This story has already been covered in detail by Amanda**, Shakes Sis, and Lindsay so as to render me without much to say on the subject.
I’m of two minds with this story. On one hand, I’m pretty much in total agreement with Lindsay’s post, especially in regards to equal protection.
Friends of forced birth like to say that if a woman has sex, she should be prepared to face the consequences. I agree. There are two potential consequences of an unwanted pregnancy: birth or abortion. Every sexually active woman knows that she may have to choose one consequence or the other. Getting an abortion is one perfectly acceptable way of dealing with the consequences of sex.
If the woman chooses to become a mother, she incurs responsibilities towards her child. There are different ways to discharge those responsibilities of course. Morally defensible options may include giving the child up for adoption (with the father’s consent), giving the father custody of the child and paying child support, or raising the child as a single parent. Once the child is born, men and women are on an equal footing again.
However, as a single parent, a friend of many single parents, and a person who has gone through a particularly nasty custody battle, I’m not sure I want the state seeking out child support without my consent from a person who wants to abandon their children. The parent who is obligated to pay child support has — unless there are pre-mitigating circumstances — rights to see their kids on a regular schedule. The kind of parent who doesn’t want to pay child support is the kind of parent who probably shouldn’t have regular contact with their kids.
Sometimes, sometimes, the best thing for everyone is for the noncustodial parent to voluntarily sign away their rights and just disappear. I know single parents, men and women alike, for whom it would be a blessing.
So, what to do? Not to be crass, but if even Domino wrote a song about it*, it’s pretty plain common sense: If you’re going to have sex and you don’t want babies, your best option is birth control.
Here’s a joke, they’re made for you fertile ass folks
Cuz when you’re unprotected and you nut
Nine months later got a gut bout to bust
And you’re bitin’ your fingernails cuz you can’t take care of it
That’s why I’m makin’ you aware of it
So I’m tellin’ you chumps now, you better wack it
Or buy the jacket in a package
Pull and pray just doesn’t cut it.
Trust me. No, really.
In the meantime, people, get yourself a plan for preventing pregnancies you don’t want so you don’t get mixed up with messed up assholes who won’t be supportive should something happen you didn’t explicitly plan. Call it preventive medicine.
Then again, the guys advocating this case are also advocating a pre-sex contract to rule out any of their responsibilities to any unplanned pregnancies they may have with you — pass the word along and tell your friends to stay away from dudes who bring a contract and a pen into bed.
__________________
* Alas, later in this song Domino sounds like he’s an MRA. But I think in rap lyrics, so this is what you get.
** And my new favorite exchange in the blogosphere:
There was a case of a NURSE giving a patient a BLOWJOB and somehow getting the cum from her mouth to her uterus, so dont tell me “that stuff doesn’t happen.”
Women trap men all the time, it happens on a daily basis.
Those women probably dont run in your circles, you wouldnt know about them, but plenty of them exist and plenty of them make a nice living trapping men into child support.
And from none other than Zuzu:
And you know? There was this case? Like, this guy, he met this woman? In a bar? At a hotel? And, like, like, this is the really scary part… he went up to the room with her? And he passed out? And then he woke up in the bathtub? And the bathtub was full of ice? And, like, HIS KIDNEY WAS GONE! Omigod, I know? DON’T TELL ME “THAT STUFF DOESN’T HAPPEN!” My cousin’s friend was, like, the nurse that saw the guy in the ER. Yeah, and like one time Cindy Crawford came in with Richard Gere? And he had a gerbil up his butt!
You could certainly argue that condom sabotage is rare; that would be my gut instinct, although I have no evidence to back it up.
However, it’s not an urban legend as you imply. See Louisiana v. Frisard, Stephen K. v. Roni L., Estes v. Albers (and similar cases). Or S.F. v. Alabama ex rel. T.M. for a particularly sick case – a woman rapes a man while he’s passed out, and he’s responsible for the child (which violates both common sense and similar cases in which the genders were reversed). Note: some of those are SCOTUS, some aren’t; a quick google should bring up the details for each.
I’m not going to take a position on whether “Roe for Men” is ridiculous; just pointing out that at least one of your arguments is invalid.
That’s not my argument, actually. I think it’s so inconsequential to not play a part on the entirety of family law. Should these cases be considered individually? Sure, but this is hardly the widespread hysteria of sperm-snatching bitches the proponents of this case make it to be.
wow, first comment and someone has to bring up the urban legend that happened….once.
I wish guys would use those contracts. It would be so conveniant to narrow the field, and then these guys wouldn’t have any kids to bitch about. Of course, then they wouldn’t get laid, either.
Oh, wait….
You haven’t been to South Dakota lately, have you?
A female rape victim who is impregnated by her rapist and gives birth to the child is responsible for that child. Her responsibility may take the form of putting the child up for adoption or keeping it, but she is nonetheless responsible.
And once again, I have to ask, what world is it populated by sperm vampires out to steal men’s precious bodily fluids?
Ok, the following thoughts on abortion are tentative. I think I agree with them, but I’m also playing devil’s advocate. You’ve probably heard these arguments before, but I’m just putting it out there anyway.
I don’t think that men should be able to opt out of child support once the child is born, but I do think that women should get an abortion if their partner doesn’t want a child.
I don’t think the argument that because it’s the woman who is pregnant and not the man that therefore the woman has the final say on whether or not to have an abortion is valid. To me it’s not a question of whose body actually has to undergo a procedure that is safer than childbirth, it’s what are the consequences to each parter if a child is born or aborted?
Which decision is more grave: having an abortion, or bringing into the world a living,breathing,suffering being that one is responsible for for the rest of one’s life? It’s obvious to me that having a child is a much greater responsbility than having an abortion. If the woman wants a child, there are plenty of men out there who would agree to have one. Her life isn’t ruined by having an abortion. On the other hand, if a man has a child against his will his life may feel ruined, not to sound melodramatic. For this reason, I think it is always best to play it safe and err on the side of abortion. And, ultimately, this is the reason I think a woman’s right to autonomy is trumped.
Some say that if a man doesn’t want a child then he should keep it in his pants, but can’t this argument be reversed? If women don’t want an abortion, don’t spread your legs? Or, as pro-lifers say, if you don’t't won’t a child, don’t spread your legs? I find both of these arguments distasteful and unrealistic, but I just wanted to explain why I don’t think they work.
Just to be clear, I’m not a troll or an MRA. I support and agree with feminism 99% of the time. I believe women should have the right to an abortion under all circumstances. I’m also disgusted that there are men out there who are heartless enough to try to weasel their way out of raising a child they helped to create. But I also think it’s heartless to force fatherhood upon someone who isn’t ready or able to be a father. I don’t think it is fair to the child either.
I speak as a male with a mental illness who is certain that he couldn’t raise a child. Fortunately, I’m in a position where that isn’t going to happen. But what if I did accidentally get a woman pregnant? I know that mentally I’m not in a place where I could be there financially or emotionally for a child, not because I’m heartless, but because I have issues. Even though a woman would have her physical autonomy violated by having an abortion, I feel like I would have my mental autonomy violated by having a child. I wouldn’t feel guilty about aborting a child, but I would feel tremendously guilty about not being there emotionally and financially for a living,breathing child I helped create.
If you’re worried that much about it, vascectomy is a quick outpatient procedure, and completely effective as far as I’m aware.
I don’t think anybody is insensitive to the idea that men have a troubling lack of standing to oppose responsibility for children that, in some cases, they made a good-faith effort to prevent. (I was dismayed that the court in S.F. v. Alabama ex rel. T.M. described the woman’s conduct as merely a “reprehensible misdemeanor”. Since when is rape a misdemeanor?) But I’m also troubled that there don’t seem to be any legal solutions that aren’t worse than the problem.
The answer is better birth control for men. There’s no excuse that men’s options for reproductive choice are ridiculously limited. Sorry but it’s the only solution and it’s something that both men and women are far too complacent about.
a woman rapes a man while he’s passed out, and he’s responsible for the child (which violates both common sense and similar cases in which the genders were reversed).
You should read the cases you cite. For example, in SF v. State ex. rel. T.M., the father raised the ‘involuntary sex’ argument for the first time on appeal, and never brought it up at trial. The appeals court could not consider it. As for his being a minor, unfortunately, the state’s child-support statute didn’t think of that happening. The court is not allowed to make up new law. (We all hate judicial activism, right?) It really had no choice but to follow the law: the child’s interests come first, there was no exemption for rape victims.
Stephen K. v. Roni L. involved an allegation that the woman had lied about using contraception. Estes v. Albers held that the right of a child to support ‘cannot be bargained away’. Louisiana v. Frisard is the only sperm-theft case, and it turned out for the same reason as SF; the state’s support laws don’t care how or why you became a parent. (Also, to be blunt, Louisiana law is a little weird.)
I do actually know of a condom-sabotage case. When I was a teenager, a would-be boyfriend told me a ‘hilarious’ story about how he and a buddy had snuck into the buddy’s older brother’s room, found his condom stashed, and pinholed them.
I think a pre-sex contract is a great idea. It would clarify the purpose of the relationship right from the start. If someone’s intentions are not serious, well, the contract would make that obvious.
It would also warn any women or girls who were fooling themselves by thinking that X guy is emotionally serious about “making a commitment” that he has no intention of sticking around for.
Vasectomy is fine for some men. But other men don’t even know that they don’t want children until they’re put into that situation. A lot of men are pretty clueless and…shit happens. Just like how women find themselves in unplanned pregnancies. I agree that male birth control is important, though.
I’m not sure how serious I am about this all this. I guess I just wanted to make the point that I’m not too comfortable with the idea that something as monumental as having a child is decided by something which, in comparison, seems sort of insignificant–namely, the sex of one the parents. I know that’s a value judgment on my part, and I’m sure most women will disagree.
I strongly believe that a woman who chooses to have a child, that her boyfriend/husband/one-night-stand doesn’t want, is irresponsible. However, I don’t see how Roe applies to this case. The decision in Roe states that women have a right to privacy, a right that allows us control over our own bodies, free from government intrusion, until the third trimester of a pregnancy. Roe doesn’t deal with what happens to the child once it’s born. The right to privacy and the equal protection clause don’t apply to this case.
If men want to be able to “opt out” of child support, they should petition the government to change the law or, at least, they need to find another legal rationale.
I’m sure there are some women who get pregnant to “trap” their boyfriends. I think most of them are attempting, however stupidly, to save the relationship. However, there are many men who are completely clueless and irresponsible. There are also men who freak out about a planned pregnancy once the reality of it is staring them in the face. They don’t deserve an easy way out.
I guess I just wanted to make the point that I’m not too comfortable with the idea that something as monumental as having a child is decided by something which, in comparison, seems sort of insignificant–namely, the sex of one the parents.
Well, having a uterus is the significant part of the situation. And that’s fairly significant. I know that I’d like for my husband to be the one to gestate our future children. Or I’d love to divide the pregnancy in half – I have to gestate for 4 1/2 months and he gestates for 4 1/2 months.
However, he doesn’t have a uterus, so the lack of that organ becomes a significant difference for the divying up of our reproductive labor.
I’d be happy to turn over the reproductive labor if I could.
I’m all for the invention of uterine replicators.
And men should really advocate for the male birth control pill.
It’s not insignificant, though. It’s the inescapable facts of the world. Women are the people in whose bodies pregnancy occurs. Women, thus, are the ones who make the decisions about that pregnancy, because we aren’t people if we don’t even have access to our own bodies. Pregancy is, practically, ultimately the woman’s alone. If she wishes input, fine. If not, that’s her decision (and we as a society will certainly take full advantage of our First Amendment right to judge her mercilessly for whatever that decision turns out to be*).
If she decides to continue the pregnancy, and makes it all the way through to give birth to a child, then yeah, that child is now the father’s responsibility as well. Is it Platonically, ideally, abstractly fair that a woman can decide to bring to term a pregnancy when the man involved would rather she not? I don’t know; that kind of thinking is beyond my education, but whatever results we get from whatever kind of gedankenexperiment we pursue, they can’t change the fact that the process of gestation happens only to a woman, and as such can be subject only to her discretion.
So what follows, as others have pointed out, is that your concern here is not with a woman’s decision about her pregnancy. It’s out of your hands (as it were) by then. Your concern here is with the relatively feeble state of the art of men’s contraception. We should be agitating for better and easier options for taking the responsibility on ourselves to prevent fertilization if we don’t want it. If you’re going to dissent, that’s where your agency is.
*this expression of bitterness is a general one, and not directed at you, bill.
And while I was typing and editing and stuff, geoduck2 said the same thing more succinctly.
Last time I tried that, several women claimed that they “could never trust a man with the birth control”, that “men would never use it anyway” (despite evidence to the contrary), etc., etc. And this was on feministing.com – not exactly home to the anti-BC fundies of the world.
Geoduck, I think you are misreading me. Or maybe I’m misreading you. Or maybe I wasn’t clear. But, I don’t see what dividing up the pregnancy into 4 1/2months each has anything to do with it. I’m talking about aborting a pregnancy, not maintaing one.
Lux Fiat,
“It’s not insignificant, though. It’s the inescapable facts of the world. Women are the people in whose bodies pregnancy occurs. Women, thus, are the ones who make the decisions about that pregnancy, because we aren’t people if we don’t even have access to our own bodies. Pregancy is, practically, ultimately the woman’s alone. If she wishes input, fine. If not, that’s her decision (and we as a society will certainly take full advantage of our First Amendment right to judge her mercilessly for whatever that decision turns out to be*).”
I didn’t mean to say that the fact that pregnancy soley occurs in women is insignificant. I meant to say that it is insignificant in comparison to the gravity of the situation and therefore it shouldn’t be the deciding factor in the situation. And that having a child is ultimately a bigger deal than not having a child. There are always limits to our physical autonomy. Our physical autonomy only extends to the extent that it doesn’t interfere with the physical autonomy of someone else. Having an unwanted child is huge blow to someone elses autonomy, a much greater blow than having an abortion.
I’m not interested in shaming women. And I’m not against children. I’m against forced parenthood when there are other options, like abortion, that make it unnecessary. However, as soon as a child is born, no matter the circumstances, I think as a society we should do everything we can to help them. I’m very pro-welfare and would like see more done by our society to make life easier for parents and children.
Anyway, as I said before, I’m not even sure how serious I am. But I’d like to hear what people think.
In order to remedy the inequality between the sexes many see regarding reproductive freedom, I propose Scarlett’s Law (named for the woman who suggested such a law to me on another site):
1. A man and a woman may enter into a Scarlett Contract (similar to a pre-nup) which states that the man will have no rights or responsibilities in regard to any child born to the couple. It would be legally binding (I’m no lawyer; how do you make a pre-nup legal? Do it that way.).
2. If a woman who signs a Scarlett Contract becomes pregnant with the man’s child, she has the options of A) aborting the fetus (the man pays half of any costs), B) giving birth and keeping the baby (the man pays for half of any medical expenses incurred during childbirth – but no child support), or C) putting the child up for adoption (the man pays half of any expenses).
3. The man has no parental rights regarding the child if the mother carries her to term. If he wishes at a later date to reclaim those rights, he must have the mother’s permission, and pay her (or sign a promissory note for) the amount he would have paid in child support during the child’s life (if the kid’s nine, then he owes nine years of child support – some of this money could go back to the government if the woman recieved finacial assistance previously).
4. If the woman dies during childbirth, the father regains custody. He may keep the child and assume his parental obligations. If he chooses not to keep the child, he can offer to let the family of the mother accept custody of the child. If they decline, he can put the child up for adoption.
5. In the absence of a Scarlett Contract, a man has the rights and responsibilities of fatherhood. No contract, no way to avoid child support. Period.
I’ll respond to a couple of expected criticisms:
“Child support is for the child. The mother can’t sign that away.”
I’m not one who has a problem with my tax dollars going to financial assitance for poor families. If a two parent family needs government assistance, they should get it. If a single mom who signed a Scarlett Contract needs assistance, she should get it too (from the government, not the father). I’m a Canadian with socialist leanings, so this is consistent with my principles.
“What kind of scumbag would have a woman sign a Scarlett Contract?”
I dunno. Probably the same kind who would have a woman sign a pre-nup. But wouldn’t a woman want to know he’s a scumbag before she gets pregnant with his child?
Any comments?
I know. I disagreed. I argued that this grave decision about a woman’s pregancy is the woman’s alone to make, because you have nothing to do with it. Which is, perhaps, abstractly unfair (I’m not convinced of even that), but is the consequence of being a) a sexually-reproducing mammal (women get pregnant) and b) a beneficiary of the Enlightenment (women are people).
That’s what I think.
Lux Fiat, we’ve both expressed ourselves and we disagree, but I’m going to reply to you anyway, not to be argumentative but just as a way to think out loud. You don’t have to reply, though feel free if you want to.
You said: “I know. I disagreed. I argued that this grave decision about a woman’s pregancy is the woman’s alone to make, because you have nothing to do with it. Which is, perhaps, abstractly unfair (I’m not convinced of even that), but is the consequence of being a) a sexually-reproducing mammal (women get pregnant) and b) a beneficiary of the Enlightenment (women are people).”
My problem with this argument is that I think it is flippant to say that a woman’s pregnancy is the woman’s alone because men “have nothing to do with it.” Isn’t fatherhood, if taken seriously, an incredibly massive responsibility? Doesn’t the concrete reality of being a parent have far greater weight than abstractions about physical autonomy, especially when the impact of having an abortion affects the woman less than having a child affects the male?
To rephrase this discussion…
Forget for a moment about the biological status of men and women and just answer the question as if sex didn’t matter:
Is it more fair to demand that someone have an abortion, or is it more fair to demand that someone be a parent?
Feminists say that women should have the final say because they are the ones who, by chance, mother nature decided gets pregnant. But they are also the ones who, by chance, get to have an abortion. It may not be fair to women, but it’s not as unfair as having an unwanted child is to men.
Just to throw this in there since it wasn’t in my original post — the guy bringing this lawsuit on behalf of the movement openly admits he didn’t use birth control, i.e. he had unprotected sex with a woman who has functional ovaries, and now complains that he doesn’t want to pay child support for a child he took no pains to prevent conceiving.
I’m not particularly compassionate for that kind of shit.
Are you serious? The potential of being a parent is a “concrete reality” while physical autonomy is an “abstraction”? Being pregnant is no abstraction. Undergoing a medical procedure — and that’s what abortion is — is no abstraction. You’re arguing that a woman should have to submit her body, against her will, to a surgical procedure that may not be necessary to preserve her health/life just because a man doesn’t want to have a kid? I’m not sure what to call that other than sick.
Let’s turn that on its head: Say a man really wants a child. Should he be legally allowed to force his female partner to undergo invitro fertilization in order to conceive, and then force her to give birth to satisfy his desire? Or should he legally be allowed to force a fertile female to have sex with him because he desires a child, and the importance of new life outweighs any issues about her physical autonomy?
No one should be allowed to compel someone else to go through with an unnecessary (or, hell, even necessary) surgical procedure and invasion into their bodies against their will, simply to make another’s life easier (or even to relieve another of great suffering). Here’s another example: Let’s say that my kidneys are failing me. I’m going to die. Your kidneys match mine, and if you would give me one, I could live. That’s a far graver situation than parenthood, no? Should I be legally allowed to force you to undergo kidney surgery, have one of your kidneys removed, and have it transplanted into my body, because my right to continue living obviously trumps your right to bodily autonomy? Is it more fair to demand that someone give up their kidney, or is it more fair to demand that I die because you won’t?
Gordon K:
And in that case, these women are free to use their own hormonal birth control and/or (insist on) barrier methods. (I’m a fan of “No condom, no sex”.) Everybody wins!
Jill,
“Let’s turn that on its head: Say a man really wants a child. Should he be legally allowed to force his female partner to undergo invitro fertilization in order to conceive, and then force her to give birth to satisfy his desire? Or should he legally be allowed to force a fertile female to have sex with him because he desires a child, and the importance of new life outweighs any issues about her physical autonomy?”
You can’t turn it on it’s head because it’s not a fair analogy. Having a child and having an abortion are two completely different things. If a man gets a woman pregnant and she wants an abortion and he doesn’t, I think the woman should have the final say because I don’t think anyone should have the right to force someone to have a child they don’t want for the reasons I listed above.
“No one should be allowed to compel someone else to go through with an unnecessary (or, hell, even necessary) surgical procedure and invasion into their bodies against their will, simply to make another’s life easier (or even to relieve another of great suffering). Here’s another example: Let’s say that my kidneys are failing me. I’m going to die. Your kidneys match mine, and if you would give me one, I could live. That’s a far graver situation than parenthood, no? Should I be legally allowed to force you to undergo kidney surgery, have one of your kidneys removed, and have it transplanted into my body, because my right to continue living obviously trumps your right to bodily autonomy? Is it more fair to demand that someone give up their kidney, or is it more fair to demand that I die because you won’t? ”
Jill, I don’t think this analogy works either. I agree with arguments for bodily autonomy, just not when it comes to pregnancy. Here’s the difference: a child is not a kidney. To the extent that a child is owned, it has TWO owners, it is a creation made by two indivuals, a kidney is not. It is a completely unique situation.
A child is a born, autonomous being and it isn’t “owned” by anyone. It may have been created because of physical input from another, but that doesn’t negate the fact that it is physically attached only to one body. If you give me a kidney, should you have any say in what I do with it after its in my body? Of course not.
As for, ” I agree with arguments for bodily autonomy, just not when it comes to pregnancy,” well, that’s the root of the problem. It’s a worldview that you share with anti-choicers, and at its heart its misogynist. Women are the only ones who can get pregnant. If you believe that at the point of pregnanacy women are no longer deserving of bodily autonomy, then you essentially believe that women are not as fully human as men. Period, end of story.
There is just no justification for arguing that one person should be compelled to undergo an invasive surgical procedure against their will in order to make the life of another easier.
Jill you said: “Are you serious? The potential of being a parent is a “concrete reality” while physical autonomy is an “abstraction”? Being pregnant is no abstraction. Undergoing a medical procedure — and that’s what abortion is — is no abstraction. You’re arguing that a woman should have to submit her body, against her will, to a surgical procedure that may not be necessary to preserve her health/life just because a man doesn’t want to have a kid? I’m not sure what to call that other than sick.”
Jill, I’m pretty sure that I mistated myself. I didn’t mean to say that I thought being pregnant was an abstraction. I’ll try and clarify tomorrow. If you look at the time of my posts you’ll notice that I have literally been up all night, so I haven’t been able to express myself as clearly as I would like.
I also want to say that obviously this debate is completely hypothetical. There’s no way that abortion will ever become accepted enough in this country for mandatory abortions to be carried out. And I’m glad that at least women have the right to an abortion. I’m also sad to see the right-wing efforts to rollback the gains made by feminists.
Bill, I think the position you are arguing is coming from the “It’s just a clump of cells therefore termination is not an undue burden” camp. Many people believe that those cells are valuable, they just believe that the value of those cells is worth less than the host’s autonomy. The woman might well believe that the value of those cells is worth more than the burden they will impose on her, as a host, as a parent and her determination IS what matters.
Chinese forced abortion is just as psycologically damaging to women as is American forced childbirth.
Just for the record…..visitation and child support are separate issues. My ex had regular visitation, but refused to pay child support. While the court ordered him to do so, he simply ignored that. However, the court made it clear to me that visitation was about his relationship with his son, and they would take very seriously any attempt to block or limit his visitation…even if he never paid, I was told (and he didnt), he had a right to a relationship with his son.
So? The fact that some women would prefer to take their own precautions limits your options how? Wouldn’t you rather have additional options to belt-and-suspender the whole contraception process?
Keep in mind as well that women are the ones getting pregnant, so the consequences of either party forgetting to take a pill, or taking something that interferes with the function of the pill, will occur in their bodies. Regardless of who’s taking on the burden of contraception.
Oh, and why the hate for pre-nups? As long as they’re not overly restrictive, they’re a good way to prevent family assets, like trusts or real estate, from being included in marital property. Which is something that is important when you have kids from a prior marriage that should be getting certain things. And they’re important not just in case of divorce, but also in case of death.
On the BBC yesterday afternoon they devoted their World Speak (or whatever it is called) to this case. They had a representative, Mel something-or-other, from The Center for Men, and one or two women as well. It was a great debate, with callers and emails and text messages from around the world.
What Mel was arguing made sense to me. According to the guy’s story, he made it explicitly clear to the woman that he did not want to have children, children with her. She agreed with him (he claims) and also assured him she could not get pregnant. Well, she got pregnant, and now the guy is being ordered to pay child support. He has refused his parental rights, wants nothing to do with the child, and is going to court to avoid the child support payments. (Is my understanding of the case correct?)
I brought this issue up in my Social Psychology of Marriage course last night, and the majority of women in the class who spoke up on the topic said the same thing, along the lines of, “You made your bed so lie in it”. Only one gal dissented, saying that if the man did not want a child and specifically made an agreement with the woman, he should not be held to pay child support.
I do not agree with the position that this is a “Roe v Wade for Men” situation, but I do believe it speaks to issues of justice and fairness.
I think the last say in decisions regarding pregnancies should be left to the woman in question. To allow a man to (have the State) force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term, to have a baby, is absurd. Just as forcing a woman to terminate the pregnancy, or give the child up for adoption, is absurd.
However, I am still not solidified on what should be done in cases in which the male partner does not want the child but the female partner does. It does not seem right to me to force a partner to pay for child support when that partner does not want the child.
At the same time, I would fear any sort of precedent being set that would cause undue burden for a woman who had previously had the (financial) support of her partner for help in raising their child.
Imaginary examples that come to my mind are such a situation wherein both partners have remained together for some time after the birth of the child, and one partner decides to leave. In this sort of case, I believe both partners should be held financially liable. In a case such as the one that started this thread, wherein both partners agreed there would be no pregnancy (or so it has been claimed in this case), I do not believe the other partner should be held financially liable.
I don’t know. It’s tricky and the outcomes could lead towards good or bad.
In trying to see it from different points of view: if I were a man and had a verbal agreement with a partner that I did not want to have children with her, I would not want to be held liable for payments if she decided she did want a child/ren and through whatever means became pregnant with my sperm. As a woman, I cannot see myself intentionally (or even unintentionally) getting pregnant with a partner who specifically told me they did not want children with me, and then attempting to get child support from that partner.
Is this an all-or-nothing situation? The old argument is that ‘it takes two to make a baby’, and in the 21st century we have several contraceptive options for both males and females, so… I feel I’m stuck.
Help in clarification is welcomed.
What Mel was arguing made sense to me. According to the guy’s story, he made it explicitly clear to the woman that he did not want to have children, children with her. She agreed with him (he claims) and also assured him she could not get pregnant.
And he did nothing himself to prevent conception. Even if she swore on a stack of bibles that she’d been told by a panel of gynecologists that she could never in a million years be impregnated by the semen of mere mortal men, if he had any reason to believe that he himself might be fertile, he should have taken some sort of precaution to ensure that he would not father a child. Without taking that responsibility, how is a reasonable arbiter supposed to weigh his claim that he emphatically never wanted children? In effect, he said to the woman, “I never want children, but I want sex, and therefore I’m willing to make it your responsibility to make sure that I get sex without fatherhood.”
In what world is that fair?
From the linked article: The man contends that his ex knew he didn’t want to have a child with her and assured him repeatedly that — because of a physical condition — she could not get pregnant.
That’s a world away from just saying he didn’t use BC.
Besides, you probably wouldn’t support restricting a woman’s right to chose over whether or not she used BC. Why would that be a deciding factor? Assuming he did use BC (and that pretty much means a condom) would he then gain male reproductive rights?
In the Salon article there are some more good quotes from the guy bringing the suit, honestly it’s written better than I can argue:
http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2006/03/13/roe_for_men/
So he’s clearly in the Pro-choice camp.
He’s not trying to let “deadbeat dads” walk out on their responsibilities
The man’s right to choose comes in when he decides to wear a condom or get a vasectomy or not.
The woman’s right to choose comes in both when she decides to use contraception and when she decides whether to terminate any resulting pregnancy.
Any man who gives away his sperm has relinquished control over it. It’s a gift. If he wants to be certain that he doesn’t become a father, he should ensure that his sperm never enters a woman’s body. There are many ways to do that, but if you want to have vaginal sex, you’re just going to have to rely on condoms or vasectomies. Failure to do either seriously undercuts any later claim that you were serious, reallyreallyreally *serious* about not wanting to be a father.
As a mother of two there are plenty of days when I wish that all I had to do was pay someone money to raise my kids. Sign me up! Cause this “having to take into consideration a parenting partner’s feelings/parenting” and stress about parenting nevermind all the burdensome, thankless chores involved dont exactly thrill me.
Men who dont use protection and get mad they have to, at most, write a check every month? Cry me a river.
The whole thing just makes me want to tear my hair out, pretty much because it’s such a scam, and people are buying it. I’m very disappointed with all those people are just lapping it up:
“That sounds fair! And I don’t want to be seen as unfair, so I’m going to agree with it!”
The answer to this dilemma is so stupidly obvious, and it says a lot about male privilege that we would take the angle that hurts women and children first before looking at the logical solution, the one that actually puts some of the burden on men. The whole argument only makes sense in the frame that all women are vindictive little bitches, I mean, not only are some women lying little bitches, a great number of them are, or at least enough that we have to let the poor, helpless male victims “opt out” of child support in any situation.
I’ve heard the story of the semen-stealing-disguised-as blow-job a few times myself, it’s sad. I’m amazed that people are so conditioned to think of women as manipulative and baby/companionship crazy on a regular basis to the point that this story gets circulated without so much as a blink from the audience. I mean, hello? Enzymes? The same ones that break down large chunks of food? Yeah, I’m sure they’ll be gentle on sperm. This is an urban legend of teens that don’t know any better, not valid justification for allowing fathers to opt out of child support.
I posted my little blurb about this on Newsvine. I think I might have posted it here in the comments in the past also, and I’ve posted it in numerous other blog comments.
Bottom line, if men want control over reproductive choice, then they must also accept some of the responsibility of reproductive choice. Don’t fucking throw it all on the women throughout history, then step back and say,
“Wow, you guys were really successful in protecting yourselves against having unwanted children. But I think it’s unfair that you are so successful, so I demand that I be able to have the same reproductive choices that you do. But I’m not going to go about this by actually taking responsibility and fighting for male birth control, you know, all that stuff you ladies had to do, and still do to this day. Nope, now that you ladies have done all the work, I’m going to try and balance this in an easy way, financially, so that we can be ‘equal’. But hey, thanks again for taking the whole of responsibility on yourself in the past so I can use it against you now!”
Sorry for the snark, But I’m a bit jaded on the subject at this point.
Hey, does anyone have a link to that article that was circulating a while back, about male birth control and big pharma, where they don’t want to produce it because female BC is more profitable for them? I can’t find it anywhere, and it would be useful in discussions like this.
I don’t know if you guys take suggestions for posts, or what, but I’d be interested in the history of the fight for women’s birth control, as both a historical context for the same fight today, and perhaps a kind of guide to men who want to fight for their own birth control.
“And once again, I have to ask, what world is it populated by sperm vampires out to steal men’s precious bodily fluids?”
You may spend too much time amongst other feminists to realize it. It does happen that women sometimes decide to get pregnant for bad reasons, sometimes even going so far as to sabotage efforts at contraceptives (now of course that would be a lot harder if the contraceptive burden was more equally distibuted, to be sure).
It is not common by any means but does happen.
The point as I see it is that women have a way of opting out of parenting, they can have an abortion. Men should have a way to opt out as well. Of course the man should not be able to force a woman to get an abortion against her will, so the only recourse is to allow a man to give up any legal and financial rights/responsibilities to the child.
Otherwise what you have is one partner having total control over the choice of parenting of the other partner. Isn’t that part of what the pro-choice movement was against? Or is it okay when you get to be the overlords?
And to expand on Lauren’s more practical argument, a guy who really doesn’t want to be a father and who resents his partner and or kids because of it is going to find a way to basically shirk his duties. Why deal with that? Why find yourself in the position of having a kid you can’t support and a deadbeat partner? Wouldn’t it have been vastly preferable to know you were going to be raising the kid on your own back when you had a chance to do something about it?
Funny thing about equality, it usually means giving up some stuff you took for granted.
“Bottom line, if men want control over reproductive choice, then they must also accept some of the responsibility of reproductive choice.”
Which is precisely the line that pro-lifers throw at you.
Funny that.
They throw it, yes. They throw it because they’re trying to prevent women from taking responsibility for reproductive choice by choosing to abort.
And they throw it because they don’t like the idea of women having sex without “consequences.”
However, who exactly is trying to prevent men from having sex at all or from taking responsibility for reproductive choice by pointing out that once your sperm leaves your body, the choice of what is done with it is no longer yours unless you’ve captured it in a condom?
Both men and women have reproductive choices. As I said earlier, the last choice that a man can make to prevent a birth occurs during sex, because that is the last time he has a role. Women, because they have an additional role, have additional choices.
It bothers me that this argument is even being framed as one about “reproductive choice” or “Roe v. Wade for men.” This case is about the paternal parent’s financial responsibilities to his children. It has nothing to do with privacy rights (Roe) or reproductive choice, because it’s not about his right to reproduce or not.
That doesn’t mean that it’s not worth evaluating, but we should be examining it through the lens of family law and parental obligations rather than abortion rights and bodily autonomy. It has nothing to do with those.
“However, who exactly is trying to prevent men from having sex at all or from taking responsibility for reproductive choice by pointing out that once your sperm leaves your body, the choice of what is done with it is no longer yours unless you’ve captured it in a condom?”
who at all is is trying to take your responsiblity of choice from you just by pointing out that once you’ve let the seed in you are Go’d little baby farm?
See the point is that we get to decide for ourselves these issues. I don’t want you deciding for me anymore than you want falwell deciding for you.
“Both men and women have reproductive choices. As I said earlier, the last choice that a man can make to prevent a birth occurs during sex, because that is the last time he has a role.”
Sorry no. Being a father is a role. Just as being a mother is. You have no right to force fatherhood on a man than the right has to force motherhood on you.
“It bothers me that this argument is even being framed as one about “reproductive choice” or “Roe v. Wade for men.” This case is about the paternal parent’s financial responsibilities to his children. It has nothing to do with privacy rights (Roe) or reproductive choice, because it’s not about his right to reproduce or not.”
Because you say so? Who made you arbiter of the matter? And why then can’t the right say exactly the same thing:
It is about the maternal parent’s responsibility to the life within her.
This is very much about reproductive rights. A man and a woman choose to engage in sex. Either they do it unprotected or they have an unfortunate failure of conception. The woman then is put in a position of total control over the man’s future. It is entirely up to her whether the pregnancy goes forward or not (as it should be) but coupled to that is absolutely no choice on the part of the man as to whether he wanted the child.
This is ENTIRELY about reproductive rights.
Let me put it this way: if a guy jerks off should someone be allowed to use his sperm to any end they want? It is out of his body right? Yes, but the use may very well create legal and financial obligation on the man. He has to have some say in that matter.
You keep your used condoms in a safe-deposit box, don’t you?
The people who make the laws restricting my right to do so, silly. You’re missing the point: The man’s last chance to avoid fatherhood occurs prior to ejaculation. The woman’s last chance to avoid motherhood occurs afterwards. Biological fact. So really, the people who say that women should have kept their legs shut have less of an argument than those who say men should have kept it in their pants.
Wrong again. He had the choice not to give his sperm out to women who might make him a father. A man who is really serious about not becoming a father takes obvious precautions. He gets a vasectomy, or he wears a condom, every time, knowing that female birth-control methods can fail for various reasons, and that instant pleasure is not worth the risk of future responsibility. IOW, he knows where his sperm goes.
A man who is not quite so serious takes chances. He weighs instant pleasure against potential future responsibility, knowing that he’s not going to have to think about it for a while, and knowing that it’s not his body that will be bearing the burden. So he chooses not to wear a condom and freaks out when he’s told that she’s pregnant, he’s the father, and she’s keeping it. *That* is when he gets serious about being a father or not.
Who’s going to scrape it out of the sock?
I agree with Jill.
Roe is about bodily autonomy. This case is about financial responsibility and family law. The title _Roe v. Wade for men_ trivializes what Roe means for women.
I didn’t mean to say that the fact that pregnancy soley occurs in women is insignificant. I meant to say that it is insignificant in comparison to the gravity of the situation and therefore it shouldn’t be the deciding factor in the situation. And that having a child is ultimately a bigger deal than not having a child. There are always limits to our physical autonomy. Our physical autonomy only extends to the extent that it doesn’t interfere with the physical autonomy of someone else. Having an unwanted child is huge blow to someone elses autonomy, a much greater blow than having an abortion.
Think about the implications here. Are you going to literally tie down an uwillilng woman and force a medical procedure on her? That’s scary and fascist. Why? Because you are invading her bodily autonomy without her permission.
Or if a man wants a baby, are you going to keep a woman prisoner and force her to give birth?
That’s what the criminalization of abortion attempts to do to a woman – force her to gestate and give birth. Again, this presents a situation where someone else appropriates her bodily autonomy for their own reasons.
“You keep your used condoms in a safe-deposit box, don’t you? ”
do we have to resort to personal insults so quickly?
Personally I’m married. I have an ex-. I have two kids with the ex. Our divorce was amicable. I support my kids financially and I don’t have a problem doing so. We decided to have the kids together, so i support them. I see my kids as often as I can (less now because they’ve moved out of the country, unfortunately). My wife and I have no plans to have kids and I’ve had a vasectomy.
So in other words, no this issue doesn’t affect me in the slightest personally. Just as there are many women who are pro-choice even though it isn’t an issue for them.
Happy? Can we get back to the substance now or are we going to just end up yelling insults?
“The people who make the laws restricting my right to do so, silly.”
I know. The funny thing is you recognize that it is bad when done to you, but when done to a guy you shrug your shoulders.
“You’re missing the point: The man’s last chance to avoid fatherhood occurs prior to ejaculation. The woman’s last chance to avoid motherhood occurs afterwards. Biological fact.”
No it’s your view. Just as the Right views the moment the guy comes as the last moment either the man or the woman had any choice in the matter. Your argument is exactly analagous to those you fight agains.
Very Nietzsche.
“Wrong again. He had the choice not to give his sperm out to women who might make him a father.”
She had the choice not to have sex, but she chose to so now she has no rights at all! Seriously Zuzu if you were trying to imitate the religious right’s talking points you couldn’t do a better job than you already have with your earnest arguments here.
“A man who is really serious about not becoming a father takes obvious precautions”
A woman who is really serious about not being a mother takes precaution, so obviously we don’t need abortion.
Insult? You hand us all a straight line like that and now you’re calling insult?
But you see, you’re saying that you get to decide for the woman, too. Because if you get a woman pregnant, she’s either got to have an abortion or take on all the financial responsibility herself.
And you’re saying you get to decide for the child, as well.
Who said that your personal circumstances vis-a-vis impregnating women made your position or more or less valid?
There is no substance to your arguments. They depend on a symmetry that simply does not exist, and favor replacing asymmetry with more extreme asymmetry. Pretending otherwise insults us both.
In terms of a contract: I could see a pre-sex contract, but like a pre-nuputal, after the fact is too late for a legally binding situation. The state, for one, would never accept it because of the state’s own interests.
However, I think a pre-sex contract is a great idea for men who are concerned about these situations.
1) It clarifies the intentions of the parties, thus reducing emotional confusion and possible emotional harm. 2) It clarifies the intention to have sex. Increased communication would be a good thing.
I don’t know if you guys take suggestions for posts, or what, but I’d be interested in the history of the fight for women’s birth control, as both a historical context for the same fight today, and perhaps a kind of guide to men who want to fight for their own birth control.
Chet – There’s a good book by the historian Linda Gordon that might be of interest to you. _Woman’s Body, Woman’s Right: Birth Control in America_. It was originally written in 1974, but it’s been updated and reprinted several times. It would be fantastic to get men interested in advocating for male birth control.
Yeah, because having to pry open your wallet once a month is oh-so-equivalent to being forced to either give birth or have an abortion.
My eyes hurt from the rolling.
Not to sound really creepy or anything, but, well, yeah. The woman can’t be prevented, period, from “defaulting” from the pregnancy, any more than any other contractor, because that would be slavery. And I can’t imagine any redress in lieu of a baby that the man involved would be satisfied with, or that he could not reject and drop everything right back onto square one. And I don’t know that the woman has the right to bargain away the rights of the child to financial support by its father.
And I suppose you don’t like the idea of men having sex without “consequences”?
We’ve all long since decided that every egg, even eggs that are fertilized, that comes down a woman’s tubes don’t have a ball and chain attached.
It’s high time we realized that not every sperm comes with one too.
A woman can conceive, never tell the man, never see him again, and never let him know that there’s a child in the world with his DNA. That’s OK because he gave that sperm as a gift.
Yet the mere suggestion that a woman, in most normal circumstances (i.e. non rape) must first inform the man of the impending birth before he can be compelled to his fatherly duties (and share custody) seems to throw some of you into fits.
Isn’t it better if you know upfront whether or not he’s in it for the long haul before you make for yourself some tough choices?
Now don’t pretend to think that I’m the type to assume that most, or even many women are sperm stealing, scheming little sluts that only want to entrap a man into marrage, or failing that, get child support as a “second prize”. Far from it.
But are you afraid to cede power? Is that what it’s all about? Or do we all seek equality, at least as much as possible?
“Insult? You hand us all a straight line like that and now you’re calling insult?”
What line was that?
“But you see, you’re saying that you get to decide for the woman, too. Because if you get a woman pregnant, she’s either got to have an abortion or take on all the financial responsibility herself.”
That isn’t deciding anything for the woman, it is simply letting her know what the situation is so she can make an informed decision for herself. Isn’t it better for a woman to know that she’d be facing the financial burdens alone when she still has the option to do something about it?
“And you’re saying you get to decide for the child, as well.”
Wow. I can’t believe you went there. So aborting it isn’t deciding for the “child” but signing away legal and financial rights is? Zuzu you really don’t have to keep handing me ammo like this.
You know Chet, you could always use this glorious thing we call the internets to find the history of contraception, how it applies today and info about bc for men.
Who’s going into fits over that? Informing the father is kind of hard to get around if you are in fact going to seek support and/or custody. It’s also required if you’re going to put the child up for adoption.
Where it’s not required, however, is if the woman wants an abortion. Because neither parent’s obligations vis-a-vis the child are triggered until there is an actual child in being, meaning a live, born child. Accordingly, anything prior to the birth of the child is reproductive choice/privacy/autonomy, anything afterwards is family law because it involves the rights of a brand-new person.
What I’d like to know is why there are people who push the sperm-vampire urban legend who aren’t also paranoid about not ejaculating anywhere near a woman, who might be out to steal your precious bodily fluids, impregnate herself, and live high on the hog on the princely sum of $400 a month.
“Who said that your personal circumstances vis-a-vis impregnating women made your position or more or less valid?”
You implied it when you decided to make a personal swipe at me.
“There is no substance to your arguments. They depend on a symmetry that simply does not exist, and favor replacing asymmetry with more extreme asymmetry. Pretending otherwise insults us both.”
Well I see it entirely differently from you. As I see it (and from your rhetoric) you are exactly aping the arguments of the side you profess to be against.
But fine, you disagree with the substance of my arguments. Alright. Well if I cannot appeal to your sense of equanimity then let us talk pure cold politics.
You are in a bad place right now. The religious right is make a hell of an effort to reduce you to chattel. And they are doing a credible job of it. Now is it really in your best interest to drive away guys like me? Guys who are sympathetic to your side but offended by what they percieve as your own antagonism to our desire for equality.
Are those guys really the enemy?
Or are you going to assume your position is so right that you will face utter defeat rather than some measure of compromise?
I do think women should be able to get abortions (at least for the first one and a half trimesters basically no questions asked and any time for health/incest/rape). But I’m not exactly going to stick my neck out for people who (in my opinion) see me as a second class citizen.
Allies don’t have to agree on everything to work together, but an ally who insists on only their way is soon an ally alone.
“Yeah, because having to pry open your wallet once a month is oh-so-equivalent to being forced to either give birth or have an abortion.”
Nice to know you feel free to state unequivocably what is and is not a burden that you yourself will never suffer. Make sure to remember that the next time a right to lifer tells you that an unwanted pregnancy is never a burden.
What child? Fetuses are aborted, and have no independent legal existence. Therefore, there is no “child” being aborted. There is also no “child” whose rights to support either parent can sign away until there’s a live, breathing child. If I’m not mistaken, any adoption agreement must be signed after birth, not before.
So, who pays child support when the father has sole custody, again?
“What child? Fetuses are aborted, and have no independent legal existence. Therefore, there is no “child” being aborted.”
I tend to agree with you.
“There is also no “child” whose rights to support either parent can sign away until there’s a live, breathing child. If I’m not mistaken, any adoption agreement must be signed after birth, not before.”
Why exactly can’t a man sign away their parental rights/responsibilities to the eventual child? Seems like you;ve drawn an entirely arbitrary and convenient line.
Yes.
“So, who pays child support when the father has sole custody, again? ”
No one pays if the father has sole custody. In rare cases when there is joint custody and the father is the primary then the mother may pay. Those are rare however in part because the system is still very heavily biased toward the view that chidren should always be with the mother.
“Are those guys really the enemy?
Yes.”
Good luck then with your own struggle, Zuzu. I think we’re done here.
Bye!
Don’t let the door hit you on the way out!
Not to sound really creepy or anything, but, well, yeah. The woman can’t be prevented, period, from “defaulting” from the pregnancy, any more than any other contractor, because that would be slavery. And I can’t imagine any redress in lieu of a baby that the man involved would be satisfied with, or that he could not reject and drop everything right back onto square one. And I don’t know that the woman has the right to bargain away the rights of the child to financial support by its father.
I’m also unsure of the legal ability to bargain away the rights of the child. However, there is some precedent for this: 1) sperm banks 2) fathers who have signed away parental rights after birth 3) Men who have contributed sperm to women in a lesbian relationships, yet signed away their parental rights.
The major problem I have with the direction of the discussion is that some people are conflating bodily rights with financial rights. That’s rather insulting. It’s especially problematic when pro-choice rights are under attack in the United States and in a state of crisis.
I agree that it’s most likely better for the child to have a “father” bug out of the sistuation rather then be pursued by the state to pay child support. If he is the type of person who doesn’t want to pay support, better to get him out of the child’s life.
Of course I think the state should step up and provide some of the costs of child rearing. The state would be a more reliable and less emotionally traumatic source of funding for both mother and baby.
These men’s rights group should be promoting a system like Sweden’s where the state gives the family money for each of their children. The fact that these groups are not promoting a system like Sweden’s tells me a lot about their ideology and their view of gender relations.
Instead they are ignoring 1) the biology of pregnancy and
2) the economic needs of the baby and
3) the value of bodily autonomy and
4) the fact that legalized abortion is threatened in the United States. (South Dakota anybody?)
piny,
I should clarify about the pre-sex contract thing. I was talking only in terms of a man who wanted to sign away his parental rights and responsibilities. I was in no way talking about a contract for pregnancy.
By the way, I think the idea that another person who thinks he should be able to FORCE an abortion OR a pregnancy on a woman is creepy. In fact, I think they are both equally creepy and fascist.
I wasn’t calling you creepy, just to clarify my own comment. I see what you’re saying.
“The major problem I have with the direction of the discussion is that some people are conflating bodily rights with financial rights. That’s rather insulting.”
Rather than try to establish a heirarchy of whch rights are more equal than the others why not simply accept that all human rights are important. Besides which I’d contest the assertion by simply saying both issues are about reproductive rights.
I do believe I said “impending birth”, you know, like “before born”, “before baby”.
Really? What about those laws that let a woman drop off a kid at a hospital or other center and walk away from all responsibilities? Don’t get me wrong, it seems like a good idea to help avoid the tragic “dead baby in a dumpster”.
So is there at least a single woman, who is at least a semi-regular commenter that supports the ”male reproduction rights” idea, and is willing to be heard?
I myself have only found one woman’s voice online who supports men’s repro rights:
http://jacquelinepassey.blogs.com/blog/2006/03/male_reproducti.html
The right to get to keep all of your paycheck is not a human right.
Tlaloc, that rhetorical throw-away doesn’t hold up to any scrutiny.
Rather than try to establish a heirarchy of whch rights are more equal than the others why not simply accept that all human rights are important.
Because sometimes some of them conflict.
Besides which I’d contest the assertion by simply saying both issues are about reproductive rights.
Except that “reproductive rights” for women involve the use of their bodily organs for forty weeks, with attendant health consequences. OTOH, if a man’s sperm becomes a component of an unwanted pregnancy and he never wants anything to do with the resulting offspring, the only contact he’s ever obligated to have post-ejaculation is any mandated child-support. It seems that any interest a man (and I mean cisgendered men here — transmen might be in an entirely different boat) has in not procreating qua not procreating is essentially theoretical, and the practical interest is money. The same positively cannot be said for anyone with a uterus and working set of ovaries (or even just one!).
So her choices become abortion or child support? And that’s supposed to be fairer how…?
That’s the entire purpose of it.
You still haven’t explained who’s having fits. That is, if you’re just talking about what would be a good idea for pregnant women to do, vs. what should be required of them.
Well, I could, and now I will, but part of the reason I come to this website is because I’m interested in what the authors have to say, and so I thought I would see if they were interested in writing something short on the subject, because I’d be interested in reading it.
It was just a suggestion. I asked not to have them do my homework for me but because I was interested in their take on it. Is that ok with you?
So it’s OK that a woman can walk away from her parental responsibilities, but it’s not OK for a man to let a woman know, during the first trimester, that he does not want to be a father?
Yea, and you haven’t answered this:
So if Roe gets overturned, and the battle shifts to the states, I suppose you all hope that this does not become a wedge issue, as you’ll probably want all the pro-choice supporters you can get. Male and female.
I’m with you there. Why pretend that this guy’s going to be a real father to the kid when he doesn’t want to be?
While reading this thread, I keep thinking this: “I bet if this guy HAD gotten a vasectomy AND was wearing a condom and the vasectomy failed and the condom broke and she got pregnant (Special Olympics of conception!), people would STILL be saying, “Well, if you didn’t want to be a daddy, you shouldn’t have had sex EVER.”
*sigh*
We REALLY need birth control for men that doesn’t depend on flimsy (and easily tamperable) devices and doesn’t have to be permanent. I honestly think that giving men more options and ways to control their own fertility without having to depend on a woman to have better methods on their end would help alleviate this problem. I find it hard to go along with all of the “Too bad, shouldn’t have ejaculated if you didn’t want a baby, the baby needs money” arguments when the options for a guy are THAT few.
“Because sometimes some of them conflict.”
Which human rights are conflicting here?
“Except that “reproductive rights” for women involve the use of their bodily organs for forty weeks, with attendant health consequences. OTOH, if a man’s sperm becomes a component of an unwanted pregnancy and he never wants anything to do with the resulting offspring, the only contact he’s ever obligated to have post-ejaculation is any mandated child-support.”
So you are comfortable with letting someone else define for you what is and is not a burden? Because you apparently seem fine doing it to others.
Okay I’m game. Um… okay you never being able to own property is not a burden. And you not getting to vote is not a burden. Why? Cause I said so!
Gosh this is fun.
Hey how about this: you being considered chattel is not a burden.
Man now I see how easy it is to defuse any uncomfortable argument by simply declaring everyone else’s life choices.
Don’t like gays? Simpy tell them that denying their sexual orientation is not a burden.
Wow. This trick works for everything.
“So her choices become abortion or child support? And that’s supposed to be fairer how…? ”
Her choice remains hers. His remains his. That is entirely fair.
Her choice obligating him or vice versa is unfair. And it is our current situation.
Tlaloc, weren’t you leaving? How can we miss you if you won’t go away?
So you’d rather have the dead baby in the dumpster?
Keep in mind here that if the mother abandons the baby per the law, the father doesn’t have to be on the hook, either, unless he asserts some rights. Everyone’s happy! The baby’s safe and alive, the mother can get her shit together, and daddy doesn’t even have to know he’s a daddy.
And, you know, any man can say during the first trimester that he doesn’t want to be a daddy. He can say it until he’s blue in the face. But that doesn’t change the fact that he ceded control of the sperm to the woman, and it’s her choice what to do with the resulting pregnancy. It also doesn’t change his legal status once the kid’s born either. It doesn’t change the kid’s right to support.
IOW, wishing doesn’t make it true.
Cede power where? To whom?
Oh, I see. You see the whole thing as an issue of women manipulating men. Well, men have perfectly equal rights to terminate their own pregnancies.
Men has a way to opt out – or rather they have several ways. A few of them have to be done before or during the actual sex-act, but men also have the option to leave the child (as do women).
Being a parent is more than being the biological father.
What neither men nor women can do, is opt out of the results of their choices. If the man and woman has unprotected sex, and the woman get pregnant, the woman can have an abortion or get a child, but it is still an result of an earlier action. The man doesn’t have that option, so he has to deal with it differently. However, the man cannot, and should not be able to, make the choices for the woman, as the woman can’t make the choices for the man.
Each has to take responsibility for their own actions, and have to choose between the choices available to them – choices that are well know at the time of the first choice.
“So her choices become abortion or child support? And that’s supposed to be fairer how…? ”
No. Her choices are:
1 abortion
2 adoption
3 raising the child herself knowing the father will not be contributing in any way
I still think a pre-nup type contract is the way to go.
Sounds like a great idea to me. It addresses the flimsy feminist double-standard that has always surrounded abortion: “It’s my body. No one can tell me what to with my own body (especially the government and this creep I picked up at a bar with whom I enjoyed hours of sweaty sex). So, I’ll probably have an abortion whether he likes it or not. BUT if I don’t, then he’ll have to cough up the cash for child support and take care of his kid. Hrrruuphhh!”
Like I said: DOUBLE STANDARD.
tell you what, here’s a hypothetical:
lets say that the right to lifers get their wet dream and some swedish doctor creates an artifical womb that can be used to gestate an embryo from the earliest stages.
So a woman gets pregnant. She doesn’t want to take it to term. The guy does. So the embryo is removed from the woman and put in the artificial womb.
Who pays for the proceedure? Who pays to maintain the artifical womb. WHo has legal rights to the eventual child.
By the logic of most here the woman is equally liable for the cost. Why? Well it doesn’t matter whether she wanted the kid or not, she provided the egg, now she gets to pony up the cash.
By my view since it’s the guy who wants the kid the guy is liable for the costs. He was the one who opted against abortion, he gets the responsibilities and the rights of being a parent.
“Tlaloc, weren’t you leaving? How can we miss you if you won’t go away?”
I didn’t say that. I said I was done with you, Zuzu. And I am.
SLUTTYSLUTSLUTSLUT.
I can be done with you, too.
Hooray for Jennifer. Restore my faith in humankind.
We need a special name for people like zuzu. I suggest “fundy feminest”, both because of her recycling of the fundy pro-life philosophy towards men’s reproductive rights, and her desires for control over men instead of the goal of equality with men.
No, I don’t want any more dead dumpster babies. And I want choices for men and women.
Good luck with that Roe stuff.
How about dealing with the real life questions? If you hypothetical situation comes up, we can talk about it. Until then, the reality is that it is the women that get pregnant, and thus have the possibility of an abortion.
Tlaloc,
So what’s your policy proposal? Lay it out there.
Do you have a serious policy proposal about reproductive rights or a proposal for family law issues? If not, this discussion is just sillyness. And I’m curious how a financial obligation issue is conflated as a reproductive rights issue for you.
(Unless you want to be able to force a women to carry a pregnancy to term or force her to have an abortion – how is this proporsal about reproductive rights and not financial responsibility or the assignment of parental rights?)
I suggested a pre-sex contract where a man could sign away his parental responsibilities and rights.
I also suggest a Swedish style situation where the state gives the family money for each child and takes over some of the cost of child care and social reproduction.
Unless Sweden is much different from Norway and Denmark in this regard (and I doubt it), the father has to pay a lot more in child support than in the US.
And the state actively make sure that the money are paid on time – this can be done by taking money directly from his pay.
“How about dealing with the real life questions? If you hypothetical situation comes up, we can talk about it. Until then, the reality is that it is the women that get pregnant, and thus have the possibility of an abortion.”
Because the hypothetical illustrates how hypocritical the current situation is by creating a mirror situation.
Good luck with that Roe stuff.
Hey! To all the men on this list who are pro-claiming “Ha hahahaha about the state wanting to force you to have babies!!!”
Guess what? The state will also force your wives, sister, and daughters to bear children.
AND at first glance, YOU might think your rights aren’t going to be constricted. Well, the constriction of rights by a state tends to have unseen reprocussions.
White feminists weren’t so worried about the constriction of rights of African American men at the polls. Well, guess what, the gutting of the “prvileges and immunities” clause of the 14th Amendment not onl alllowed the southern states to institute poll taxes and restrict the African American male vote. It was also used to prevent women from joining the bar and using that clause to argue for her right for the vote.
If you’re against fasicsm, we’re all in this together.
As a matter of fact it doesn’t. One of the big differences is that one scenario (a woman get pregnant, the man doesn’t want her to give birth) is quite real to many people, while the other one (woman get pregnant, doesn’t want to give birth, the man takes over) is not at all.
We deal in reality here.
Also, you might not be aware of this, but abortion can be rather costly in the US, yet there are no-one forcing the men to pay for the women’s abaortions, which would be closer to what you’re talking about.
However, if the woman chooses to opt out of being a parent, leaving the job to the father, she has the same responsibilities to the child as the father would have, if the roles were reversed.
“So what’s your policy proposal? Lay it out there.”
Sure. The basic idea is that in case of pregnancy the man has a legal option of essentially revoking any connection to the resulting child. They give up all legal rights to the kid and all financial obligation for the kid. As far as the law is concerned they are strangers.
Obviously there are plenty of details to work out, and I have no doubt that it could be implemented in good or bad ways. My personal suggestion for some of the details would be that unless the mother informs the father of the pregnancy while it is still early enough for an abortion then the father can automatically terminate his role. Otherwise I’d say that the father would have to make the decision during the pregnancy (so as to give the woman a fair chance to decide whether she could raise the kid alone). That prevents a guy from simply skipping out on a 6month old after he decides that being a dad is tough. It also prevents the man from being trapped if the woman ends up finding him after the birth and telling him.
“And I’m curious how a financial obligation issue is conflated as a reproductive rights issue for you.”
It isn’t just a finanacial issue, it is a legal one. Legally the man is the kids father, and that entails plenty of entaglements. It is a reporductive issue because the fundamental question is this: is a man a father simply because he donated sperm? Or is fatherhood a role that must be chosen?
“I suggested a pre-sex contract where a man could sign away his parental responsibilities and rights.”
It is a solution I could understand, and maybe agree with. However I think mine is somewhat better simply because you really never know how you will feel about it until it happens. Rather than having to decide before hand I think it’s better to give some time to think about it. Of course I absoutely agree that partners should be open with each other about whether they want kids, I just don’t think it needs to reach the level of a locked in contract until the situation arises.
So a woman gets pregnant. She doesn’t want to take it to term. The guy does. So the embryo is removed from the woman and put in the artificial womb.
If we invent artificial wombs then no one has to get pregnant again. Everyone is on permanent birth control or sterilized. We’d put birth control in the freaking drinking water.
See Louis McMaster Bujold for some fun sci. fi. about uterine replicators.
A child wouldn’t be created without the express permission of all people who have contributed genetically to that child. (Unless a sperm bank or such is used.)
End of problem. QED.
“If you’re against fasicsm, we’re all in this together.”
I would have thought that too, but according to some we’re the enemy.
Much like Bush, I suspect that feminists will learn that calling people the enemy doesn’t make them likely to give you a hand later.
“Also, you might not be aware of this, but abortion can be rather costly in the US, yet there are no-one forcing the men to pay for the women’s abaortions, which would be closer to what you’re talking about.”
If both the man and a woman want the abortion I have no problem with the man having to pay half. That seems perfectly reasonable.
“However, if the woman chooses to opt out of being a parent, leaving the job to the father, she has the same responsibilities to the child as the father would have, if the roles were reversed.”
Except that of course the woman opts out by simply preventing the situation in the first place. Hardly the same.
so far no one has taken the hypothetical at face value. I find that illuminating.
Certainly throws a bright light on the stupidity of the hypo, yes.
Tlaloc,
Ooops I was busy writing about uterine replicators, so I didn’t see the new message.
Ideologically I’m not against the ability of a man to sign away his parental rights and responsibilities. In fact, if he doesn’t want to be a father, it’s best for the child if he is removed from the child’s life. I think the state should be responsible for more of the costs of child raising.
These are the problems with a durring the pregnancy contract.
1) Informing the “father” can be a problem if she doesn’t know she’s pregnant. (Think girls who may not be paying attention to their bodies until it’s too late to have an abortion.)
A requirement to inform someone of a pregnancy could, in some bad situations, put a woman or a girl in physical danger. The rate of pregnant women being killed is an unfortunate thing in this country.
What are the situations in which a man is not informed of a pregnancy? In most healthy relationships, I would expect in the normal course of things, a man finds out right away. If he is not informed – why is that? Is there a threat of physical danger?
2) A medical abortion (RU486) should be done before 9-weeks. So there’s some pretty severe time limitations here.
It sounds like you are interested in the “father” having some say over an abortion?
3) What does the state do to prevent a couple who breaks up during the pregnancy? Legally, how does the state know if the father-to-be is a legal father, or not? Does he sign a paper – for example, the birth certificate? Can he walk at any time up to the birth of the baby? What if he said he wanted a baby, and then changed his mind? Can a father walk after birth?
The state has an interest here in preventing child poverty and having the legalities taken care of in a practical manner. Is there a way to do this?
4) Reproductive rights – Forced abortion and Forced pregnancy are different form the legal rights of parenthood and family law. I agree that the legal right of fatherhood are legal rights – but they are not reproductive rights.
How can a man have the final say in about a gestation if he has no uterus? If he has no uterine replicator? A man’s reproductive rights revolve around his partner’s uterus and his ability to control his own fertility.
Parental rights are not reproductive rights. It’s frustrating to me that these things are being conflated and it doesn’t help clarify the legal issues involved. (Unless your point is that men should be able to have legal rights over a woman’s uterus and its contents. Now THAT I have a problem with.)
If both the man and a woman want the abortion I have no problem with the man having to pay half. That seems perfectly reasonable.
Then any man (except for husbands) should also pay for half of the cost of the pregnancy. Health care, pre-natal care, and if she has to quit work for high blood pressure, compensation for her labor.
The hypothetical?
I don’t know if you were speaking of the hypothetical where a pregnancy is taken out of a woman and put into an artificial womb, but if the surgical procedure is more dangerous then an abortion, then a woman should have the choice to make whatever is better for her health. Removing a embryo with its placenta sounds like abdominal surgery to me. Whereas a medical abortion simply causes some cramps and pushes out the embryo. What’s medically safer? The woman and her doctor get to make the final choice. No one should be forced by the state to have abdominal surgery, unless it is necessary for her own health and saftey.
Much like Bush, I suspect that feminists will learn that calling people the enemy doesn’t make them likely to give you a hand later.
Wait a second – are you for Bush’s policies on reproduction and birth? Are you pro-choice? Are you a feminist? Are you supporting the man who brought us Alito?
Hmmm. There were laws in the 19th century called criminal seduction laws. Feminists advocated them. Men were put in jail for up to 4 years (a felony) for impregnanting unmarried women.
In civil seduction laws fathers (and later women in their own name) sued the “impregnators” for the costs, labor, and pain of their pregnancies. (This was not child support – it was for the cost and labor of pregnancy.)
You think this can’t happen again? Ha! Check out Romania in the the 20th century.
“A requirement to inform someone of a pregnancy could, in some bad situations, put a woman or a girl in physical danger. The rate of pregnant women being killed is an unfortunate thing in this country.”
I agree which is why there wouldn’t be a requirement for a woman to inform the man, but if she choses not to then the man can opt out after the fact.
“What are the situations in which a man is not informed of a pregnancy? In most healthy relationships, I would expect in the normal course of things, a man finds out right away. If he is not informed – why is that? Is there a threat of physical danger?”
Possibly, or simply a matter of it being unclear who the father is, or of there being difficulty getting in touch. The point is not to say that only x, y, and z reasons a woman might have for not telling the guy are valid because neither of us can possibly imagine every scenario. Rather it is simply to say if for whatever reasons she doesn’t tell the guy then he can opt out of being a father after the kid is born. Other than that he has to opt out prior to birth.
“A medical abortion (RU486) should be done before 9-weeks. So there’s some pretty severe time limitations here. ”
Well I don’t know why you are limiting it to Ru486. Personally like I said I’m in favor of legal “no questions asked” abortions through the first 1 1/2 trimesters.
“It sounds like you are interested in the “father” having some say over an abortion?”
No not at all. I do believe that has to be the woman’s choice. But in order for the woman to make an informed choice she needs to know the status of the man (will he be legally responsible for the kid or not) before she hits the deadline.
” What does the state do to prevent a couple who breaks up during the pregnancy? Legally, how does the state know if the father-to-be is a legal father, or not? Does he sign a paper – for example, the birth certificate?”
I’d assume there’s be a legal document drawn up that expressly says the man is waiving his rights to the child, yes.
“Can he walk at any time up to the birth of the baby? What if he said he wanted a baby, and then changed his mind? Can a father walk after birth?”
As I see it he’s free to change his mind (and so is the woman) up until the deadline for an abortion. Probably set some fixed number of days before that so that if he does have a change of mind the woman still has some time to reassess her position. He can only opt out after birth if he wasn’t told aboput the child in time for him to have input when abortion was an option (as above).
These are of course detqils and there may be better ways to work it than what i come up with off the top of my head, but all in all it seems workable.
“How can a man have the final say in about a gestation if he has no uterus?”
He can have final say in the matter of whether what comes out of the uterus is part his. In other words whether he has legally reproduced. Obviousy biologicaly he has, but that isn’t the issue.
That’s why I call it a matter of reproductive rights. Reproduction is not entirely a function of femal anatomy.
“If he has no uterine replicator?”
The situation where a man wants the kid and the woman wants an abortion sucks a lot. It sucks especially for the guy because it does have to stay the woman’s choice. The guy can have his say but he has no control. The flip side is when a woman wants the kid and the guy doesn’t. That sucks for her. She has a hard choice to make then, whether she can raise a kid on her own.
I don’t envy anyone in either case. But simply denying the man an option in the second doesn’t make it all better. Equality sometimes means it sucks a little bit for everybody. Recognizing a man’s right not to be a fatehr is the part that may suck for feminists. But they’ll have to deal with it.
“Then any man (except for husbands) should also pay for half of the cost of the pregnancy. Health care, pre-natal care, and if she has to quit work for high blood pressure, compensation for her labor.”
If they both want the kid then I have no problem with the guy being obligated to pay for half of the medical expenses of the pregnancy. Again that strikes me as reasonable.
“I don’t know if you were speaking of the hypothetical where a pregnancy is taken out of a woman and put into an artificial womb, but if the surgical procedure is more dangerous then an abortion, then a woman should have the choice to make whatever is better for her health.”
Lets assume the risks are equivilent.
Hmm, how about a fertility tax on men who can’t show proof of a vasectomy? It could go to cover the costs of abortions, pre-natal health care, pregnancy and birth costs, and child support.
I think that would be less invasive than the state having to inquire into the sexual activities of each man to decide how much “insurance” he should pay against accidental fertilization.
“Wait a second – are you for Bush’s policies on reproduction and birth?”
Sorry the syntax was unclear. What I was saying is that just as Bush found out that calling people enemies makes them not want to help you, certain feminists are going to learn the same thing. I was thinking of Bush insulting Euprope at every turn and then trying to get them to help out with Iraq. Stupid on his part. Just as driving away guys like me right when the Religious right is bearing down on them is stupid of feminists.
“You think this can’t happen again? Ha! Check out Romania in the the 20th century.”
Vasectomy. Like I said I sympathize with the pro-choice movement. I was going to go volunteer at the local PP. But if push comes to shove I have nothing to lose by turning my back on them if they decide to attack me. I’m an ally, not a thrall. Piss me off and I’ll leave you hanging in a second.
I’ll say it again — you don’t pay child support, you don’t have rights to your kids. Ever.
Seems pretty simple to me.
Lauren, my sister totally outflanked her non-child-support-paying second husband (soon to be ex). The first husband, father of her older child, said he wanted to adopt the other kid — he’s a great kid, he’s T’s brother, T’s grandparents love him, etc.
So now, anytime Assclown whines about paying support, K suggests that he terminate his parental rights and let J take them over.
“you don’t pay child support, you don’t have rights to your kids. Ever.”
No argument here. Whether you can convince Piny and Zuzu is a different matter.
No… because relevant case law says so. Go read Roe v. Wade and see where it talks about abortion being legal because of financial responsibilities to children. Right, it’s not there, because Roe was argued on the grounds of personal privacy. This case isn’t a privacy case — not because I say so, but because it’s not being argued strictly on privacy grounds.
Off-topic and mean, but I know someone who went to school with that woman, and she is batshit crazy. And wears a fur hat to class. The MRAs can keep her. Just saying.
Yes, all human rights are important, but this isn’t about reproductive rights. Let me explain. Reproductive rights inherently involve reproduction. As in, the right to have sex. The right to refuse sex. The right to access and use contraception. The right to abortion. The right to give birth. The right to seek out fertility treatments. These are all reproductive rights issues, because they directly involve your reproductive organs. Following? Now, whether or not you should have to pay child support for a kid you didn’t want doesn’t have to do with your reproductive organs or sexual privacy (I’m speaking legally here; obviously it may relate in your mind, but it has no legal connection). Reproductive rights for men are all things having to do with sex and your peepee. Born children don’t really relate. Reproductive rights begin and end with your own body. After a woman gives birth, she doesn’t have a “reproductive right” to do whatever she wants to the born child, because it’s no longer within her reproductive system. It’s illogical to argue that your “reproductive rights” have anything to do financial obligations to another person.
An equivalent would be if we started talking about, say, infanticide or child molestation or homeschooling as reproductive rights issues just because they have to do with children.
As it stands, reproductive rights aren’t perfectly equal, but they’re pretty close. You should (and generally do) have control over what you do with your reproductive organs. You can have consensual sex with an adult man or woman. You can use contraception/condoms to try and prevent unintended pregnancy in yourself or your partner. You can refuse sex when you don’t want to have it. These things are true whether you’re male or female.
And after children are born, the rules stay pretty much the same. You are a parent of a child, and you are financially obligated to that child, regardless of which parent has actual custody (although as people have pointed out, the anti-baby-in-dumpster laws are a minor exception). Women cannot give birth, pass the baby off to its father and then wash their hands of the situation and refuse to pay child support. Men can’t either.
The problem here is that people are attempting to conflate family law and child support issues with reproductive rights, when no connection actually exists beyond whining, “It’s not fair!”
Well, no. He is a father because biology dictates that, not the courts. In addressing this issue, no court would posit that a man with children can opt out of being a “father,” because that’s contrary to reality. The question that the courts/legislatures would be addressing is whether fathers should be legally able to terminate their financial obligations to their children. Again, a question of family law and finances, not reproductive rights. And certainly not a question of defining the word “father.”
I debated the issue on the Glenn Sacks show a year or so ago. If you’re really eager, there’s an MP3 of the debate available at that site. I debated pro-men’s rights columnist Amy Alkon, who wrote about the subject here.
On the uterine replicator example:
If the risks are equivalent, the woman and her doctor get to make the medical choice. I don’t think a medical procedure should be imposed on another person against their will. I assume you agree. Do You?
On the right to refuse the legal obligations of fatherhood:
Personally, I think that a signature on the baby’s birth certificate should be what gives the father rights and responsibilities. And a father should have the same rights as a mother to put a child up for adoption.
I don’t think he needs to be infomed durring pregnancy if the woman doesn’t want to inform him – there’s too many possible dangers for her.
Again, I’d rather have the state step in to support the child then a man who has no interest in the child. That is not in the best interest of the child. (Didn’t JIll suggest that in her post?)
If a father wants to sign away his rights – I’m personally supportive of that policy. As long as the state fills in the economic support, and it’s in the child’s best interest – I’m for that policy.
However, would any unmarried father have an incentive to claim the child? I think the state would have a big problem with this possibility.
I don’t think your argument will primarily be with feminists, who would also support the state taking over significant costs of child raising. I think your argument will primarily be with the state, who does not want to pay these costs.
I think feminists are offended (including me) because this case, by using Roe, trivializes reproductive rights, which are under attack in America.
And parental rights are not reproductive rights. They are governed by family law, and such. Reproductive rights end at the birth of the child.
The right to opt out of the rights and responsibilities of fatherhood is not a “reproductive right”. It’s about legal parental rights and obligations. This group has confused a lot of issues by trying to frame it as “reproduction” when it’s clearly not about the right to reproduce. It’s about the right to sign away parental responsibility.
Also, some children of divorce may be rightly annoyed by this case for obvious reasons.
People are right to be offended if there’s no care for the economic well-being of the fatherless child. If they don’t advocate a way to prevent child poverty, well, many, many women will have a problem with this.
In addition, some comments sound like the purpose of a change in the law would be to allow a man to use economic pressure to force a woman to abort, even if she does not want to make that choice. And people are annoyed if they’ve seen personal examples of children in poverty because fathers have not economically supported their children.
Sometimes, sometimes, the best thing for everyone is for the noncustodial parent to voluntarily sign away their rights and just disappear. I know single parents, men and women alike, for whom it would be a blessing.
Oooops, not Jill, Lauren. What Lauren said. See above.
They already do, in most cases. Usually they have to give their permission, and can block an adoption if they want custody, or undo one if they did not sign away their rights (remember Baby Jessica?).
A few states have putative father registries, which allow pregnant women to name a putative father, and if he doesn’t step up within a certain period of time, his parental rights are terminated. This makes it easier for the woman to adopt out the child, and it also makes it easier for her to decide to go it alone.
“Yes, all human rights are important, but this isn’t about reproductive rights.”
I disagree.
“Let me explain. Reproductive rights inherently involve reproduction. As in, the right to have sex. The right to refuse sex. The right to access and use contraception. The right to abortion. The right to give birth. The right to seek out fertility treatments. These are all reproductive rights issues, because they directly involve your reproductive organs.”
And being a father somehow doesn’t? It is a reproductive issue because what we are talking about is offspring, you know, the end product of reprodcution?
“Reproductive rights for men are all things having to do with sex and your peepee. Born children don’t really relate.”
I really hope you are kidding, that or you need a biology class direly. Yes children are directly related to the “peepee.” They don’t exist without the “peepee.” They are in fact produced by a fusion of egg and sperm. The fact that the reproduction is a long cycle that involves a great deal of time inside the woman’s body in gestation doesn’t change this one iota.
“As it stands, reproductive rights aren’t perfectly equal, but they’re pretty close. You should (and generally do) have control over what you do with your reproductive organs. You can have consensual sex with an adult man or woman. You can use contraception/condoms to try and prevent unintended pregnancy in yourself or your partner. You can refuse sex when you don’t want to have it. These things are true whether you’re male or female.
And after children are born, the rules stay pretty much the same”
Whoa whoa whoa whoa. You just skipped kid of a doozy there. There is thast whole period between the sex and the birth called pregnancy. That’s where your supposed equality breaksdown substantially.
During pregnancy the man has no control at all over whether ther is going to be a successful reproduction (back to that term again). He has no control over whether the fetus will be allowed to come to term or aborted. And while that may be hard, it has to be that way because of where the fetus gestates (i.e. inside the woman). But at the same time the woman has a choice in the matter. She can choose to become a mother, or to terminate the pregnancy. However the man is on the hook legally and financially based on her decision.
That is miles away from being “pretty close” to equal.
“The problem here is that people are attempting to conflate family law and child support issues with reproductive rights, when no connection actually exists beyond whining, “It’s not fair!”
Except of course for that part where children are, you know, the essence of reproductive rights. Other than that, totally.
” He is a father because biology dictates that, not the courts.”
We aren’t talking biology we are talking legally. Is he legally the father? Does he have the rights and responsibilities therein?
“In addressing this issue, no court would posit that a man with children can opt out of being a “father,” because that’s contrary to reality.”
No court would allow a woman to terminate her pregnancy because that is contrary to reality. She is a mother biologically so case closed.
Doh!
Seriously even if you guys get nothing else out of this you have to learn to stop making arguments that totally undercut you as far as being pro-choice. Really. If you keep this up the fundies are going massacre you because you are making it way too easy for them.
Well I don’t know why you are limiting it to Ru486. Personally like I said I’m in favor of legal “no questions asked” abortions through the first 1 1/2 trimesters.
no, no, no. I’m pro-choice and support Roe and Casey. I was thinking that abortions are safer the sooner they happen. I was thinking that if a woman needed to make an economic decision, she needs to know sooner, rather then later. I was thinking she needed the option to choose a medical abortion (first 9 weeks), if the guy was going to split on her. And he’d need to tell her in time to get to a clinic and get an appointment.
But do you know what? It’s disgusting that a woman should be foreced to make a decision to continue a pregnancy for economic reasons. The state should be supporting the children. And nobody should complain about taxes for raising children. These kids will be supporting our social security and medicare when we’re too old to work.
Furthermore, abortion is a medical decision that some random guy that has no relationship to the woman shouldn’t have any legal right to “have his say.” Even a husband doesn’t have a legal right to force or prevent a wife from having an abortion. (Although if the relationship is healthy, of course he’ll have a big say.)
Again – until there’s a birthed baby, parental rights don’t come into play.
At that point, if he wants to split – let him go. He should sign away his rights & obligations at that point.
“If the risks are equivalent, the woman and her doctor get to make the medical choice. I don’t think a medical procedure should be imposed on another person against their will. I assume you agree. Do You?”
In that case you aren’t talking about forcing a surgery on a person you are simply deciding which. In other words in the world of artifical wombs if the woman doesn’t want to carry to term but the guy wants the kid (and the risks of both procedures are comparable) then i see no problem with saying the woman can’t just abort she has to let them pu the embryo in the AW. She is getting what she wants afterall: self autonomy.
“However, would any unmarried father have an incentive to claim the child?”
Hard though it might be to contemplate some of us guys do love our kids. Shocking I know. But it does happen.
“The right to opt out of the rights and responsibilities of fatherhood is not a “reproductive right”.”
I disagree it is about the ability to determine for yourself if you will have a child. Yes the child still exists when the father opts out and does not when the mother opts out. But both need to have the choice.
“People are right to be offended if there’s no care for the economic well-being of the fatherless child.”
That’s why the mother needs to know before hand so she can decide if she can take care of a kid.
On the other hand I’m all for social programs that provide for the most needy in society. Much rather pay taxes to that than to locheed.
“In addition, some comments sound like the purpose of a change in the law would be to allow a man to use economic pressure to force a woman to abort, even if she does not want to make that choice.”
There’s certainly a risk of economic blackmail. I don’t see anyway to prevent that. But by the same logic a woman can use the threat of an abortion over a man. Does that mean it should be illegal just because there are a few total whack jobs that will abuse it? No. The net is a benefit.
Having substantial social programs could also lessen the ability of it to be used as economic blackmail.
“I was thinking that if a woman needed to make an economic decision, she needs to know sooner, rather then later. I was thinking she needed the option to choose a medical abortion (first 9 weeks), if the guy was going to split on her”
I agree that sooner is definitely better but I think the 9week time frame is unrealistic. A lot of women don’t even know they are pregnant at all for the first 6 weeks or so. That just doesn’t leave enough time for them to talk, think, and make their individual decisions. Like i said I’d say that if abortions were allowed in the first 135 days that the guy has to have his final decision say within the first 105. That gives the woman a month to think about it and decide what she wants to do before it is still too late.
“But do you know what? It’s disgusting that a woman should be foreced to make a decision to continue a pregnancy for economic reasons. The state should be supporting the children.”
No argument really.
“Furthermore, abortion is a medical decision that some random guy that has no relationship to the woman shouldn’t have any legal right to “have his say.” ”
Whoa wait. We aren’t talking about some random guy. We are talking about her sexual partner. The guy who will be considered legally the father of the kid. That guy definitely deserves to have his say. Note that getting to voice your opinionis different than making the decision. The decision is the woman’s but the guy has a sizable stake in that decision and his side deserves to be heard and considered.
“Even a husband doesn’t have a legal right to force or prevent a wife from having an abortion.”
Agreed that the final decision has to be hers, but that also needs to be an informed decision and one big freaking important piece of the puzzle is what the guy thinks.
“Again – until there’s a birthed baby, parental rights don’t come into play.
At that point, if he wants to split – let him go. He should sign away his rights & obligations at that point. ”
But then the woman is stuck. She now has a kid all on her own when she was expecting to have support. Much better to let he know up front what to expect so she can make an informed decision.
I sincerely doubt it is really in the best interest of anyone to codify this moral ought.
Vasectomy. Like I said I sympathize with the pro-choice movement. I was going to go volunteer at the local PP. But if push comes to shove I have nothing to lose by turning my back on them if they decide to attack me. I’m an ally, not a thrall. Piss me off and I’ll leave you hanging in a second.
By the way, what’s up with this attitude? We’re not in a Junior High school popularity contest; we’re talking about human rights here. Some women will die of sepsis if they don’t get access to legal abortion.
Do you want the individual to be legally in charge of birth control and reproduction, or do you want the state to be in charge? What makes you think that under the constant state surveillance and forced birth policies of Romania you would have been allowed to get a vasectomy?
I believe in human rights, because it’s my political philosophy.
Can you imagine a 19th century abolitionist saying–
“Hey, I’m against slavery, but if a particular slave pisses me off, well, then I don’t care if 5 million enslaved people rot in servitude. Some enslaved people are annoying and not properly grateful, so I’m outta here. Oh, and too bad about that lynching. If particularly people had been nicer to me, I might’ve helped.”
Actually, Tlaloc, I’m an emotivist. I think the whole concept of “rights” is a legal construct or a rhetorical tool, and all our moral precepts are merely statements of preference. So on my account, people’s right are what has support, and my rights are what I can get people to support.
That said, I think child support is really an issue of state funding. The state wants to prevent itself from having too many wards to take care of, so it requires that someone be on the hook for a child, once born. Those folks are the parents. If both of them, or the state, terminates their rights, the state places the kid with someone else who is financially responsible — adoptive parents, fosters, whatever. In the case of fosters, the state has to hand over an incentive, but the state often tries to tap any available assets to defray that if there are any. When one parent keeps the children, for societal reasons it’s usually the mother, and the state requires payments from the father to ensure that she’s got enough moeny to keep the family from becoming the state’s problem. In the event that the father keeps the kids, often the mother is in jail or judgment proof or simply can’t be found. Maybe a family lawyer can add some insight here. FRAs freak out as though their child-support payments were some blood tithe extracted by their ex-wives because they hate their ex-wifes and it colors their perception of everything in the world. (They also think their ex-wives are taking lavish vacations and hiding assets in the Channel Islands, and that mail-order brides from Romania will make them happy.)
Finally, Tlaloc, in your response to Jill you located the inequality in the period of pregnancy. That’s the period during which one person’s organs are actually being used by the fetus to survive. The sui generis nature of this situation (for the latin-impaired, loosely one-of-a-kind) means that the person whose organs are in use has legal rights to modify that situation, unencumbered by the choices of others, during that narrow period. So to the extent that the inequality is that women have a say in staying pregnant and men do not, that’s not accidental. It’s a designed inequality to counteract the unequal burden of pregnancy.
Let me ask you this: If a woman of means gets pregnant and does not want to abort but will not parent, carries to term and leaves the baby in the hands of the biological father (who wants to be a dad), can she be pursued for child support? (hint: where I live, yes.) So the only inequality is the one that flows uniquely from the bodily autonomy issues raised by pregnancy.
Whoa wait. We aren’t talking about some random guy. We are talking about her sexual partner. The guy who will be considered legally the father of the kid. That guy definitely deserves to have his say. Note that getting to voice your opinionis different than making the decision. The decision is the woman’s but the guy has a sizable stake in that decision and his side deserves to be heard and considered.
But he might be a random guy she picked up for a one-night stand.
Of course there’s a moral obligation to tell someone if you’re going to gestate his baby.
However, I would never require that someone share medical information. I think that it could be dangerous. I don’t trust the state to make this decision for the woman.
Also – RE medical abortions. I believe that a large percentage of American abortions now take place prior to 9 weeks. (I’d have to check, but I think it’s now over 60 percent. 90 percent take place before 12 weeks.) So as it now stands, the decison to abort is made rather quickly. It’s much harder to find a clinic that will abort after 12 weeks.
But anyways, I think if the woman/girl doesn’t choose to tell the man/boy about an abortion, there’s probably a good reason for it.
Anyways – I’m all for allowing him to sign away his parental rights and responsibilites at birth. It’s a great idea. A bunch of these guys go underground anyways and the kids never see much of the support. (even if a paycheck is garnished.) A system in which the state steps in is much more reliable.
“By the way, what’s up with this attitude?”
Simple fact of life. You want allies then you treat them nice. I am pro-choice but I’m not a single issue voter and there are plenty of other issues that I can occupy myself with while feminism learns not to take me for granted.
“We’re not in a Junior High school popularity contest; we’re talking about human rights here.”
Indeed we are, but lets turn it around. You claim I should be devoted to the pro-choice movement even if they undercut my own equality issue. Why doesn’t it work the other way? Why aren’t you asking them why they aren’t on board with me and chiding them for being so willing to set aside human rights?
“Do you want the individual to be legally in charge of birth control and reproduction, or do you want the state to be in charge?”
I want people to be in charge. Note I didn’t say women. I said people. Both genders. Equally. Now that doesn’t mean in every instance a man and a woman have equal say. As I;ve said I think the decision for aborting a pregnancy has to be the woman’s. But there also needs to be a balancing factor.
Honestly I hope the pro-choice movement wins out. But at the same time in order for me to work toward that goal I have to be motivated. Being called the enemy doesn’t motivate me. Frankly it makes me indifferent.
Ultimately then if you really care about the women who might die of sepsis then you better find a way to make the pro-choice movement a whole lot less antagonistic towards its allies.
“Can you imagine a 19th century abolitionist saying–
“Hey, I’m against slavery, but if a particular slave pisses me off, well, then I don’t care if 5 million enslaved people rot in servitude. Some enslaved people are annoying and not properly grateful, so I’m outta here. Oh, and too bad about that lynching. If particularly people had been nicer to me, I might’ve helped.” ”
Let me put it this way: given the animosity in the black community toward gays I can’t condemn any gays who turn a cold shoulder toward civil rights issues. You want to talk equality then you better mean it. If by equality you mean just for *you,* then piss off.
I disagree it is about the ability to determine for yourself if you will have a child. Yes the child still exists when the father opts out and does not when the mother opts out. But both need to have the choice.
But a reproductive right has to do with Reproduction. I mean this Literally. Reproduction is the replication of genetic material into a new being.
You aren’t talking about Reproduction. You’re talking about parental obligations. A parental right has to do with opting in/out; financial responsibility, ect.
Why aren’t you comfortable with making this decision at the birth? The signature on the birth certificate has long been seen as a declaration of fatherhood and its attendant rights and responsibilities. (And at that point a man should be allowed to split.)
It sounds like you want all men to be legally required to be a part of a decision to have an abortion.
Thanks for articulating something that’s been pissing me off for a loooooong time.
“Finally, Tlaloc, in your response to Jill you located the inequality in the period of pregnancy. That’s the period during which one person’s organs are actually being used by the fetus to survive. The sui generis nature of this situation (for the latin-impaired, loosely one-of-a-kind) means that the person whose organs are in use has legal rights to modify that situation, unencumbered by the choices of others, during that narrow period. So to the extent that the inequality is that women have a say in staying pregnant and men do not, that’s not accidental. It’s a designed inequality to counteract the unequal burden of pregnancy.”
The problem with seeing it that way is that while the woman’s organs are certainly involved, so are the man’s. The pregnancy exists because of both their organs, and once brought to term will be a burden on both of them (and hopefully a joy too). But there is this interim period where clearly the woman has the vast majority of the burden and she gets a choice.
She should have that choice. But the man is not uninvolved. He is affected. His life and his future are being decided by her. That is not right.
“Let me ask you this: If a woman of means gets pregnant and does not want to abort but will not parent, carries to term and leaves the baby in the hands of the biological father (who wants to be a dad), can she be pursued for child support?”
The situation is different because as you say she choses not to abort. That is the woman’s choice: to have the baby or not. The man can’t make that choice, he can only choose whetehr he is in the baby’s life or not.
Off-topic, mean AND hearsay, you win the Trifecta. But all the batshit crazy people wear fur hats to class, probably to piss off the militant vegetarians, so maybe you are on to something here.
Hard though it might be to contemplate some of us guys do love our kids. Shocking I know. But it does happen.
I didn’t mean that. I was thinking of the state’s concern in collecting child support. Let’s say that if a man filed a paper in the first trimester – he could opt out of financial responsibility.
It could push a man to file a paper so the court couldn’t later have a claim on a man in case of a break-up or a divorce.
Then again, if by filing this paper it meant that he was giving up all parental rights, then it’s not a problem. Better to get someone out of the picture if they don’t want to be involved.
zuzu:
“The man’s last chance to avoid fatherhood occurs prior to ejaculation. The woman’s last chance to avoid motherhood occurs afterwards. Biological fact.”
The woman can avoid motherhood by having the fetus aborted (have an abortion, do it herself with a coat hanger, ask someone to puch her in the stomach). That’s a biological fact. She has the legal right to do so. That’s a legal fact.
The man can avoid fatherhood by having the fetus aborted (force her to have an abortion, do it himself with a coat hanger, punch her in the stomach). That’s a biological fact. He has no right to do so. That’s a legal fact.
Biologically, both parents can opt out of parenthood. Legally, only the mother can.
“But a reproductive right has to do with Reproduction. I mean this Literally. Reproduction is the replication of genetic material into a new being.”
I don’t beleive that is correct and it doesn’t jive with an earlier posters contention that reporductive rights had to do with anything related to the genitals (except of course sperm).
“Why aren’t you comfortable with making this decision at the birth?”
I just think it’s really unfair to the mother that after going through pregnancy and labor she then gets to find out that the guy is pulling a houdini on her. Doesn’t it seem much nicer to let her know up front?
“It sounds like you want all men to be legally required to be a part of a decision to have an abortion.”
I’m really not. I’m not sure why it seems that way. I’ve explicitly and repeatedly said the woman gets to make the final call in that situation. Unambiguously. I do think the guy should have a say in the matter. And in a case where the woman fears abuse if she tells the father I have no problem with her not telling, so long as the guy then is allowed to effectively disown the child when if he does find out.
“Thanks for articulating something that’s been pissing me off for a loooooong time.”
Well we can try to work toegether or we can piss each other off. Frankly the ball is in your court.
Do you agree with Zuzu that I’m your enemy?
“Then again, if by filing this paper it meant that he was giving up all parental rights, then it’s not a problem.”
Yes, I certainly agree that the process should sever all connectons legally. Rights and responsibilities. The man is for all legal purposes a stranger to the child.
No. We can agree to disagree, apparently, that if you support a human right as long as the people who want them make sure you’re completely comfortable, then you’re not worth much at all.
And, sorry, but that isn’t constructive. That’s jerkface talk, and it arises out of a healthy sense of entitlement.
piny:
“And I don’t know that the woman has the right to bargain away the rights of the child to financial support by its father”
What about a woman who has a child and never tells the father about it because she doesn’t want him involved with the child (for whatever reason)? Or a woman who says she doesn’t know who the father is (whether it’s true or not)?
Hasn’t she declined the child support that is the child’s right, not hers?
Should a woman then never have the right to leave the father’s name blank on a birth certificate?
iIndeed we are, but lets turn it around. You claim I should be devoted to the pro-choice movement even if they undercut my own equality issue. Why doesn’t it work the other way? Why aren’t you asking them why they aren’t on board with me and chiding them for being so willing to set aside human rights?
I’m not doing this for “equality for me.” I have the money and the knowledge to get a safe abortion, despite it’s illegalities. If I need to I could fly to another country. In addition, I”m married to a feminist man, so future laws such as having to inform one’s husband would not harm me.
Who am I working for?
I’m concerned for girls, who could resort to unsafe abortions. I’m doing it for poor couples who don’t have the choices that I have. I’m doing it for women who get pre-clampsia or other serious health conditions and need a safe medical choice. I’m doing it for couples that find their fetus with a fetal deformity or serious health problem and want a safe medical option.
I’m supportive of male health care and male birth control. I’ll support this even if you really piss me off, because my beliefs are not dependent on your opinion or your treatment of me.
I also support men opting out of parenthood. However, this group has done a horrible job of selling it. We’re spending all this time talking about women’s reproductive rights and abortion, when the issue is actually parental rights and how to get society to care for the overall welfare of children in the most effective way. Obviously, that is not to force men to pay child support when they want to split.
Let me put it this way: given the animosity in the black community toward gays I can’t condemn any gays who turn a cold shoulder toward civil rights issues. You want to talk equality then you better mean it. If by equality you mean just for *you,* then piss off.
No. I will condemn anyone who is OK with racial lynching, or “separate but equal” laws. I’ll condemn anyone who is against interracial marriage laws. Likewise, I’ll condemn anyone who doesn’t want equal legal rights for same sex marriage.
It is not dependent on me liking people personally. Do you think everyone got along in the Civil Rights movement? In the abolitionist movement? Or in the suffragist movement?
Do you think people took their toys and went home because of personal disagreements? I can name numerous personal disagreements in the 19th century suffrage and in the racial civil rights movements.
Again, this case (Roe v. Wade for Men) conflates reframes the subject to conflate reproductive rights with parental rights. You seem to be suggesting that men should be able to “have a LEGAL say” in a woman’s abortion choices.
The guy in this case seems to be actually arguing for the ability to opt out of parental rights. By the way – I haven’t read this case – but it sounds like they’re advocating a pre-sex contract. Which is what I suggested a long time ago in this list.
“No. We can agree to disagree, apparently, that if you support a human right as long as the people who want them make sure you’re completely comfortable, then you’re not worth much at all.”
I’ll take that to mean you also see me as the enemy.
*shrug*
I can’t make you people fight your battle smart. I just hope the next feminism movement does better.
“And, sorry, but that isn’t constructive. That’s jerkface talk, and it arises out of a healthy sense of entitlement. ”
I do feel entitled to pick my battles, absolutely. And I do think it’s constructive to point out that you are driving away your friends even as your enemies are getting ready to swamp you.
You’ll learn or you won’t. I consider it a form of social darwinism.
“I’m supportive of male health care and male birth control. I’ll support this even if you really piss me off, because my beliefs are not dependent on your opinion or your treatment of me. ”
I have no problem with you Geo. We may disagree but you seem open to at least hearing me out and you don’t feel the need to be superdefensive just because we aren’t on the same page.
You can come to my barbecue anytime.
And maybe you are a better person than I am and you can manage to see past all the jerks in order to keep your eyes on the final goal. I guess I can’t. If the democrats piss me off enough I won’t vote for them. I won’t vote for the republicans either, but by alienating people like me (cal them Nader voters if you like) the democrats can kiss their behinds goodbye. That forces them to have some accountability.
I see no difference with the pro-choice movement. If it has gotten so out of whack that… well lets just say i won’t ry to see it crumble apart either. Maybe a better pro-choice movement will come up from the ashes.
And people will suffer in the meantime, true. But I wasn’t the one who screwed up their strategy. I just refuse to be held hostage by their seeming insistence on going down in flames.
When they want to get serious, give me a call. But it’s not my job to save them from themselves. I’ve got my own problems to deal with.
Re: The definition of Reproductive Rights versus Parental Rights.
I don’t beleive that is correct and it doesn’t jive with an earlier posters contention that reporductive rights had to do with anything related to the genitals (except of course sperm).
I don’t understand what’s going on here, except there seems to be some miscommunication. Sexual reproduction has a specific biological meaning. That’s what I’m talking about. In the stage of gestation (pregnancy) a blastocyst grows into an embry and then grows into a fetus in the uterus which is part of the process of human reproduction. In that stage a man is not involved in the sexual reproduction process. In that stage a reproductive right is the right to an abortion.
I just think it’s really unfair to the mother that after going through pregnancy and labor she then gets to find out that the guy is pulling a houdini on her. Doesn’t it seem much nicer to let her know up front?
Yes, of course. But I don’t think there’s a good legal way to do this, especially within the first 9 weeks of pregnancy needed for medical abortion. (And a large percentage of abortions take place duirng this time period.)
I don’t want any girls or women to have to wait because a guy is trying to make up his mind or needs to get to lawyer to sign a legal paper.
There are good emotional reasons that some women prefer to have medical abortions. This abortion also takes place at home and can be preferable for multiple reasons for people. Because of parental consent clauses studies are showing that girls are waiting into the second trimester because they’ve put off talking ot their parents. I don’t want any other obstacles that could cause women to have later abortions (less safe) rather then earlier abortions.
A birth certificate is already a legal document. We don’t have to add to the legal system with a new system of certificates. We’d have to worry about kids who need to find a lawyer in the 1st trimester. We also don’t have to worry about the possible physical danger a woman could find herself in if she’s legally required to tell someone that she’s pregnant.
“I don’t understand what’s going on here, except there seems to be some miscommunication. Sexual reproduction has a specific biological meaning.”
Sure. But “reproductive rights” is not a biological term. It is a political pseudo-legal term.
“Yes, of course. But I don’t think there’s a good legal way to do this,”
Well I think we can just disagree about the details of how to enact the system. We don’t need to have a final plan since at the moment it looks like there are about 6 people actually on board at all.
We (two) agree that there should be some mechanism in place. How it should work can remain in question for now.
No, I see you as someone who could be an ally. You’re perfectly capable of making a contribution. You’re not gonna. You’re gonna blame me and zuzu et al. for that. I have no interest in pretending that your selfishness is not the problem.
You’re admitting that we’re right, but that you’ll go ahead and pretending we’re wrong, just because you don’t feel welcomed enough. Do you see how despicable that is? How fucked up?
You pick the battles that are easiest to fight from your comfy chair. Your choices here mean that you are not a friend, and that there’s not much point in me trying to make you into one. Unless and until you do that work yourself, you will indeed be worthless. You want to fight? You don’t need my permission. You want to fuck me over? Well, it seems like you know who gets to make the call on that one, too.
Women cannot opt out of the battle over choice.
I feel like the new kid in class that nobody will talk to. I suggested a solution to what many see as the inequality regarding reproductive rights (it seems to have been mostly ignored).
Please see my post #18 (Scarlett’s Law) and let me know if you think it is an acceptable compromise.
And maybe you are a better person than I am and you can manage to see past all the jerks in order to keep your eyes on the final goal. I guess I can’t. If the democrats piss me off enough I won’t vote for them. I won’t vote for the republicans either, but by alienating people like me (cal them Nader voters if you like) the democrats can kiss their behinds goodbye. That forces them to have some accountability.
Well, the Democrats piss me off all the time. But that’s nothing new -they piss everyone off all the time.
But if Bush and the Republicans stay in power we’re all going down in flames. And if we personally don’t go down in flames it’s going to be kids in Iraq that are dying for the choices our country makes.
Likewise – you and I won’t suffer nearly as much.
It’ll be some teenage girl dying of a septic abortion and that makes me crazy because it’s so stupid and needless. Of course, all these deaths in Iraq were also needless deaths.
Ah well.
In some ways, it’s very simple – liberty or fascism. Right now we need people who will work for liberty. Personal liberty or state control? Feminists have been the best allies of men who want equal gender rights.
If these men groups had framed their case better, they could have gotten a bunch of feminist support. As it was, even my husband was annoyed by them.
Ruth Bader Ginsberg, for example, worked on a legal case called Reed v. Reed. This case argued that a unemployed husband should be allowed ot be placed on his wife’s medical plan because of gender equality.
Feminists also promoted a legal case in which a man wanted to be admitted into a state sponsored all girl nursing school. O’Connor wrote the opinon for that case, and it was a precedent for the later VMI cases. (I’ll look up the name if you’re interested.)
Feminist groups will support and push male contraception.
In fact, feminists are some of your best allies if you’re interested in gender equality.
This is not about a father abdicating his responsibility or about a mother choosing not to enforce it. It’s whether a woman may legally, officially, allow him to do so in exchange for something she wants. His support of the child isn’t her property to trade on. And I don’t know how that kind of contract would fit into existing child-support laws.
Raging Moderate,
I thought we basically agreed. It sounded like my pre-sex contract.
I’d suggest follow the legal precedent of sperm banks with the legal contract.
I’d also say – once the rights are signed away, the father (or mother) shouldn’t expect to reclaim those rights. Like adoption, it think it would be emotionally disruptive for the child to have a parental right fight at a later date.
piny:
I read post 145.
Are there any answers to to the questions I posed in there? I missed them if there were.
Please reply again.
Thank you.
“No, I see you as someone who could be an ally. You’re perfectly capable of making a contribution. You’re not gonna.”
Correction: I was going to. That’s the effect of demotivation.
“I have no interest in pretending that your selfishness is not the problem.”
Feel free. But regardless of how you rationalize it it doesn’t really help you out.
The sad thing is it would have been patheticaly easy for you or Zuzu to placate guys like me. Frankly, I’m pretty reasonable. If you’d said “well we have a lot of big issues to deal with right now but we can talk about it later” then I would have said okay. You know why? Because looking around I can see that, yeah, you DO have a lot of big issues to deal with.
Hell you don’t even have to mean it. The republicans are always promising things to their various factions with no intention of delivering.
“You’re admitting that we’re right, but that you’ll go ahead and pretending we’re wrong, just because you don’t feel welcomed enough.”
No, I’m saying I think your ends are right but your means are wrong. And I have the luxury of not choosing to ride shotgun with the lesser evil.
“You pick the battles that are easiest to fight from your comfy chair.”
I pick the battles that are important to me. Abortion is important to me. But there are plenty of other issues too. And it can slide up or down the scale, and yes it does indeed depend on the politics of the issue.
“Your choices here mean that you are not a friend, and that there’s not much point in me trying to make you into one.”
I have no interest in being friends. I was an ally, now I’m less of one. There is a point in you not alienating guys like me. Whether you choose to see it is out of my hands.
“You want to fuck me over?”
Not really. But there are a hell of a lot of christianists who do. Unless you really relish taking them all on by yourself you might want to practice the fine art of diplomacy.
“Women cannot opt out of the battle over choice.”
But I can. You can hate me for that if you like. Or you can simply accept it as a fact of life and use it to help your ends. I don’t resent the fact that you have an agenda. But if you are going to spit in my face because I have one too then I absolutely will step back and let you get mauled by the people who see you as an object.
Ultimately, of course, you and I don’t matter. But this issue seems to be playing out in a dozen different places on the net, and god knows how many real world bars and homes.
geoduck:
yeah, I know you referred to my “law” (you were one of two, I believe).
There’s two of us now who like the idea. Any women out there who like?
His support of the child isn’t her property to trade on. And I don’t know how that kind of contract would fit into existing child-support laws.
But what is the legal status of this? I believe that men can sign away their parental rights with the permission of the mother – as it now stands.
And sperm banks allow men to sign away all of their rights and responsibilities.
Likewise – a woman can donate her egg without worry about parental responsibilites.
I think the only reason the law is not structured like a sperm bank is BECAUSE sperm actually grants a bunch of rights to fathers. The law is wary of collapsing those rights that automatically are given to the father.
Think about what happened in that adoption case where that 3 year old was taken away from her adoptive parent because the father hadn’t signed the adoption papers. I think the law, as it now stands, is very reluctant to take parental rights away from biological fathers.
Hmmmm. I think it could be a very feminist position to insist that fathers do not have any rights OR responsibilities until they sign the birth certificate.
“If these men groups had framed their case better, they could have gotten a bunch of feminist support.”
I’m certrainly open to such an argument, but if someone presents a case to me that I think is laughably bad I don’t start viewing them as the enemy. Maybe a sucker, or an idiot, but not the enemy.
“In fact, feminists are some of your best allies if you’re interested in gender equality.”
Normally I’m inclined to agree with you. Today? Not so much.
There’s two of us now who like the idea. Any women out there who like?
Hey, I’m a woman! (heh. Hear me roar!)
And my niece had a father who split on her. His wages would be garnished if he wasn’t in the underground economy. I think the state pursuing her dad isn’t working for her or for her father (who impregnanted her mom while he was a high schooler.) Of course, he’s an idiot. But trying to garnish his wages doesn’t do a bit of good, either. It only sets up an antagonistic situation.
It would have been better if he had simply signed away his rights at the beginning. He was a confusing figure in her life when she was a little kid.
I agree with Tlaloc (at my peril).
If women can’t see unfairness when it affects men, it’ll be harder for them to make men see unfairness when it affects women. Or it’ll make them just not care, as payback.
Either way, it doesn’t help those who strive for fairness and equality for all.
Oops.
Sorry geoduck. I thought you were a man, as most of the women discussing this issue seem to be outright hostile to the idea of reproductive equality.
So we’ve got one man and one one woman supporting my proposition. Now we’re cooking!
RM-
I looked at your idea. It is possible. One of my concerns with the pre-nup style though is that it would tend to stigmatize the poor and undereducated (who simply won’t know about them) unfairly. That’s one reason I favor an after the fact solution.
Tlaloc,
Normally I’m inclined to agree with you. Today? Not so much.
Gender equality is something that is for all men and all women. It’s not just for one gender. (health care, legal rights, social security, reproductive rights, ect.)
Take birth control, for example. The availability and legality of birth control affects everyone in a society. Even if one personally is not having sex, the availability of birth control shapes social and economic relationships in that society.
On the other hand, people get into flame wars all the time.
Why’d you all get so mad at each other, anyways? I guess I wasn’t paying attention & I tend to skip over personal stuff.
First of all, that’s what a blockquote looks like. No. That’s the effect of selfishness. Your actions are your responsibility, not mine. It is not my fault that you are capable of turning aside moral issues in favor of your ever-so-slightly-singed fee-fees.
“Mommy loves you, sweetie, but she’s busy right now.” Why do you need to be placated? What did your parents forget to teach you that you can demand this kind of thing in earnest?
So you’re saying that you’re shortsighted, narrowminded, and totally incapable of caring about anyone but yourself? But that it’s okay, because you’re so stupid that you can be sold on promises so transparent that a concussed duckling would be suspicious? And so lacking in moral maturity that a concession to your ego is your only priority? Because that’s the place you occupy in that analogy. Way to sell yourself, there, buddy. What a waste to our side.
Nope! Sorry! You aren’t making a moral or political decision here. You’re making a childish one. See below:
See? Be nice to me or all that “conscience” shit goes right out the window!
…And unless you coddle me, I’ll let those people over there stomp on your rights! Yup, I’ll just sit back here and refuse to lift a finger! Ooooh, that sepsis kinda hurts, doesn’t it? Back-alley abortions aren’t much fun, are they? Sucks to be you! Guess you should have cared more about the important stuff–my feelings–when you had the chance, huh?
I don’t hate you because you can walk away. I don’t hate you because you can free yourself from all that nasty difficult suffering-women shit. I reject you and everything you stand for because you do. Because you can sit there utterly without shame and say to women that their lives are less important than your feelings. I am not going to apologize to that, and I am not going to dignify it as an attempt at an alliance.
“Why’d you all get so mad at each other, anyways? I guess I wasn’t paying attention & I tend to skip over personal stuff.”
post 63 pretty much says it for me. I believe that our words have consequences. Calling me the enemy has the consequence that I’ll drastically cut back how much support/slack I give you.
I do tend to agree that these issues impact all of us. I am not really fully isolated from it. I am much more isolated than some of course.
But at the same time if the pro-choice movement is going to be this willing to attack me then why would I possibly want to help make them more powerful?
Sorry geoduck. I thought you were a man, as most of the women discussing this issue seem to be outright hostile to the idea of reproductive equality.
This is how I would have framed the legal case if I wanted to actually get rhetorical traction instead of pissing people off:
1) Woman can donate eggs. Men can donate sperm.
Let’s try to figure out a way to make fatherhood a voluntary choice so men can, in effect, “donate” sperm without legal responsibilities.
2) Men want the ability to put their baby up for adoption. They want to be able to opt out of parental rights & responsibilities.
Make it clear that men want the ability to give a baby up for adoption.
Make it clear that men are not trying to get rights without the responsibility and that men are not trying to have a say over the choice to have an abortion.
There will have to be clear suggestons of how the state will replace fathers as the economic support. And I think an argument could be made that the state would be a better support system then an unwilling father.
Also – Make it very clear that if a man does not sign away his rights & responsibilities, that means that he cannot economically abandon that child yet still expect to have the rights of fatherhood.
Too many people have had a father split on them and refuse to pay enough economic support. So I think many people are naturally suspicious.
Also – anti-choice groups have tried to pass laws that give men a right to prevent women from having abortions. That’s why messing with requirements to tell people about pregnancies will make people suspicious that there’s another agenda.
But at the same time if the pro-choice movement is going to be this willing to attack me then why would I possibly want to help make them more powerful?
But you weren’t attacked by the pro-choice movement. You had a flame war with two? individuals on a blog.
I’ve sent my allowance into Planned Parenthood since I was a kid. But I’m not Planned Parenthood. (Although in college I and my roomates were the NARAL chapter.)
Right now I’m annoyed at NARAL for supporting Lieberman, but that doesn’t mean that I don’t support the pro-choice movement.
American’s are going to loose the health exception next fall (O’Connor was the deciding vote on that.) And how old is Stevens? The American pro-choice movement has its hands full right now with all sorts of nonsense. And if the worst plays out, we’ll have to go underground.
My problem isn’t hostility to reproductive equality, it’s the idea that this case is about reproductive equality at all (something that Tlaloc cannot seem to grasp).
I’ll say it again: Just because something is a product of reproduction (i.e., a child) doesn’t mean that any right involving that thing is a reproductive right. In fact, once the child exists — that is, after it is born — the rights and responsibilities to it have nothing to do with reproductive rights. Like I said way back, arguing that financial support for born children is a “reproductive right” is like arguing that the right to homeschool is a “reproductive right.” Sure, they both involve products of reproduction, but they aren’t about the right to reproduce or not.
Now, saying that this isn’t about reproductive rights in no way invalidates this man’s claim, makes it less important or makes his point obsolete. This is a big deal, and if decided against the current standard will have widespread effects. I haven’t read the case (that’s on my list of things to do after I turn in a big fat memo on Friday), but I’m willing to bet that they aren’t basing their arguments on a Constitutional right to sexual privacy. Why? Because that has nothing to do with paying child support. There are plenty of perfectly good philosophical and perhaps even legal arguments that would support this man’s position, and I’m willing to debate those. But it’s completely idiotic to argue that this is about reproductive rights when the only connection it has to reproduction is the biological fact that humans are the product of reproduction, and minor humans need (and are legally deserving of) financial support to sustain them.
Like I and others have said, reproductive rights have to do with your reproductive organs and are confined to your own body. I can’t exercise a “reproductive right” on someone else. Supporting the kids I have isn’t a reproductive rights issue; deciding whether or not to be pregnant is. Doesn’t make one more or less valid. It just means that arguing this issue as one of “men’s reproductive rights” is about as logical as arguing incest as a “reproductive right” because, hey, it involves the product of your reproduction.
“Your actions are your responsibility, not mine. It is not my fault that you are capable of turning aside moral issues in favor of your ever-so-slightly-singed fee-fees.”
Like I said rationalize it however makes you most happy, at the end of the day the net result is the same: you lose support for the issue critical to you.
“Why do you need to be placated? What did your parents forget to teach you that you can demand this kind of thing in earnest?”
I need to be placated becasue you are asking me for a favor. You are asking for money, for time, for political support all for YOUR cause. Because I happen to think it’s a decent cause I’m inclined to help you. But that inclination is far from bullet proof. If you demonstrate to me that you are ungrateful, incompetent, or generally asinine then I’ll save the support for some other issue.
I think you maybe lost the script somewhere piny. YOU are the one who is seeking support. YOU are the one who has the issue you desperately need help defending. Not me. I’m not asking you for donations. I’m not asking you to vote for my candidate or stump for my proposition.
And you are right: my parents did teach me that if I’m begging a favor I should do it respectfully.
“So you’re saying that you’re shortsighted, narrowminded, and totally incapable of caring about anyone but yourself? But that it’s okay, because you’re so stupid that you can be sold on promises so transparent that a concussed duckling would be suspicious? And so lacking in moral maturity that a concession to your ego is your only priority? Because that’s the place you occupy in that analogy. Way to sell yourself, there, buddy. What a waste to our side.”
Wow. I’m starting to think the incompetence is terminal. Look: I just handed you everything you wanted and you still spit it back at me. I tried to not too subtly explain to you how you could avoid making this kind of mistake in the future without really giving up anything and you were too busy being pissy to take the hint.
“…And unless you coddle me, I’ll let those people over there stomp on your rights! Yup, I’ll just sit back here and refuse to lift a finger! Ooooh, that sepsis kinda hurts, doesn’t it? Back-alley abortions aren’t much fun, are they? Sucks to be you! Guess you should have cared more about the important stuff–my feelings–when you had the chance, huh?”
Turn it around Piny. Here you are caring more about attacking me than helping your cause. Ooooh, that sepsis kinda hurts, doesn’t it? Back-alley abortions aren’t much fun, are they? Sucks to be you!
The difference between us is that this isn’t my pet issue. I’ll feel bad if roe goes down but it won’t have been ME that screwed up it’s defense.
So before you start talking about how immature I am to let my ego get in the way you might need to deflate your own a bit.
” I don’t hate you because you can walk away. I don’t hate you because you can free yourself from all that nasty difficult suffering-women shit. I reject you and everything you stand for because you do.”
Nothing is set in stone. Your action make a difference. Right now your shrill insistence that it’s your way or the highway means I’ll take the highway. And it won’t be me that ends up as roadkill.
“Because you can sit there utterly without shame and say to women that their lives are less important than your feelings.”
Apparently true for both of us since you won’t put the cause above your indignation.
“But you weren’t attacked by the pro-choice movement. You had a flame war with two? individuals on a blog.”
The problem, geo, is that it isn’t just Zuzu and Piny. It seems to be pretty common through out feminism. The movement has become corrupted. What started as an attempt to get equality has devolved into something less than noble.
“American’s are going to loose the health exception next fall (O’Connor was the deciding vote on that.) And how old is Stevens? The American pro-choice movement has its hands full right now with all sorts of nonsense. And if the worst plays out, we’ll have to go underground.”
I don’t disagree which why if the pro-choice movement is so stupid as to alienate its allies at such a time then we are better off without them. The only thing worse than no pro-choice movement is a self defeating one. If it doesn’t have the intellectual capacity to do it’s job then let it die so we can move on to a new movement that might do better.
“My problem isn’t hostility to reproductive equality, it’s the idea that this case is about reproductive equality at all (something that Tlaloc cannot seem to grasp).”
I grasp your argument, I simpy disagree with it. There is a difference.
“But you weren’t attacked by the pro-choice movement. You had a flame war with two? individuals on a blog.”
It doesn’t make sense to paint with such a broad brush, but it’s human nature.
Sometimes all it takes is for one man to skip out on the wife and kids to make the wife distrust (and in some cases hate) all men.
Sometimes all it takes is for one woman to cheat on her husband to make the man distrust (or hate) all women.
Sometimes all it takes is for one black man to mug a white guy to make the white guy distrust (or hate) all black men.
Sometimes all it takes is one feminist (or two) to call a man an “enemy”, to make that man act like you are their enemy.
I’m certainly not saying it’s right, but it happens.
As I stated earlier, the pragmatic thing to do is try to reach a compromise that satisfies both sexes. Not to do so risks alienating those men who would be your allies in the fight for equality.
Huey Newton may have hated my privileged white girl guts — who knows? — but I think his movement was badass.
If a blog isn’t a playground for ideas, I don’t know what is. Tlaloc is taking a blog fight and using it to wage a lack of support for a movement. Piny called it: this is moral immaturity. Contrary to his implications, I/we don’t despise this attitude because of his gender. I despise it because it is, at its base, immature to pick up your marbles and go home because of one playground tiff.
And this is what people say when they argue that a husband should have to give his legal okay for a wife to get an abortion.
piny, I think you’re wasting your breath. This is someone who thinks male organs are involved in supporting a pregnancy in some equivalent way to female organs.
Not to mention the fee-fees thing.
Sorry, Tlaloc, but I don’t see you as an ally. You’re concerned about your own comfort and having your ego stroked, not any idea of equality. You don’t want to think about the hard issues, and you don’t want to hear that parental responsibilities don’t have anything to do with reproductive rights. You don’t want to hear that even if men can get out of paying their share of the cost of raising a child, it doesn’t reduce the cost of raising that child, and that *someone* has to pay it. You don’t even want to acknowledge that gestating a child is more burdensome than having to make child-support payments.
No, you’d rather have me or piny or someone else pat you on the head and tell you how valuable you are and how much we need you.
Sorry.
Tlaloc, if you are as pro-choice as you claim, this is your movement too. Recognize that internal dissent is part of activism and move on.
“I despise it because it is, at its base, immature to pick up your marbles and go home because of one playground tiff.”
Probably. But it isn’t just one tiff Lauren. There’s been at least two on this site alone that I;ve been a part of and several more on other sites like Shakes and Pandagon.
Like I said it seems to be a significant problem throughout the movement.
But what do I know? I’m the enemy agfterall.
Lauren,
“And this is what people say when they argue that a husband should have to give his legal okay for a wife to get an abortion.”
They might say it, but that does not make it a compromise. Their opinion is that a man should be able to force a women to become a mother against her wishes. That would certainly be unfair.
As it stands now, a woman can force a man into fatherhood (the legal responsibilities of fatherhood anyway) against his wishes. That’s unfair too.
The compromise would be to allow both parties the ability to opt out of parenthood. My proposal is such a compromise (see post # 18).
“Tlaloc, if you are as pro-choice as you claim, this is your movement too.”
And if I’m not as pro-choice as you? What if I’m merely sympathetic?
” Recognize that internal dissent is part of activism and move on.”
LOL!
Right cause I was the one calling Zuzu the enmy for disagreeing with me. Might need to move out of the glass house before hucking that piece of granite.
Whoa. I’m in the middle of watching Veronica Mars right now and missed the continuing fight.
I was wondering what the laws were for adoption, and if one parent could give up their rights without the permission of the other parent, or if both needed permission to do so.
The problem, geo, is that it isn’t just Zuzu and Piny. It seems to be pretty common through out feminism. The movement has become corrupted. What started as an attempt to get equality has devolved into something less than noble.
No – I really disagree with this. Movements always have personal in-fights and such. I’ve studied the feminist movement in the 19th century, and boy, did infights happen.
But the fight is still noble and, indeed, critical right now in the reproductive realm in the U.S. There will have to be several strategies, but it’s going to be the brave and the committed who will go underground and risk jail. (If it comes to that.) Again, this is about, literally, life and death.
ok – my Veronica Mars is back on. Bye for now. Veronica rocks!
“No – I really disagree with this.”
YMMV. I have only my personal experience to go on of course. Today’s bit of xenophobia is pretty indicative of that experience.
Right, because Zuzu rejects feminism because her feelings were hurt on a feminist website once.
“Right, because Zuzu rejects feminism because her feelings were hurt on a feminist website once.”
Who said anything about rejecting feminism? I’m rejecting certain feminists.
Well, Veronica Mars was pretty good tonight.
Sometimes all it takes is one feminist (or two) to call a man an “enemy”, to make that man act like you are their enemy.
hmmm.
A Play in One Act: Two Feminists in Love.
So I asked my husband what his response would be to the above statement:
Mr. Geo says “If George Bush called me an enemy, would that make me an enemy of white men. No.”
Mrs. Geo: “Why”
Mr Geo: ‘Who gave George Bush the right to declare war for all white men. That’s the right of congress. hahaha.”
Mrs. Geo “Do You ever think feminists are annoying?”
Mr. Geo “Yeah”
Mrs. Geo “So, why are you still pro-choice and a feminist?”
Mr. Geo “Because I basically think about what I would want if I were a woman. And the basic principles of feminism still stand. And there’s plenty of feminists that don’t annoy me. In fact, basically 10:1 not annoying to annoying. Where for Republicans, it basically works out the other way. 10:1 Annoying vs. not annoying.”
And, this blog is not a arm of an official movement. It’s more a bunch of people chatting in a public space. Nobody is a spokesperson for any movement. Our posts are not calibrated as “talking points” or political rhetoric that will sell to the general population.
I am not a spokeperson for Planned Parenthood or Amnesty International. Tlaloc is not a spokesperson for any particular group. It would be silly for me to be against, say, male birth control because of something Tlaloc posted. Likewise, why would I (or Mr. Geoduck) be against any particular feminist issue because of what someone said on a blog?
Didn’t you all get into arguments at Univeristy? A late night debate never turned me “against” a political and social movement. Certainly an argument would never turn me against a gender, a race or a religion.
“In fact, basically 10:1 not annoying to annoying.”
I wish I could say the same. For me it’s more like 1:2 (taking this thread as an example).
“And, this blog is not a arm of an official movement. It’s more a bunch of people chatting in a public space. Nobody is a spokesperson for any movement.”
I have to disagree there. When you write a blog you are a spokesperson for the issues you write on. You are deliberately broadcasting your opinions and views with the implicit message that they have purpose or weight. If you write a feminist blog you are saying that you are a face for the feminist movement. Not the only face, but one of them.
And part of that is understanding that your words have consequences for the issue you purport to represent.
“It would be silly for me to be against, say, male birth control because of something Tlaloc posted.”
If your experience with people in a given movement is at least 50% negative and frankly degrading then you’d be a fool to support them. If you give them aid when they are abusive to you they have absolutely no reason to stop.
“Likewise, why would I (or Mr. Geoduck) be against any particular feminist issue because of what someone said on a blog?”
It’s not about being against a given issue, it’s about not going out of your way to support it. Look if any vote comes up on a measure to restrict abortion it’s almost guaranteed I’ll vote no. But if you want me to give money and time to your cause you better be at least a little respectful when you ask.
The pro-choice movement is not la cosa nostra. I’m not exactly going to be intimidated into contributing. So if they want the cash and volunteer time, and whatever they damn well better start teaching their people diplomacy.
Look let me give you an example: above piny said something to the effect of “this is what a block quote looks like.” Obviously her goal was to get me to use the quote function to make the posts easier to read. But she went about it in a dumb way. If she’d been smart she could have just said “look I’d have much easier time reading your posts if you please used block quotes.” That’s be smart. First of all it’s nonconfrontational, generally a good idea when asking for a favor. Second of all it makes sense. I want my posts to be readable and she appealed to that. I would have made an effort to use them.
Instead she ruins her chances by guaranteeing I won’t do it simply because of her approach. So we both lose.
Same thing here. A hostile approach will drive some people away. I’m one of them. So they have to decide which is more important to them, their cause, or their self righteousness.
“Didn’t you all get into arguments at Univeristy?”
Certainly. Too many of them were with ‘feminists’ who saw the movement as an excuse to attack men.
I wish that was true, but speaking for the feminists around here, that’s clearly not the case.
I’ve picked three major topics to engage in. I always argued for liberty.
feministe.us/blog/archives/2006/03/04/wednesday-repro-rights-blogging/
This was about Emergency Contraception.
This one I argued that the best way to make EC available is to deregulate it to OTC status, like aspirin, making it available to as many stores as possible. Everyone else seemed to argue that it was better to force big box stores with pharmacies to stock it, even if they didn’t want to. Arguments that requiring one store to carry it would also have repercussions (vastly higher expenses to carry a bunch of crap outside their mission) with Planned Parenthoods mail order pharmacy (which only handles EC and BC) went unheeded.
http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2006/03/08/white-boy-seeks-to-own-brown-girl/
This is probably the weakest argument, after all, no one put forth any proposals to outlaw the practice of foreign born brides, so perhaps it was just a bitch session. But there were a lot of stereotypes thrown around. I’d never want a foreign born bride myself, but I swallowed all the equal rights and free choice and two consenting adults Kool-aid already. Freedom is for everybody, right?
And then we come to this one. I assert that men have rights not to be fathers and the few bad seeds out there should not have the right to trap men into marriage or child support. Men have the right to chose, as long as it does not tread on a woman’s right. Zuzu throws every reworked anti-abortion argument back at me. Since Lauren, piny and Jill threw their opinions out there too, I simply have to conclude that for at least the Feminists around here, Feminism is just the excuse to try to grab as much power and entitlements as possible. The ones around here aren’t for equality, don’t argue from a consistent viewpoint, and have no consistent ideology based on logic.
They aren’t libertarians with strong woman’s rights leanings. “Keep your laws off my body” is a slogan, to be embraced for the moment, not a guiding philosophy.
And that remains true, even if they add the tagline “this rhetoric kills fascists” to their guitar, bodies, posts, whatever.
No one is talking child abandonment, (‘cept for the dead dumpster baby), We’re proposing notification while still a fetus, and we want to make our future parenthood choice then, not after it is born (and a baby, and has rights itself)
I haven’t read it either. In fact I just spent a half hour looking for one news source that linked to the lawsuit. No luck.
I would like to point out that even if it was a weak case, (and they themselves have admitted as such) it’s a lawsuit in support of a right. Roe didn’t create any rights, it just forbid government from infringing on rights that were, up till then, unrecognized.
It’s not about being against a given issue, it’s about not going out of your way to support it. Look if any vote comes up on a measure to restrict abortion it’s almost guaranteed I’ll vote no. But if you want me to give money and time to your cause you better be at least a little respectful when you ask.
But this blog is not the public outreach post of Planned Parenthood. If it was, and it PP was asking the public for support, then this would make sense. I don’t think people are trying to “sell” their message with rhetorical, saleable, “talking points” on this blog.
Besides, if you don’t like people in PP, then there’s NOW and NARAL. And those are only a few of the many, many feminist groups that are in existence. There are feminists from all walks of life and all different generations.
It’s just crazy to say that you’re not for gender equality or reproductive rights or birth control because you’re upset about some arguments on a blog.
I would never decide that x gets to be a “feminist” but I’m not allowed to because we disagree. That’s like saying x gets to believe in racial equality but I don’t because we disagree about tactics, or have a personal disagreement or whatever.
The pro-choice movement is not la cosa nostra. I’m not exactly going to be intimidated into contributing. So if they want the cash and volunteer time, and whatever they damn well better start teaching their people diplomacy.
I don’t think anyone has asked for money or a donation from you. (Have they? I’m new here.) And I don’t assume that you’re the representative from a group advocating and asking for donations for male birth control.
But I’ll tell you this – if the worst happens with Roe, it’s blogs like this one that will be the backbone of the movement. Some parts will have to go underground and do illegal things to get people to safe abortions. It’s people who are really dedicated that will be saving the day.
That’s not to say that Planned Parenthood shouldn’t continue it’s legal, above ground tactics. But I don’t think the entire movement should be a public face/ trying to compromise/ moderate force.
I think we’re going to need a lot more then donations; we’re going to need radicals and people who are willing to break the law. Blogs are probably one of the best way to spread information. That’s going to be way more important then acting as a “public face” to sell talking points.
I went to the Evergreen State College. I got into a lot of arguments with liberals, environmentalists, feminists, ect. I’m still a liberal, an environmentalist and a feminist, even if I completely disagreed with other people and was quite annoyed with some individuals.
(Although I’m not a good environmentalist, I have to admit. But in theory I support mass transit systems.)
Standard Mischief,
What? Feminists have long advocated that EC be Over The Counter like asprin. (Like it is in washington state.) Am I missing something here? The more stores that carry it, the better.
Didn’t WalMart just agree to carry EC recently? Now if only the FDA will make it OTC.
Now I’m on the foreign bride section of your post.
I haven’t read the thread – but in my opinion there are problems with foreign brides getting into physically abusive marriages that they can’t get out of because of fear of deportation.
I’m for any brides (or grooms) being able to divorce and NOT be deported from the country, to cut down on the possibility of abuse.
Husbands of the brides should be for this too – or the consequences of this can be a Lorena Bobitt situation.
ok – now I’ll go read the rest of the post.
“It’s just crazy to say that you’re not for gender equality or reproductive rights or birth control because you’re upset about some arguments on a blog.”
Like I said it’s not about whether I agree with the issue. It’s whether I’ll work with the people. I feel the same about the issue, but I don’t need the aggravation of trying to work with people who are just dying to stab me in the back.
“I don’t think anyone has asked for money or a donation from you. (Have they? I’m new here.)”
For the blog? No, not that I;ve seen. I;m talking about for the movement in general. PP/NOW/NARAL and all the various campaigns.
“And I don’t assume that you’re the representative from a group advocating and asking for donations for male birth control.”
Ironically enough I’m not in anyway connected to the Men’s rights movement. In fact I had never heard of them until reading about them on Shake’s sister. I had however come to a similar idea on my own. I really know next to nothing about the MRM. Of course I also don’t write a blog on the topic. I do write a blog on my political beliefs and anarchism.
“But I’ll tell you this – if the worst happens with Roe, it’s blogs like this one that will be the backbone of the movement.”
Good luck with that.
“It’s people who are really dedicated that will be saving the day.”
I believe you. But I cannot be one of those dedicated people under the circumstances.
“I think we’re going to need a lot more then donations; we’re going to need radicals and people who are willing to break the law.”
Gosh sounds like you’ll need people who are really committed. I hope you find some without subsequently pissing them off and driving them away.
“I went to the Evergreen State College.”
I went to the University of Oregon. Probably the most PC school in the world. Frankly it’s amazing it didn’t turn me into a republican in some ways. Every disgusting aspect of liberalism gone way way too far was shoved in your face on a daily basis. Of course after getting out of the school I could see that it was not indicative of progressive politics in general. It was an extreme.
Uh, people who are “really committed” aren’t going to flounce off if their fee-fees are hurt by some bitch on a blog.
No, that’s for people whose support is a mile wide and an inch deep.
Standard Mischief,
Lauren said in her original post:
“Sometimes, sometimes, the best thing for everyone is for the noncustodial parent to voluntarily sign away their rights and just disappear. I know single parents, men and women alike, for whom it would be a blessing.”
It sounds to me like Lauren is open to the idea that a man can voluntarily sign away his rights and responsibilities.
I think I’ve been pretty clear about my opinion on this. Pre sex-contract, ect.
(Although I’d like some information on adoption laws as they now stand. I do think that both parents should be able to walk away from a newborn and give up all rights and obligations. It’s better for the kid that he/she has only willing parents.)
We’re proposing notification while still a fetus, and we want to make our future parenthood choice then, not after it is born (and a baby, and has rights itself)
I don’t want a law that forces a woman to share her medical condition if she does not want to share that information. It could be dangerous for her to do so.
In the course of a healthy relationship, I would assume that this information would be shared with her partner.
This is the crux of the matter for me. I believe that a man does not get a LEGAL say in whether a woman has an abortion in the first trimester. I also don’t think he LEGALLY gets to force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term.
I would like to point out that even if it was a weak case, (and they themselves have admitted as such) it’s a lawsuit in support of a right. Roe didn’t create any rights, it just forbid government from infringing on rights that were, up till then, unrecognized.
They framed their law suit in a really, really stupid manner. The case is about PARENTAL RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES. The case is not about REPRODUCTIVE rights. The man is not asking for the right not to reproduce or the right to reproduce; rather, he wants the right not to pay child support.
I say, fine; let him walk away. The child is better off without a parent who is forced into his responsibilities. The state should step up to substitute for the father.
Instead of clarifying parental rights – The case confusing parental rights with reproductive rights. That doesn’t help them make a logical argument because from conception to birth there is only one sex that does the “reproducing” for humans.
This is kind of making me crazy, you know? I’m not a man, but if I was a man I would understand that I didn’t have a uterus. If you don’t have a uterus, how do you expect to gestate a fetus?
And yes, I agree that it’s not fair that I have a uterus and you don’t. I don’t want to have to be the one to gestate a baby. It really sounds like a pain in the neck to me, quite frankly. But there’s nothing I can do about it until somebody invents a uterine replicator. Which would be a great idea – ok?
And while I’m thinking about it & getting annoyed, I think the state should pay all women for the pain and suffering of having to gestate fetuses in general. We’re the ones that have to go through labor and nine months of this crap – I think we should get paid for reproducing the species and the labor force and the next generation of social security payments.
I went to the University of Oregon. Probably the most PC school in the world.
hmmm. Then I assume you’ve never been to Reed?
I was only in Eugene once, but it was the summer. My husband saw some shows there.
But I loved Evergreen. In fact, our mascot is the geoduck.
“Go, Geoduck, Go,
Through the rain, and the sleet and the snow,
siphon high, squirt it out, swivel all about,
let it all hang out.”
Well, i’ve obviously jumped the shark tonight.
“I was only in Eugene once, but it was the summer.”
It is a rather unique place to grow up. The only place I’ve been that is really similar is berkeley.
“In fact, our mascot is the geoduck.”
Ironically the geoduck is basically a big phallus symbol.
Ironically the geoduck is basically a big phallus symbol.
Of course. And apparently Seattlites used to cover up the geoducks at the market so women couldn’t see them.
And sea slugs are cuter – the mascot of Santa Cruz.
Shows how little you know the world. What you define as PC is considered rational thoughts in some countries (Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands).
What you define as PC is considered rational thoughts in some countries (Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands).
hmmm. Are you thinking of any schools in particular in those states?
“And sea slugs are cuter – the mascot of Santa Cruz.”
and they can vomit up their own stomach. Great party trick.
Liberalism, and PCness, as defined in the US includes such amazing principles as equal rights (which has nothing to do with what Tlaloc is pushing right now), universal health care, adherance to international laws and treaties, and many other things. These things are in general advocated by the right-winged parties in the countries that I mentioned.
and they can vomit up their own stomach. Great party trick.
You’re thinking of another sea thing. Oh I’m blanking on the name – and I used to volunteer at the Seattle Aquarium years ago. It’s also a delicacy. They’re the red bumpy things. They vomit up their stomach to escape. Now that I can’t remember & this is going to drive me crazy.
Sea slugs have a different shape – they are smooth and the ones I’ve seen are white – and are smaller. They are cuter, too.
well – since you’re here & I think you are a feminist But an annoyed feminist – here’s Dan Savage quoted in Feministing:
The GOP’s message to straight Americans: If you have sex, we want it to fuck up your lives as much as possible. No birth control, no emergency contraception, no abortion services, no life-saving vaccines. If you get pregnant, tough shit. You’re having those babies, ladies, and you’re making those child-support payments, gentlemen. If you get HPV and it leads to cervical cancer, well, that’s too bad. Have a nice funeral, slut.
What’s it going to take to get a straight rights movement off the ground? The GOP in Kansas wants to criminalize hetero heavy petting, for God’s sake! Wake up and smell the freaking holy war, breeders! The religious right hates heterosexuality just as much as it hates homosexuality. Fight back!
I do like me some Dan Savage.
“Liberalism, and PCness, as defined in the US includes such amazing principles as equal rights (which has nothing to do with what Tlaloc is pushing right now), universal health care, adherance to international laws and treaties, and many other things.”
No those things have absolutely nothing to do with PC. PC is founded on the concept that people have a right not to be offended. What you are talking about is good old fashioned liberalism/progressivism.
“You’re thinking of another sea thing.”
You are right I’m thinking of sea cucumbers, not sea slugs.
And sea slugs are cuter – the mascot of Santa Cruz.
Banana slugs, not sea slugs. Big difference.
I think I’ve been pretty clear about my opinion on this. Pre sex-contract, ect.
Well, there’s this itty bitty problem of the third party involved, i.e. the child. A “no support” contract pretends that this is a transaction where one parent owes the other money–ignoring the whole support of the child issue. Contracting away child support is contracting away a third party’s rights.
and they can vomit up their own stomach. Great party trick.
Hah! I remember – it’s sea cucumbers that vomit up their internal organs. (Maybe sea slugs can do this too, but we didn’t learn about that as the volunteers at the touch tanks.)
…universal health care, adherance to international laws and treaties, and many other things. These things are in general advocated by the right-winged parties in the countries that I mentioned.
Sounds pretty nice. But we already knew that we were envious of the social policies in those countries. If you live there, you should count your blessings. And I hate you if you get 5 weeks of vacation and health care.
You’d have to ask Tlaloc, but he could be talking about something else entirely. I think that he’s an anarchist(?) – so you might be assuming certain things about his political leanings that do not hold up. (He’s certainly not a Republican or a right-winger. So that would be a mistaken assumption.)
Univ. of Oregon is where one of the anarchist group is located that came up to the Seattle WTO protests. I don’t know if you’ve visited Reed (Portland) and Evergreen(Olympia, WA) college. You may or may not have a good idea of the political atmosphere at those schools. And I’ve never visited a University in northern Europe, so I have no idea what the political atmosphere is in terms of feminism or other issues.
And Tlaloc, I totally think that anti-feminists annoy you a lot more then feminists. And I bet republicans annoy you even more. Like Mr. Geo, I bet republicans annoy you on a 10:1 annoyance ratio. And I bet your wife is a feminist.
I should have waited to do a search – you all remember the sea cumcumber thing.
Is Santa Cruz Bananna slugs? Oh well – Sea slugs are still really cute. But I like bananna slugs too.
Well, there’s this itty bitty problem of the third party involved, i.e. the child. A “no support” contract pretends that this is a transaction where one parent owes the other money–ignoring the whole support of the child issue. Contracting away child support is contracting away a third party’s rights.
I thought at first that could be a problem too. But how do the sperm banks get around this problem? Or women who donate their eggs? And some men and women do sign away their rights and responsibilities at birth.
(I don’t know what the law requires to allow that to happen; but both men and women should be able to sign away their rights.)
Anybody know adoption law? Certainly in that case both parents must sign away their rights and responsibilities. It seems reasonable that one party should be able to do the same.
And it would be better for the child to have a committed parent.
Mythago:
‘A “no support” contract …. ignores the whole support of the child issue. Contracting away child support is contracting away a third party’s rights.”
Yes, but I believe a woman may already do that in some circumstances:
1. Does a single woman have the right to have a child via an anonymous sperm bank donation?
2. Is a woman required by law to name the father on the birth cetificate and pursue him for child support?
3. Can a lesbian couple have a child (with medical help or just a willing male contributor) that has only one legal parent?
I’m no lawyer, but I think the answer is yes to all three, isn’t it? Aren’t these women all signing away the child’s right to a father’s support? My contract idea just adds one more way for a woman do to so.
2. Is a woman required by law to name the father on the birth cetificate and pursue him for child support?
I don’t know the law – but I think that if a woman asks for Aid for Dependent families and children that she is required to give the father’s name. And I also think it’s harder for her to get government support if she doesn’t know the father’s name. Then the state will garnish the father’s wages.
I’m not sure if the wages will actually go to the kid or not. The state might get the money to repay the state for the aid money. (A newspaper story just came out how in some states, in the foster care system the state was actually trying to take the social security benefits of children with deceased parents. Ridiculous.)
I think this highlights the need for the state to play a greater role in contributing to the needs of children directly.
In terms of adoption law: Can both parents, independent of each other, give up their parental rights & obligations? Do they need each other’s permission to do so? I have no idea.
Yes, but you do things because they’re the right thing to do. Full stop. For example, it’d be nice to put you on hiatus until you learn to use the blockquote function, and I certainly could, but I won’t. Why? Because that would be unfair to you. You deserve better treatment. That has nothing to do with my feelings towards you personally (negative) or my opinion of your contributions here overall (negative). It has to do with the rules of order I think are proper for everyone here. I also love how you’re comparing html formatting to abortion.
Second, are you trying to get banned? Read the about-me post, assuming you haven’t already and are just being an asshole, and get a fucking clue. That is out of order.
I think geoduck’s husband hit the nail on the head with his comment about why he supports the basic principles of feminism.
“Because I basically think about what I would want if I were a woman.”
That’s exactly how I feel too. I’d say it’s probably true of most men who do support feminist goals.
I believe that most feminists (well, the ones I’ve debated with online and the ones I’ve read or seen on tv, anyway) are unwilling to “think about what they would want if they were men” in this case.
If I were a woman, I would not want to be forced to assume the responsibilities of parenthood against my will. That’s why I support a woman’s right to birth control, abortion, adoption, and to leave her baby at a sanctuary (hospital, fire station, etc.) and walk away.
Why do so few feminists support men’s efforts to have equivalent rights against being forced into the obligations of parenthood against their will?
There are some men who will never support feminist goals no matter what you say to convince them.
There are some who will always support those goals no matter how annoying or dismissive of men’s opinions they may find some feminists to be (like Mr. geoduck and myself).
But there are some men, while sympathetic to feminist goals, who will not be supportive if feminists refuse to accept their concerns as legitimate (like Tlaloc). In fact, they may actively work against these goals as a result. Of course that would be petty and vindictive, but some people are like that.
Many non-woman-hating men (such as myself) believe there is an unfairness regarding the freedom from unwanted parenthood at the heart of the Dubay case. Feminists should work with men’s groups to find a compromise acceptable to both sides. Failure to do so could alienate many men, leading them to stop supporting (or to oppose) feminist goals . I don’t see how this helps your cause.
There are a few problems with these sentences.
First of all, they assume that all feminists are women. They are not. Hugo, who posts here, is a man, as is many others.
Second of all, just because you support a woman’s right to leave a child in a sactuary and walk away, doesn’t mean that it’s a right she has. Even if she does that, she still has an obligation to that child afterwards.
Third of all, we do support the men’s efforts to have equivalent rights against being forced into the obligations of parenthood. Those rights have absolutely no relationship to the right to choose. If a man doesn’t want to be a part of a child’s life, he has every right to leave the child that the mother has. He just have to help pay for the kids upbringing, like the mother would have to if she was the one walking out.
This is the biggest problem with this rather lengthy debate – the confusion of the right to choose, and the obligation to the child. Those two are not related, like the right to buy condoms are not related to the obligation to the child.
Let me try to make this clearer.
Before the child is born, there are several choices available:
1) protected sex/unprotected sex
This is something that both partners choose, either individually or together.
2) abortion/giving birth
This is something that ideally should be choosen after the two people involved speak about it and reaches an agreement. However, since only one person can get pregnant, she gets to decide.
3) adoption
This can only be done with both parents’ agreement. This transfers the parents’ obligations to the child to some other people.
4) leaving the child (perhaps yet unborn)
This is a choice that can be made by one or both parents in union or individually. However, it doesn’t realease the parents from their obligation to the child. And in this, the choices are equalivalent for the mother and the father.
Many non-woman-hating men (such as myself) believe there is an unfairness regarding the freedom from unwanted parenthood at the heart of the Dubay case. Feminists should work with men’s groups to find a compromise acceptable to both sides. Failure to do so could alienate many men, leading them to stop supporting (or to oppose) feminist goals . I don’t see how this helps your cause.
This case was framed in an absolutely horrible manner. Quite frankly, Mr. Geo had a very similar response to Mr. Shakespeare (from Shakespeare’s sister blog), who was very harsh. When the case came out, i asked Mr. Geo why he wasn’t more sympathetic. He was 1) worried about the economic implications for the kids 2) worried the state wouldn’t take over and 3) Geo thought this guy was on the cutting edge of “sherkerdom.” Which is apparently a new word that he thought up.
Now, last night he was interested when I re-framed the argument as
1) socializing the costs of reproduction and
2) the planting of the penile flag in the vagina shouldn’t automatically mean lots of fatherly rights. These “fatherly rights” and the reluctance of the state to remove them primarily serves
1) the state and
2) the father. It doesn’t much serve the child or the mother. In fact, it seems like a big pain in the neck to track down a deadbeat, especially if he’s willing to go into the underground economy.
It’s probably better for the child to get a uncommitted father to bug out of the situation. And if he doesn’t bug out, he is less likely to complain about the economic implications because he had to make a conscious decision to commit to being a parent.
Also, the state needs to step up and cover more costs of child care.
And if a mother is unable to opt out of her parental rights because the father refuses to allow an adoption – we should change the law so that any partner can opt out of parenting. A father (or mother) should not be allowed to prevent a woman (or man) from signing away her (or his) parental rights and obligations.
As Kristjan wrote above, this case conflated reproductive rights with parental rights in a non-helpful and confusing manner. It also alienated people that may have agreed with the principle of “adoption” rights for everyone at the birth of a child. It alientated people that support the state as an entity for socializing the costs of child care. It alienated people who felt sorry for the daughter of the guy who brought the case. And it alienated anybody who had a father, or knew of a father, that didn’t economically support his kids.
This guy who pressed the case is not a sympathetic person in that he has a daughter, that he doesn’t want, and he doesn’t care if the world (and his daughter) knows that he rejects her. Just from a personal point of view, I feel bad for his daughter.
Anyways, this case was framed and sold in a unhelpful manner; considering how it was sold to the public, I’m surprised we got any rational or non-snarky discourse. (Especially in light of the South Dakota law – when everyone is freaked out about the state of reproductive rights in America.)
Kristjan:
“First of all, they assume that all feminists are women.”
No they don’t. I consider myself a feminist, although I disagree with the general feminist stance on this issue. I acknowledge that some feminists who disagree with me are also men.
“Second of all, just because you support a woman’s right to leave a child in a sactuary and walk away, doesn’t mean that it’s a right she has. Even if she does that, she still has an obligation to that child afterwards.”
I didn’t know that she still had obligations to the child. I believe that she should be able to walk away, no strings attached, in order to ensure the child’s well being (no more “dumpster babies”). Do you agree?
“If a man doesn’t want to be a part of a child’s life, he has every right to leave the child that the mother has. He just have to help pay for the kids upbringing, like the mother would have to if she was the one walking out.”
True. Both parents have equal rights and responsibilities after the child is born. They also have equal rights before conception. Where I see the inequality is during the period between the two. Since the woman has the right to an abortion, she can be 100% certain that she will never be forced into the obligations of motherhood against her wishes, even if she took no precautions to avoid pregnancy.
My girlfriend and I do not want children. We have agreed on the method of birth control we use. We have also agreed that she would have an abortion should she become pregnant. I do not distrust her or think she would get pregnant on purpose. But if she were to become pregnant, she could change her mind (which would be understandable – actually having an abortion would be much more difficult than agreeing to one beforehand).
After the precautions I have taken, I am still not 100% certain that I will not be forced into parenthood against my will. I can’t think of any way to ensure this short of abstinence. This is what I consider to be unfair. Many men agree with me. Try to think of what you would want if you were in my shoes.
Instead of refusing to accept this as a legitimate concern (which could turn some men against feminism – Tlaloc comes to mind), why not try to reach a compromise acceptable to both of us?
Kristjan:
From “The Safe Haven Act of Massachussets:
“The person accepting a newborn infant at a designated facility shall make every effort to solicit the following information from the parent placing the newborn infant: (1) the name of the newborn infant; (2) the name and address of the parent placing the newborn infant; (3) the location of the newborn infant’s birthplace; (4) information relative to the newborn infant’s medical history and his or her biological family’s medical history, if available; and (5) and any other information that might reasonably assist the department or the court in current or future determinations of the best interests of the child, including whether the parent or guardian plans on returning to seek future custody of the child. The person receiving the newborn infant shall encourage the parent to provide the information but the parent shall not be required to provide such information.”
If a woman does not have to reveal her name or the name of the child, I don’t see how she could still have any obligations to the child. Also, requiring a woman to remain obligated to the child defeats the purpose of the law, doesn’t it? If that is the case in some states, I’d suggest that those laws be changed to something similar to the MA law.
geoduck:
“And if a mother is unable to opt out of her parental rights because the father refuses to allow an adoption – we should change the law so that any partner can opt out of parenting. A father (or mother) should not be allowed to prevent a woman (or man) from signing away her (or his) parental rights and obligations.”
I agree completely, but I fear you have just been eliminated from contention for “Feminist of the Year” (ya get my vote, though).
Yet you state that the problem is that the feminists can’t put themselves in the shoes of the men. That doesn’t make sense unless feminists are “not-men”.
You know what? Unemployed people don’t have equal protection against getting fired as employed people. There is a good reason for that. Namely there is a difference in their status – one having a job, and one not having a job.
It’s the same regarding pregnacy and abortion. The people who are pregnant have a choice regarding abortion, the people who are not (regardless of sex) don’t know.
What you seems to be not be getting (regardless of your claims of understanding it), is that abortion and the choices in regards to these, are not related to the responsibilities of parents to their children. For men, the choice of getting children ends when the woman is inpregnated. For women the choice continues for a while longer, for the simple reason that it’s their bodies.
Taking your position to it’s logical conclusion, it should be possible for the man to force the woman to carry the child to term, if he wants to have the child. Is that really a position you feel comfortable with?
As a smart, able adult, your energies are much better spent working for more male contraceptive options so that there are less children to willingly abandon than working to be able to legally abandon your children.
P.S. I’m closing this thread. I think 210 comments is a pretty good number, no?
Men’s parental responsibilities, distilled down to a simple logical argument.
First, a few assumptions that you may or may not agree with…
…
[...] of course, modify this arrangement with the informed consent of both parties When Lauren first bogged about this over at Feministe, I [...]