Those who believe in a woman’s right to control her own reproduction are rightly afraid of those who believe that fetuses deserve the same legal protection as born children, but these are not the only enemies of choice. More insidious is the opposition from “pseudo-choicers” who believe abortion should be available – when they think it’s appropriate.
Just as Henry Ford reputedly offered his customers “any colour you want, as long as it’s black”, these “pseudo-choicers” support a woman’s right to choose, provided she makes a choice of which they approve. They agree that abortion is not murder, and they agree that the decision to end a pregnancy can be difficult – so difficult, in fact, that a foolish, hormonal woman cannot be trusted to make it alone.
My ex-boyfriend was a willing, even eager partner in the act that led to my baby’s conception, but afterwards began to have second thoughts, especially given that the burden of supporting me and the baby would fall mainly upon him. When the pregnancy was confirmed, after the first shock had worn off, he suggested that “now you know you can get pregnant, have an abortion and try again when it’s more convenient.”
I didn’t even consider abortion, because I very much wanted to be pregnant, but just in case this didn’t seem like sufficient reason, I marshalled others. He thought becoming pregnant was easy, but I’d tried and failed several times before I met him. And I didn’t know how an abortion might affect my chances of becoming pregnant in future. Most importantly, I had this chance to have a child, and I didn’t find convenience a compelling reason to throw it away.
I explained my reasons to him without making any impression. For him, there are two classes of women: those who can become pregnant easily and those who experience more difficulty. My pregnancy proved that I fitted into the first category: case closed. When I tried to argue, he became impatient. “I’m just trying to be rational,” he said.
The implication was that I was being irrational because my analysis led to a different result than his. Rationality doesn’t work that way: the conclusion depends on the premises. His disinclination to pay child support was no more rational than my disinclination to undergo surgery I didn’t feel I needed, but he couldn’t see that. His feelings were perfectly rational; mine were irrational, emotional and (dare I say it?) hysterical.
Luckily he had no power to compel me to accept his definition of rationality. If I’d been less certain of my own wishes, he might have been able to persuade or coerce me, but all he managed to do was convince me that for all his fine words about supporting my choice before we knew whether I was pregnant, he didn’t believe the choice was mine to make. That realisation marked the beginning of the end of our relationship.
If the right to choose means anything at all, it has to include the right to make a choice that is incomprehensible to others. A woman’s decision to end or continue a pregnancy doesn’t need to make sense to anyone other than her; she is often the only person with all the information – knowledge of her own personality and wishes – necessary to understand it.
Believing that affluent women in stable relationships should choose pregnancy and single women on benefits should choose abortion is not pro-choice. It is paternalism, with a hefty dose of classism and more than a nod in the direction of eugenics. Believing that a woman’s decision is not or should not be the final word in the debate is anti-choice, whether it’s expressed in terms of rationality or in terms of the rights of the fetus.
Rationality, to me, suggests that since the woman is the one who must live with the consequences of her decision, she should be the one to make that decision without having her competence called into question. The line between offering advice and passing judgement may be narrow at times, but no-one on the outside can tell which decision is the right one. Those who would tell a woman that her choice is wrong, selfish or irrational are not, whatever else they may be, pro-choice.
Interesting. A new bill winding its way through Congress offers financial incentives for poor people in Washington, DC, towards housing, college, or a small business. Everyone, that is, unless you are a poor woman with a child.
http://asilentcacophony.blogspot.com/2005/07/nanny-state-survives-and-thrives.html
So tell me again how Republicans are working to reduce abortion?
Although I agree with the main thrust of your post I think you do your argument a disservice when you write “… since the woman is the one who must live with the consequences of her decision…” [emphasis mine].
Certainly many of the largest consequences of her decision fall on the woman (pregnancy, presumed primary care of the child), and it is certainly easier practically for a father to abandon a child than for the mother, however, there are also huge consequences for the father. A moral responsibility to care for his child and be its father. Having to live near where the mother chooses to live for the next two decades in order to fulfill said moral responsibility. A legally binding 18 year financial commitment. etc.
Again, it’s not to say that these commitments are commesurable, but I think saying that the woman is “the one” who has to deal with the consequences is a bit disengenuous.
Certainly the final say ought to be the woman’s, but certainly a boyfriend/potential father has enough of an interest for it to be reasonable for him to at least make his case for the decision he wants the woman to make.
What does being a single mother have to do with it, dk? The bill stipulates that you must be childless if you are single. Well, if you’re a man who has had a kid with someone, you’re not childless. There’s no differentiation.
noah: I see what you’re saying, but only the woman can weigh consideration for these factors against what pregnancy or abortion would do to her mentally and physically. So yes, the putative father should get a say, but as you rightly point out, the woman gets the final say and he doesn’t have the right to call her decision into question.
Rationality, to me, suggests that since the woman is the one who must live with the consequences of her decision, she should be the one to make that decision without having her competence called into question.
This doesn’t follow. Her competence or incompetence is independent from the stipulated fact that she has to live with the consequences of the decision. Competence and consequence are not causally linked.
“Competence and consequence are not causally linked.”
Competence and non-consequence are not casually linked, either. She might not be competent, therefore someone else is?
I don’t see, by the way, how much any competence or lack of competence can interfere with her decision. Either she wants the baby enough to put up with the pregnancy, or she doesn’t. It is her choice, and any restriction by another entity is an invasion of her body and her rights. For someone else to override her choice is the equivalent of someone defending himself at a statutory rape case by saying “well, she’s not old enough to decide whether to have sex with me or not, so I decided for her.”
I really think that’s the gist of these pseudo-choicers, too: that they think themselves perfectly qualified to override the decision because they don’t like it. Do that regarding sex, and it’s called rape. Do that regarding pregnancy, and, well, it’s this. I see no difference.
Robert,
You’re absolutely right, in a perfect world. But in this case, who do you think is more likely to be excluded, a male who has a child or a female who has a child. The problem with single parenthood in the poor communities in the District and elsewhere is that the father is the one who disappears in the VAST majority of cases. This is a fact, sad but true. So yes, your point, one that I had considered and then discarded earlier, is true but not valid.
Just my 2 cents.
P.S. Why exclude them on this basis anyway, male or female? It seems that the “childless” condition is based more on a moral judgment than on how well the program might work.
If the father of a child has a responsibility to provide on many levels for his children, and the mother of the child seems to have the last word on having the child for obvious reasons; and the results of having unprotected sex are fairly consistent, one has to wonder why the discussion as to possible outcomes in this relationship and others do not take place first? If the mother was attempting to become pregnant, doesn’t that imply a responsibility to find out if her partner is amenable? As for him, I would say that prior to entering into a sexual relationship where he will be held accountable for his actions would dictate a higher level of interest in what his partner may be thinking in the long term. (No surprises.)
It is my belief that a living human being in any state has rights; it is debatable if they rise to equal levels at all stages of life. (In some it is the right to die.) However, if folks were to think of the unborn as more than an inanimate object, a person that is at the mercy of the person carrying them, perhaps the type of discussions and precautionary measures would be elected to be taken prior to the point of having to decide if a living being gets his or her chance at this life. (It might also help reduce the STD’s that are claiming so many of our friends and community member’s health and lives.) It seems unfair to me that two people knowingly having consensual sex should make an innocent to the affair pay with their life for not having a conversation regarding the potential consequences to their actions. Doesn’t sharing such physical intimacy suggest the sharing of personal intention and intimacies of the heart when the stakes are potentially so high? Blessings.
(Perhaps if more thought was given to the rights of the unborn, pro-lifers would be more willing to give more attention to the rights of the mother… you never know.)
one has to wonder why the discussion as to possible outcomes in this relationship and others do not take place first?
Rock, did you read the original post at all?
And the troll takes over!
Nick, not to get too personal, but did your boyfriend know you were trying to get pregnant?
Nick wrote:
Nick, one of these days I have to send you a boatload of homemade cookies or something. Er– once you’re sure your stomach has settled down enough.
This quote makes me wonder again whether the story on this blog last month about forced abortions among factory workers made any kind of ripple in pro-life circles. I admit to not looking around, as I don’t subject myself to nausea-inducing situations on purpose. I sure as hell don’t remember reading about it on yahoo’s main page, or anywhere in the mainstream media. I’ve started to fantasize about a rogue wing of pro-lifers storming the state capitals with huge placards saying “NAFTA/CAFTA: SLAUGHTERING PRECIOUS BABIES FOR PIECES OF SILVER !!” Imagine the hue and cry all across “bipartisan” D.C. Okay, the blazing heat and the poorly-proportioned vodka tonics must be getting to me. I’ll stop. :o
Absolutely. It is a concept that is becoming more foreign with each Bush term: that you cannot know someone’s life, their situation and that a person knows her own life better than anyone else. Nobody has a right to judge anyone else, to do so is simply projection.
(Perhaps if more thought was given to the rights of the unborn, pro-lifers would be more willing to give more attention to the rights of the mother… you never know.)
You never know? No, actually some of us do know; we’re called “single mothers”. And this proposal that dK mentions is a perfect example of how the so-called pro-lifers think of us. Your post is another one.
What I find interesting is that so many men talk about responsibility, when the real issue is who is doing the work. Where is the burden of pregnancy? On the man? If so, only indirectly. Men like to talk about their moral responsibility, but men can walk away, immoral or not. Men don’t give the blood. Men don’t give of the body. What about the morality of demanding the woman kowtow to a man’s tender morals?
Sometimes, Rock, the rubber breaks. Sometimes the woman says no. Sometimes a woman is too old or unhealthy to take the risk. Sometimes the woman is not psychologically or economically able to raise a child. Sometimes a woman faces losing her job for getting pregnant. Sometimes shit happens.
And it’s the woman who has to deal with it, one way or another. Some people think that’s a woman’s burden for having a uterus. But if people were so all fired up about preventing things like abortions, then they would empower the woman so that she doesn’t get pregnant unwillingly or unexpectedly.
And yet the very same people who claim to be “pro-life” are also against birth control, sex education, emergency contraception — anything that empowers the woman.
Why is that? What’s the real agenda here?
Media Girl: Sometimes, Rock, the rubber breaks. Sometimes the woman says no. Sometimes a woman is too old or unhealthy to take the risk. Sometimes the woman is not psychologically or economically able to raise a child. Sometimes a woman faces losing her job for getting pregnant.
Each true, and each an effective argument. But I don’t think Rock was arguing against abortion in general; it sounded to me like he meant that the couple should have had this talk before they stopped using birth control. Obviously, that’s what happened in this case, and I think Nick is absolutely right. But in other cases, where the pregnancy comes as a surprise, the man should at least have a say in the woman’s decision.
Mythago, as I understood the post her explanation of her reasons took place after the fact.
I am simply saying that people often make high-risk decisions without much forethought (accidents, rape, and failures aside). That slowing down and considering the possibilities and consequences to all potential stakeholders could reduce a lot of unnecessary pain and suffering. (Communication, the antidote to ignorance.)
As for how I feel about single mothers, I am sorry; you have no idea what you are talking about. Blessings.
It’s my experience that men who want to focus on male responsibility are mostly interested in male ownership of female bodies. Men who actually know the meaning of male responsibility tend to act very differently–their main concern is not how a woman is going to use her body to screw them out of fatherhood or money, depending on where their interests lie, but how they can work with their lovers to achieve a mutually beneficial result.
I can’t imagine, at least anymore, hitting the sheets with a man that I wasn’t like-minded with on these issues. Not that I blame women who do, of course. But I’ve been lucky enough to learn that truly responsible men open dialogue up with women on these issues. In fact, truly responsible men, knowing that women are encouraged to silence ourselves on these subjects, open up the subject knowing that the woman he is with may be afraid to do so. (In a not condescending way, of course.)
My boyfriend handled the whole thing swimmingly, I think, when he got a vasectomy. He brought it up to me, even though his mind was already made up, because it was important to get my input one way or another. He presented it in terms of his own choice, own responsibility–“I don’t want children. I’m glad you don’t. But if ever we were to break up, I don’t want them with anyone else, either.” He wanted it to be clear this was about his own choices and not an attempt to control me. I told him I was impressed by his willingness to take control of something most men his age leave to women and he was sort of confused by that. That he has responsibility to make his own choices was so certain to him, he didn’t get that other men feel differently.
But they do! How many men complain on my board about women “tricking” them into pregnancy? Now I can sympathize with the sturm und drang of broken condoms and missed pills, but a lot of these men didn’t wear a condom in the first place, expecting their partner to take it upon herself to demand one. And then they have the nerve to preach to me about responsibility.
I think women are more inclined to care because yes, it’s our bodies at stake. But men are mostly leaning on male privilege, not male biology, when they put all responsibility on women to ascertain their desires and act accordingly. Men have as much right as women to refrain from fucking if a condom isn’t in the works. We live in a culture where we can reasonably expect women to shoulder most responsibilty for these things and I think unfortunately a lot of men realize that is a woman comes up pregnant by accident, she’ll be blamed and they don’t think further than that.
It seems unfair to me that two people knowingly having consensual sex should make an innocent to the affair pay with their life for not having a conversation regarding the potential consequences to their actions. Doesn’t sharing such physical intimacy suggest the sharing of personal intention and intimacies of the heart when the stakes are potentially so high? Blessings.
It’s patronizing clap-trap like this that lead me to question your regard for single mothers. You seem to make the assumption that those of us who are unmarried don’t have these conversations, or use birth control—something not borne out by any statistics, btw. But, it is a frequent stereotype trotted out to separate the “good women” from the “bad”. And the real kicker is the “blessings”, which reminds me of nothing more than Dana Carvey’s Church Lady and her Superiority Dance.
Nick Kiddle –
Just a huge THANK YOU! for your posts about being pregnant and pro-choice. You have eloquently articulated thoughts that I had as well during my three pregnancies (1 termination, 2 live births).
I wish you all the best.
Amanda –
It has been my experience that despite my husband shouldering his responsibility to and for our boys (more than average I may add) – it has been my career that has ended up in the toilet, my compensation that has been penalized, and it my body (duh!) that has taken the toll. My heart brakes for most women – I have a huge and wonderful support network (including a father who brought his grandsons to my work so they could nurse.) My choices would be very different, sadly, if I hadn’t had the amount of “village support” I did.
Peace,
Marka
I spend a great deal of my professional time working with men to teach them how to live life on life’s terms. Much of this is in the area of respect for ones self, respect for others and being accountable for our actions. (Many of the men I work with are fighting very hard to get custody and visitation of children and grand children as well.) The heart of this message is based on the central tenants of my faith one which is compassion.
There are few things that are more aggravating than the treatment of mothers who are abandoned by men and Government policies that seem to be deliberately punitive. Some of my work is with women in addiction, or family of the men I work with; where some of what we do is advocate and help educate women to rights that they are unaware of as well as sustenance, employment, housing, regaining parental rights etc. Sadly many of the women I deal with have been abused or have been in no mental place (because of drug abuse) to make informed choices regarding their partners. I do not believe in the “good” vs. “bad” people myth. (All people have equal worth in my faith, because of who’s they are.)
I do speak to many folks both men and women that indicate that they didn’t pay attention to the signals or have the presence to ask the hard questions before getting carried away by emotion. Many assume that the person they are with naturally feel the same as they do with out investigating further. One of the things we emphasize is to take it easy and not let that compulsion to act get the best of our folks, as this is a behavior that creates problems and needs to be checked. I am not basing my comments on stats, but the experience of an admittedly non-mainstream population. (Those in addiction.)
As far as Blessings are concerned, there are so many we do not notice, in our community most of us begin or end our communications with this type of reminder, it is rooted in the greetings and benedictions in letters long ago. Blessings.
Nick, not to get too personal, but did your boyfriend know you were trying to get pregnant?
I told him I wasn’t on birth control and hoped to get pregnant. This was apparently not enough for him, I should also have told him the date of my last menstrual period before we had sex. Make of that what you will.
If he can’t put those two together, then I doubt he can figure out how to count the days of a woman’s cycle properly, either. ;)
Women who don’t want to get pregnant generally make decisions on contraception and take the necessary steps to use it, either by swallowing the pill or insisting on the condom. (Amongst other methods, of course, but those are the dominant ones.) I’ve had two major relationships in my life and frankly I doubt either man could tell you where I kept my pills or what hour I took them. I could have gone off them without them knowing, definitely. But when my second boyfriend got snipped, all of a sudden I think he realized how privileged he was. I remember him telling another friend that I had been taking on the responsibility long enough. But I doubt it will ever be equal–women simply have more at stake. I joked with him that I was going to drive him to the doctor and take him home and make sure I saw the incision with my own eyes. One of my coworkers’ friend had a baby because he husband lied to her and told her that he had gotten snipped.
If he can’t put those two together, then I doubt he can figure out how to count the days of a woman’s cycle properly, either. ;)
Really. What did he need you to do, Nick, beat him over the head with one of your ovaries while shouting “I’m going to use this to make a baby!”?
Some people are REALLY clueless/in denial. Makes communication all the more important, I guess.
I joked with him that I was going to drive him to the doctor and take him home and make sure I saw the incision with my own eyes.
When my husband went in, the doctor wanted him to bring a permission slip from me.
Sounds like my sperm donor. Who preferred returning to killing people in a strange land to domesticity, when domesticity meant not only a household servant/sex slave, but all the sudden his desperately-poor wife whom he’d “rescued” turned out to have a will of her own and refuse to have an abortion, even if it meant returning to poverty in a foreign country.
Unfortunately, his desperately-poor wife turned out to have estranged parents who were willing to let bygones be bygones, take care of us, AND had high-ranking connections in the military, which meant that his paycheck got garnisheed for child support regardless of his being in ‘Nam, so it didn’t work out all that well for him, running out on her.
–This also sounds a lot like, as it happens, one Richard Santorum, who doesn’t think that we should be paying for poor women to have babies (so much for his prolifeness) but does think that $160,000 per year is too little to raise six kids on…so he just has to beg money from his own parents’ pensions AND steal from the state.
But if I were raped and impregnated, he’d expect me nevertheless to go through with it as God’s will, at circa $20k per year with no benefits…and if I made my mother’s choice, to do so with no help whatsoever from his rich-man’s society.
When people have no representation in their government… what was that again about the course of human events?
Myth, that’s awful. I certainly don’t think that men getting snipped should have to have some woman’s approval. My only point was that my need not to pregnant was that strong.
As an aside, a good friend of mine is considering getting snipped because he doesn’t want children and his girlfriend does. I support his choice 100%, because I support choice, but I made it clear to him that I do not support hiding this choice from his girlfriend.
Ugh. I realize for most people it’s a struggle. I feel almost guilty how easy with how it was easy for us to say no to children outright. What’s funny is people expect us to hate children, but both of us like children fine, in fact, we like them more now that we’ve wiped that out of our futures.
Slight drift, but when I was about 20, the woman who lived next door to my parents’ house (I was home for the summer) came by and asked if my parents were home. I said no. She hemmed and hawed and then coughed up a “permission slip” essentially saying that the undersigned certified that the neighbor and her husband were in their right mind and just fine with getting him snipped.
WTF? She’d come by to have my mom or dad sign it, but since they weren’t in, I did the honors. I wish I knew then what I know now.
Krupskaya, that’s rather horrifying.
In a different forum we were debating abortion (and this post to some degree), and one of things debated was the whole concept of getting permission from your parents/husband to get an abortion.
One guy said that maybe if it was a vasectomy that you needed a permission for, then men might be more understanding why it’s wrong.
Amanda, I wasn’t disagreeing with you, just throwing in my own experience with weirdness. I told him to tell the doctor, and this is pretty close to a quote, that I respected my husband’s choices regarding his body, I wasn’t going to give him a fucking permission slip, and if they didn’t like that we’d be more than happy to give money to a doctor who wasn’t a moron.
I believe he softened the message a little. ;)
In another forum, I was surprised to see men trying to make the case that they should be able to decide if the woman they impregnated got an abortion. These were men who wanted them to or they thought that if the women did not do what they wanted – they should not have to pay child support.
I knew that there are men out there who think that they should be able to have sex without any consequence to themselves. But I was surprised to see the level of resentment that existed over women being able to choose abortion – while men could not.
It also seems to me that there is probably a large number of people who are in denial about the failure rate of birth control (not that that was the issue here). I commend those men who take matters into their own hands by getting vasectomies when they realize that they do not want any (more) children.
I expect there must be a lot of men who want sex with no consequences for a number of years – who want “consequences” – children IOW – later on.
I hate to admit it – but I like the situation that women have better. But as Nick says, it’s not like you can just assume that you can get pregnant whenever you want. And I’ve known a lot of women who waited too long.
I hate to admit it – but I like the situation that women have better
Having been pregnant, I don’t think I do.
It’s terrible that forced that poor guy into that. I mean, given that you had all the choice in the matter (and basically tricked his dumb ass), why should he have to take responsibility for your actions?
That just seems grossly and patently unfair. If you wanted to be a single mother, why should he be forced, under threat of prison, to pay for your choice?