract that explicitly stated, in layman’s terms, that in the event of pregnancy he would not be responsible in the least. What do you think is going to be the reaction of most women to such a contract? My reaction to an explicit statement of a man’s intent to split when the going gets tough, would be “go fuck yourself then. Goodbye! Lose my number!” It’s not about the money; I don’t receive child support. It’s about the fact that he would have no problem abandoning me, or even worse, his own flesh and blood. Why would you even want such a person as an acquaintance let alone share your body with a one-way motherfucker! I think most women would react that way.
Eventually, the guy would figure out that if he wanted to get laid in this lifetime, he better deep-six the contract. And then we’re right back where we started.
Douglas, the solution is already asymmetrical. Nothing need occur to the man’s body regardless of what decision is made by either. (As the old joke goes, it’s easier to have boys than girls because if your daughter gets pregnant, you’re stuck; if your son gets a girl pregnant, you can just move.)
There are, as I understand it, different kinds of C4M. The “weak” kind is what you describe above, in which both parties would have to agree before conception to absolve the father of all legal obligations. I don’t actually have much against this; it’s basically a form of sperm donation. And (regarding what Mythago said earlier, about opt-in and opt-out) this gives the mother surity; she knows that he’ll be required to at least pay child support, unless they both agree otherwise.
However, what I think most C4M advocates want is “strong” C4M, in which unmarried fathers never have legal obligations, unless they unilaterally decide to accept them. That way there’d be no problem with getting her to sign.
What I’ve never heard an advocate of C4M address is that “strong” C4M would lead to a significant increase in single motherhood. To reduce single motherhood, we actually need the exact opposite of C4M; we need mandatory, large and vigorously-enforced child support obligations for noncustodial parents.
Amp says: That way, there’d be no problem with getting her to sign.”
How so? Can you explain this to me, Amp? Why would I, or any other woman, want to sign this contract? Correct me if I’m wrong, but this contract would basically state in the event of pregnancy, the male partner assumes no responsibility for any decision the female makes, and no responsibility for any possible resulting offspring of the pregnancy. Now, the underlying messages a contract like that would send to me is: “I like you, but not that much.” “Your problems are your problems. This is strictly about sex.” “I don’t want a full relationship with you, where the actual unpredictability and difficulties of life may intervene, I just want a warm place to put my dick.” I want sex, I want the use of a vagina, and I really dislike the idea of having to deal with that pesky thing surrounding a vagina that we call a woman.”
Where could I possibly find the desire to sign a contract of that nature, save at gunpoint? C4M would have one distinct advantage; fewer C4M proponents would be getting laid, thus fewer C4M proponents would be procreating.
However, what I think most C4M advocates want is “strong”? C4M, in which unmarried fathers never have legal obligations, unless they unilaterally decide to accept them.
No, they don’t, because they see Choice For Men as a ‘paper abortion’–you start off with obligations and rights and give them up if you want. They certainly don’t want to give up rights. “Strong C4M” means starting with no rights.
“Contracts” are also silly in that they’ve been proposed before, for all kinds of things ranging from STDs to consent, and they never catch on.
La Luba: Under “strong C4M,” there would be no problem getting women to sign because there wouldn’t BE anything for women to sign. Men would have the unlateral right to decide if they wanted to take on obligations, or not; whether or not the woman agrees or not is not relevant.
It’s my impression that this is what many C4M advocates want. However, it’s certainly possible that I’m mistaken about that, as Mythago says.
Oops, I accidently posted a trackback to Hugo’s blog. Barry, would you please remove my previous comment. Sorry. ;)
I meant to post this – I wrote a post about Choice4Men on my blog. It’s here.
Simon: “The particular bind that men are in, that I’m referring to, that was discussed in my earlier posts and many other people’s, is that the man has no voice in deciding whether the woman will bear the child.”
Cara was kind enough to post a link to a law article about this very subject in the other post on this subject here at Alas. Here is an excerpt from that article that addresses the issue you are talking about.
Toward A Strict Liability Theory Of Parentage
“In all of these cases except S.F. v. State ex rel. T.M., the fathers complained that the reproduction decision was solely in the mother’s hands, because once conception took place he could not force her not to bear the child. But what the men have failed to understand is that in all of these cases the women assumed not only all the “reproduction rights,” they assumed the reproduction risks of the failure of birth control.
Both men and women have reproductive rights and responsibilities. By virtue of biology, because a woman is the one to bear the child, it so happens that men must exercise their rights not to bear children earlier than women, that is, in the bedroom and not at the abortion clinic or in the courtroom. In the words of one court, [w]hile it is true that after conception a woman has more control than a man over the decision whether to bear a child, and may unilaterally refuse to obtain an abortion, those facts were known to the father at the time of conception. The choice available to a woman vests in her by the fact that she, and not the man, must carry the child and must undergo whatever traumas, physical and mental, may be attendant to either childbirth or abortion. Any differing treatment accorded men and women . . . is owed not to the operation of [state law] but to the operation of nature.”
Aahh, ok, thanks Amp! The ol’ “she spread her legs, therefore anything that happens from there on out is her fault” argument. Just step right in the Wayback Machine. Check!