Cathy Young at The Y Files defends Alito’s argument that the government can require married women to inform their husbands before they can have an abortion:
For the record, while I am staunchly pro-choice, I think that spousal notification is a painfully complex issue. Until lesbian couples have equal marriage rights, the term is “husband notification.” Calling it “spousal” notification is Orwellian; there will never be an instance in which a male “spouse” needs to sign a form swearing he’s notified a female “spouse” of his medical decisions. Yes, it’s the woman’s body. It’s also the man’s future child… It’s not the man’s future child if she’s getting an abortion, because the “future child” Cathy refers to will never exist. I don’t believe we can expect men to be equal partners in child-rearing while denying them any say in reproductive decisions. The claim that men have no say is not only mistaken, it belittles men’s agency. Do you really think I have no choice whether I have sex or not? No choice over if the form of sex I have will be coital or not? No choice whether I use birth control or not? Men are not helpless children, incapable of making sexual choices – but that’s the level Cathy’s analysis reduces us to. Nearly half a century ago, Kurt Vonnegut skewered the belief that it’s wrong if some people have abilities everybody doesn’t share, in his short story “Harrison Bergeron.” That story is very relevant to the “choice for men” debate. If my partner is female, she has an ability I lack – the ability to abort. (She also faces risks I don’t). But the fact that other people have inherent abilities I lack, doesn’t make me a victim, and doesn’t mean I lack liberty. Is it fair that women have an ability men lack? It’s not fair in the sense that the government in Harrison Bergeron-land understood “fairness,” which seems to be the sense Cathy uses. But in another sense, our system is fair, because it treats women and men the same: Everyone has the right to choose what to do with the reproductive abilities they have, and everyone is responsible for dealing with the choices they make. Paternal consent, in my view, goes too far in infringing on the woman’s bodily autonomy; paternal notification, on the other hand — with exemptions when there is domestic violence or other complicating factors — may not be such an onerous measure. (It turns out I was the one making an honest error – Cathy said “paternal,” not “parental.” So I’ve definitely got some egg on my face. :-) However, I still feel Cathy’s term was inaccurate; the law in question would only apply to married fathers, not to fathers in general. “Husband notification” is therefore the more accurate term.) The majority opinion, disagreeing with Alito, explained very well what’s wrong with husband notification: The husband’s interest in the life of the child his wife is carrying does not permit the State to empower him with this troubling degree of authority over his wife. The contrary view leads to consequences reminiscent of the common law. A husband has no enforceable right to require a wife to advise him before she exercises her personal choices. If a husband’s interest in the potential life of the child outweighs a wife’s liberty, the State could require a married woman to notify her husband before she uses a post-fertilization contraceptive. Perhaps next in line would be a statute requiring pregnant married women to notify their husbands before engaging in conduct causing risks to the fetus. After all, if the husband’s interest in the fetus’ safety is a sufficient predicate for state regulation, the State could reasonably conclude that pregnant wives should notify their husbands before drinking alcohol or smoking. Perhaps married women should notify their husbands before using contraceptives or before undergoing any type of surgery that may have complications affecting the husband’s interest in his wife’s reproductive organs. And if a husband’s interest justifies notice in any of these cases, one might reasonably argue that it justifies exactly what the Danforth Court held it did not justify — a requirement of the husband’s consent as well. A State may not give to a man the kind of dominion over his wife that parents exercise over their children. Section 3209 embodies a view of marriage consonant with the common law status of married women, but repugnant to our present understanding of marriage and of the nature of the rights secured by the Constitution. Women do not lose their constitutionally protected liberty when they marry. Hat Tip: Scott at Lawyers, Guns and Money, whose entire post is well worth reading.Cathy makes an interesting slip here – she uses the word “parental” where she should use the word “husband.” I’m sure it was an honest error, but it’s ironic, because the “husband notification” laws Cathy favors really do treat husbands like fathers – and wives like children.
When you're defending nazi salutes, you're telling me that you're a nazi.
As soon as possible after the November mid-term elections, I imagine >O.o<
Ah, I kind of doubt that! I’d imagine they’d start sometime this month, or early February.
Jesurgislac:
“while a man may be entitled to restrict his support down to the bare minimum of a cheque each month while the woman does all the work, that bare minimum is the man’s moral and legal obligation.”
I’ll agree it’s his minimum legal obligation. I’d strenuously debate against the concept that it’s his minimum moral one.
Unless they’ve changed the schedule, the Alito hearings are scheduled to start on January 9th.
Amp said, and if my paraphrase within the square brackets is inaccurate, please correct me:
Here’s my view: Given the lack of a full generous welfare state to support children, [support of a child is] up to the parents.
Amp, the way this was worded, it seems as though you would support that a full generous welfare state should be established and that support of children should then be the responsibility of the State. Do I misrepresent what you meant?
If so, I’d like to hear your defense of that. I think it’s anathema, myself. Now, I’ll accept the arguments that if a woman chooses after an unanticipated (or at least, unwanted) conception to have the child, that the male half of the conceiving pair should be obligated to assist in the raising of that child, whether or not he wants to. If he wasn’t ready and willing to accept that, he should have kept his pants on, regardless of his faith in birth control or his partner’s representations thereof.
But then as far as I’m concerned, the primary responsibility for the outcome of the various choices that led to that child’s conception belongs to the two people involved. Why should the State get involved? Why should you and I be required to pay for it?
And if I have to pay for it, then I should have a voice in how it’s done; education, religion, etc. No taxation without representation, and all that. Would that produce a mess? Yep, it sure would. And that’s only one reason why the state should not have responsibility for supporting the raising of children. Raising of children by the state is to me a horrific concept.
Should the state assist people who, for whatever reason, have kids and can’t support them? There’s a place for that. But the responsibility for supporting that kid still rests with the parents, not the State, and the State should do whatever it can to enable and require the parents to meet that responsibility.
You’re pretty close. I’d say that the support of the child should be the responsibility of the state only insofar as the parents are unwilling or unable to support the child to a middle-class lifestyle.
You say that there’s a place for the state assisting parents who can’t support their kids. I’d agree with that; the main difference is, I’d probably want the support to be much more generous than you do. (Correct me if I’m wrong). Burdening a child with poverty is simply too unfair a disadvantage to be allowed, in my view.
Amp, I’ll make you a trade.
[Comes back from reading Robert’s link.]
Amp, I’m stepping out for a case of aspirin. Can I bring you anything ?
:/
Alsis, why do you hate freedom?
(Get me some aspirin, too, please, I have such a headache from editing.)
My parents never bought me a pony. Oh, and the Megalo-Mart was out of Fresca.
You would just have used the pony to make men feel inadequate. You know it. I know it. Everyone knows it.
Men are inadequate. That stock clerk was male and he didn’t have my Fresca waiting for me. I hate him.
A consequence of what you’re saying, Amp, is that two people have a right to make a choice and then reach into my pocket to support it for a good 18 to 22 years or so. Where is the concept of personal responsibility there? Completely out the window. Where is the concept of property rights?
Once again, don’t forget that you and I and all of us are the State. The State produces no value to speak of; any money it has must be taken from you and I and others under the ultimate threat of force. In order to justify that, there has to be a compelling State interest, and those are spelled out in the Constitution. Providing every child a middle-class environment isn’t one of them; that comes pretty close to socialism.
Why should the amount of money that I can spend on supporting and educating my child be reduced so that some other couple who are less responsible can mitigate the effects of their behavior? Why should their irresponsibility create an obligation for me?
If two people are so irresponsible as to create a child without being able to support it, then perhaps their parental rights to that child should not be absolute. If they have to take some of my money through the State, then the State should be able to take some of their parental rights and give them to me.
Or perhaps, the State should be able to restrain their reproductive rights. The State can already restrict the use of various rights and properties if the owners show that they cannot use them responsibly.
Who has primary rights to the fruit of my labor? Me, or the State? What does it take for the State to justify taking my resources for it’s own use?
RonF writes:
It’s not “You versus The State”, it’s “You versus Your Offspring”. If you buy a car, and you don’t pay your mortgage, The State isn’t the one who repossesses your car. It’s The Bank. But The State is who has defined the laws which control foreclosure on automobiles. In the same way The State is who has defined who is responsible for the financial welfare of The Child.
From a legal viewpoint, yes, the State defines who is responsible for a child. But in my opinion, from a moral viewpoint, it is the parent who is responsible for a child, and while the state can change the law, they can’t change what’s right or wrong.
One of the purposes of the state, and one of the purposes for which the U.S. in particular was established, is to safeguard property rights. Here in the U.S., the state is to be restricted from taking my property unless it meets the burden of proving that it needs to do so for public purposes. The founders of this country were skeptical that a pure democracy would succeed, observing that no democracy has survived the electorate becoming aware that they could reach into the purse of private parties for whatever purpose they wished.
In a capitalist system, people who work harder and are more productive than other people get richer than those other people. This will occur even if true equality of opportunity through the elimination of racism, sexism, etc., is established. Equal opportunity does not guarantee equality of outcomes. Thus, inequality of wealth distribution ensues. That’s not wrong. That’s not immoral. And public policy should not seek to change that.
The problem is that The State does not benefit from having impoverished, abandoned or neglected children. One of the things this country has learned, in the 230 years since The Republic was founded, is that an educated populace is essential to the survival of The Republic.
So, while I agree with the principle that The State has no business being in the wealth redistribution business simply to achieve some kind of “equality of outcome”, I disagree strongly that The State has no business ensuring that each subsequent generation of citizens is properly equiped to be productive, self-sufficient members.
Not that I’m sure this has anything to do with the topic, and I’m sorry if I misread your post at 114 as a general anti-social-welfare post instead of a C4M-oriented “Fathers shouldn’t be help responsible for their offspring” post. Looking back I can see how you might have been advancing a Libertarian-ish ideology rather than a C4M-ish one.
One of the things this country has learned, in the 230 years since The Republic was founded, is that an educated populace is essential to the survival of The Republic.
Actually, we have learned that an educated electorate is essential to the survival of the Republic. For much of our history, the populace was not well educated, but the electorate was, and we survived just fine.
I personally believe that the best way to meet this precondition for survival is to limit the franchise. Others believe that the universalization of both education and the franchise is a better approach. The difficulty with my belief is that it is elitist and undemocratic; the difficulty with the alternative approach is that it handwaves away the fact that there is a substantial population of individuals who are either unwilling or incapable of being educated.
emphasis added.
(Bit off-topic)
I have a minor problem with that statement. I would say that it occurs especially or even only if equal opportunities are granted. After all, if equality off opportunity is not ensured no amount of hard work or productivity ensures that a person gets rich, or even that a person gets out poverty (how else would you explain sweatshops and subliving wages, that exist in capitalism? Or the fact that some people are very rich without really working hard personally?). Thus, I would say that ensuring equal opportunity is a very high priority in a just society. Equal outcome, not that much.
This brings me to the subject of state supporting a child. The state isn’t supporting the people who made that child pes se, but rather ensuring an equal opportunity for the child. Should we say: “Screw the kid” just because he/she happens to have parents that aren’t doing their duty (providing for the child)? Screw the kids parents, perhaps, but can you propose a fair solution that doesn’t screw over the kid’s life (hypothetical “the parent’s shouldn’t have had that kid” does not apply, it is not the kid’s fault.)?
If it was unclear:
It occurs=people who work harder and are more productive than other people get richer than those other people.
I fumbled:
Who made that child per se.
So, while I agree with the principle that The State has no business being in the wealth redistribution business simply to achieve some kind of “equality of outcome”, I disagree strongly that The State has no business ensuring that each subsequent generation of citizens is properly equiped to be productive, self-sufficient members.
I can agree with that. Now, what’s the best way for the state to ensure that each subsequent generation of citizens is properly equipped to be productive, etc.? Have the State give every woman who gets pregnant and is poor enough of my money to ensure that child a middle-class upbringing? Forcibly abort poor women? Make it a condition of receiving aid that a woman submit to a DNA analysis and everyone she names or can give any clue of as her sex partners and force the winner to stand up to his responsibilities? Take kids from women or couples who can’t support kids and place them for adoption? What are the alternatives?
Not that I’m sure this has anything to do with the topic, and I’m sorry if I misread your post at 114 as a general anti-social-welfare post instead of a C4M-oriented “Fathers shouldn’t be help responsible for their offspring” post.
What’s C4M?
I’m not against social welfare. But the proposition that the way to deal with poor kids is to give irresponsible people enough of my and other citizen’s money to give that kid a middle-class income level sounds like a lot more than simple social welfare to me.
RonF:
Sounds like? Where have you seen/heard that proposition? Who exactly argued for that, and in which comment?
C4M=Choice For Men, essentially arguing that men should have a legal opt-out in situations where they don’t want to be a father (in economic sense) if the woman decides to keep the child instead of abortion/adoption. I’m not a big fan of the concept.
Given that we now have universal suffrage, and given that all children born in the United States are citizens thereof, the “populace” being discussed are the future electorate.
I realize that you then go on to suggest that poor people should be denied the franchise, but that wasn’t on the table in this discussion.
Tuomas asks:
Sounds like? Where have you seen/heard that proposition? Who exactly argued for that, and in which comment?
Amp’s post #68 in this thread was the initial proposition (especially his second paragraph). I asked for clarification in post #106, which he provided in #107, and I responded to in #114.
Choice for Men? I’m for all kinds of choices for men, but if a guy has sex with a woman and she gets pregnant and decides to have the baby, as far as I’m concerned he’s on the hook for being a father to that child. I’m not just talking about sending a check; I’m taking about establishing a family unit with the child and it’s mother with all that implies. If a man isn’t prepared to do that, he should keep his pants on. If he wants to have sex regardless, then he should take whatever precautions are necessary to lower the odds of conception. But if said precautions fail, then he needs to step up. A male who thinks that his obligations to his child can be fulfilled with a check is no man, in my estimation.
Was there a time in this Republic’s history when poor people didn’t have the franchise; when you had to have assets or income of “x” amount to be eligible to vote? I seem to recall that there was such, but I can’t put my finger on a source. Or am I just completely confused?
Thanks for the clarification.
Amp talked about generous welfare, not middle-class income level. It is mathematically impossible for a society to ensure middle-class (as in average relative to income level in society) and maintain the principle that those who work harder and are more productive than others should earn more (I cannot, offhand think of a single person who would argue against that, and I know some people that are [at least by American standards] very far-left socialists).
If Amp meant middle-class income-level with generous welfare, he can correct me. Personally, I think a rich society (U.S, U.K, Finland…) should provide a reasonable living standard to people who can not provide for themselves, and thus, equal opportunity (education, place to live, food, functional clothes, health-care). Many things that a middle-class income level entails, would in my opinion be luxury rather than necessity, and not required for reasonable equal opportunity (even people below middle-class, in first-world societies, have a living standard that would be considered extragavant in poorer societies).
It is not a simple zero-sum dilemma, but rather, ensuring that each citizen has an opportunity to become a productive member of society is a State interest, and in interest of more affluent citizens.
RonF writes:
Yes, it’s existed at various times via such things as Poll Taxes.
Poll Tax
As that article points out, poll taxes have a very nasty history in these United States, as well as in other countries. Disenfranchisement tends to not go over all that well, leading to such things as armed insurrection.
Tuomas, I took Amp’s comment that
I’d say that the support of the child should be the responsibility of the state only insofar as the parents are unwilling or unable to support the child to a middle-class lifestyle.
to mean that the State should support children at a middle-class lifestyle if the parents were unable to do so, something I mentioned (but did not “feature”, if you will) in my post #117. Again, if I’m wrong on that, Amp can correct me.
As to this:
Personally, I think a rich society (U.S, U.K, Finland…) should provide a reasonable living standard to people who can not provide for themselves, and thus, equal opportunity (education, place to live, food, functional clothes, health-care).
we run into a couple of qualifiers. What constitutes “reasonable living standard”? I may well judge that differently from you. And, how do we differentiate between “can not provide for themselves” and “will not provide for themselves”? If someone decides to have a child and stay home full time to care for it rather than go to school and get an education that would make them employable, should we support that choice? What if they choose to use illegal drugs that will keep them from getting a job?
You may. I provided some ideas (place to live, food, functional clothes, education, basic health care). Reasonable = basic needs to stay alive and healthy and an opportunity to improve and provide for him/herself (personal responsibility also applies, thus ruling out supporting unhealthy dead-end lifestyles like alcoholism, drug-use etc. Such people should be offered a choice between losing support or getting care, and at extreme cases forced into treatment [this would invoke some controversy, and again i have a qualifier “extreme”. If I knew exactly what would be the correct level of state intervention/support I would have said it already])
No, we should support an opportunity for that person to become employable and provide for the child. Some support for having children is a good idea, like maternal/paternal leave and alleviating the costs of child care (tax deductions? State-sponsored daycare?) Drug use a definite no.
I tend to agree with your position on C4M, but at some cases mom-dad-child model is not the best one (even if it usually is). Depends on the mom and dad in question, I would say.
As for what Amp meant, I will shut up and wait for a clarification.
RonF:
Actually, having re-read Amp’s comments in context I have to concede that your analysis is correct (I am to Amp’s right in this issue, then.).
If I knew exactly what would be the correct level of state intervention/support
Providing it before requiring people to use it. Surely I’m not the only one who recalls that in cases of pregnant women being prosecuted for drug or alcohol use when pregnant, several of those women had been on treatment waiting lists either before or very early in their pregnancies.
I agree, that would be a good start, and in everyone’s interest. The uncertainty lies in situations where “push comes to shove”, when should the choice be forced on people, and at what point should an actual intervention against the consent of the alcoholist/drug user be performed, if it should be performed at all.
Surely you aren’t, and I don’t doubt such things have happened, but please excuse my naivete/youth/lack of knowledge of these cases.
I’m a grown, mentally competent woman. I’m not going to ask another man, even my husband, permission to do what I will with my own body. If he wants a baby, let hm carry it to term.