The religious Right’s position on reproductive rights rests on unprovable theories of personhood. Jay Bodzin proposes a secular test.
The past year has seen an immense and almost unprecedented attack on the reproductive rights of women in the public sphere. The Republican Presidential primary has turned into a competition among the candidates to see who can most aggressively oppose women’s reproductive health. Republicans oppose a rule proposed by the Obama administration that would require employer-provided health insurance to cover birth control, on the grounds that this would interfere with the religious liberty of the employers—the “liberty,” of course, to refuse their employees access to contraception.
State legislatures have gotten into the act, with several bills passed to severely punish women for seeking abortion, requiring them to submit to invasive and unnecessary ultrasonic probes. A federal judge ruled North Carolina’s version of this law to be unconstitutional on March 27th, but a similar law in Texas has been upheld. Other bills have allowed employers the freedom to demand information from their female employees about their use of contraception, and to fire them for using it. The State of Texas also cut all of its funding for Planned Parenthood because that organization offers abortion as one of its services. Federal law required the U.S. government to suspend funding for the state’s entire reproductive health service in response, cutting 90% of the budget for women’s health programs in the Lone Star State.
This is a grotesque invasion of the rights and dignity of women. It’s terrible for men as well: not only because men may want the women in their lives to have access to health care and reproductive freedom for its own sake; but because men need women to have these things, if men want to have sexual relationships with them. Who opposes that?
The Opposition to Reproductive Rights
The Republican assault on choice isn’t as simple as old white men trying to oppress women. Many of the proponents of these anti-women’s-health laws in state legislatures are women themselves. The issue is not men versus women; rather, it represents a particular conservative vision of family life and social order, attacking a modern society that increasingly departs from that vision. In this vision, everyone is heterosexual, has sex only for procreation, and respects the authority of their parents, their pastors, and their leaders. It follows in the conservative tradition of denying the interests of individuals, in exchange for—not the whole, for the whole is nothing but the sum of its parts—but rather, for the status quo and the existing power structure.
This vision is Puritanical, heteronormative, fragile, and fundamentally false. We never really lived in the utopian, castrated, “Leave It To Beaver” world that the Right so desperately harkens back towards; but the idea of it is enough.
Opposition to abortion, and to all manner of sexual liberty, has shaped the modern Conservative movement more than any other force. The opposition to abortion, mind you, has never been entirely about abortion. If the main goal of conservatives was to prevent abortions from happening, then they should support contraception, safe-sex education, and so on, even as they also try to limit abortion rights. They do not. Because the real objective is not (or is not just) to stop the destruction of fetuses; it’s to limit the freedom of women and men to depart from that Puritanical vision of what society should look like. Sex that is intended for something other than procreation (especially the sex that women have) is contrary to this ideal.
This motive is shown in, among other things, the willingness of some abortion opponents to allow the procedure in cases of rape or incest. If abortion really were murderous, then it logically should be prohibited even in such cases—as Rick Santorum recently stated. But not all “pro-life” advocates share that view. And the reason is this: the conservative imperative, the demand of that Puritanical vision, is that no one should have sex except for procreation. The woman who has suffered from rape or incest hasn’t intentionally done that, so she gets a pass. But a woman who seeks abortion for any other reason—she clearly had sex for fun, so she should be forced to have a child. Because that’s what sex is for, or what women are for. Rick Santorum is, perhaps, more sincere in his conviction that opposition to abortion is about fetal life; or perhaps, he simply believes that women who were raped are really sluts too.
However, the argument against abortion has always been phrased in terms of the rights of the fetus. Many conservatives no doubt sincerely believe that their concern is to stop the murder of babies. This argument may not be consistent with the rest of the pro-life movement’s policies, but it deserves a serious response.
Why Abortion Is Not Murder
If you sincerely believe that a developing fetus, however unformed, is a person, and entitled to full human rights, then prohibiting abortion makes perfect sense. So to that extent, any argument for abortion rights has to include an argument that blastocysts and fetuses aren’t people. This requires a comprehensive theory of what it is that makes an entity a person, entitled to human rights.
The Left is handicapped in this by a critically divided ideology: it at once attempts to subscribe to scientific rationalism, and yet to placate religion, and it isn’t willing to alienate adherents of either worldview. This gives the Right a huge advantage, because the Right couches all moral questions in religious terms, and cheerfully contradicts anything it can label as science.
If opponents of abortion argue that a fetus is a person because God says so and don’t ask questions, then the counterargument must either advance a different theological claim, which says that fetuses aren’t people—and at that point, who’s to say which is right?—or, it must say, no, we reject that kind of argument entirely, and instead will decide what constitutes a person based on empirical evidence, not spiritual claims. But most people on the Left are very afraid of saying that, and of alienating people who still find theological arguments to be compelling.
So I will say it. What makes an entity entitled to human rights is whether it is sapient: whether it can feel and understand and experience fear and suffering. The best evidence seems to suggest that this ability is created in some way by the immensely complex architecture of the brain. Newly gestating embryos lack that cognitive architecture. It is exceedingly doubtful that they experience anything at all; and we need feel no moral revulsion at destroying them before they do. Nothing in this argument needs to deny free will or the soul or even God, if you believe in one; but whatever else you believe, the connection between the nervous system and consciousness is well-developed, and is a reasonable basis for moral choices.
There is no basis, besides religious decree, to believe that a brand-new embryo is “human” in any ethical sense. The fact that it is “a human cell” is not dispositive: your fingernails and scabs are human cells, and you destroy them with nary a care. The fact that it could, potentially, develop into a human, given the right conditions, is not dispositive; the same could be said of an unfertilized egg, or, with the right advances in science, of any cell in your body. The argument that an early embryo is human is wholly dependent upon religion, upon claims about the nature of the soul that are impossible to disprove or to test.
One of the major schisms in modern American politics is the degree to which religious belief ought to factor into political decisions. One’s beliefs cannot possibly be kept out of politics, because they inform our understanding of the physical world. The devout cannot accept the argument that “you believe this, but that’s a religious belief, so the state won’t act on it.” The counterargument cannot compartmentalize religious belief; it must contradict it. We must be able to say that some people’s beliefs are just not true, even if they are religiously motivated.
For fetuses at later stages of development, the question becomes harder. It is no coincidence that courts have consistently held that fetuses may enjoy more legal protection at later stages of development—though it is not clear whether this is due to a comprehensive epistemology on the parts of the judges, or just a general sense that older fetuses look more “human.”
Gender Inequality in Abortion Decisions
The abortion decision is, of course, not nearly as personal for men as it is for women. Men face the prospect of becoming parents, with all the overwhelming responsibility that entails, the same as women; but women face the additional risk and personal invasion of carrying that pregnancy in their own bodies. The danger and difficulty they face are far beyond what men endure. It’s an inequality inherent in nature.
And for that reason, men—at least, liberal and enlightened men who want to support the feminist project—face a daunting paradox when confronted (or when their female partners are confronted) with this choice. Every decent man today knows that, if his partner is faced with an unplanned pregnancy, his only response must be “Whatever you want to do, I’ll support you.” He cannot ethically try to compel his partner to end the pregnancy; but neither can he shirk his responsibilities as a parent if she chooses to go forward and have the child.
For this reason, it’s incredibly important for any person to not have a potentially-pregnancy-inducing sexual relationship with anyone else, unless they’re prepared, as a couple, to either a) choose abortion if a pregnancy results, or b) to have a child with that person. This burden inevitably falls most heavily on women, but we should all share it. Contraception is good but imperfect, so any couple may find themselves presented with this choice. And, while every child is a new being of incalculable value, an unplanned child is also a potential disaster, for itself and for its parents.
I speak in this as a domestic relations lawyer. Many of my clients have been people who failed to make this calculus, and found themselves with a child they couldn’t support, shared with a partner they found that they didn’t like or couldn’t communicate with. They weren’t all necessarily irresponsible; sometimes, you do everything right, and these things still happen. (And even if they were irresponsible—so what? Does that justify ruining three lives? The idea that anyone who makes a mistake deserves all the consequences of that mistake is another hallmark of modern conservatism, but it is cruel and false.)
♦◊♦
Opposition to abortion is founded on both a moral claim—society should look like a Normal Rockwell painting forever—and on an epistemological claim—a fetus is a person from the moment of conception. Neither claim can be disproved, to someone who truly believes it – but neither claim deserves our unquestioning deference. None of this is intended to trivialize the dilemma, at times agonizing, that a woman must face when presented with that choice. But the dilemma need not be seen as one that calls for murder. Men who care about women should emphasize that point. And women should recognize that men too have an interest in that decision, even if not as visceral and urgent as the woman’s interest, and should communicate clearly where they stand.
—Photo janineomg/Flickr
“If you sincerely believe that a developing fetus, however unformed, is a person, and entitled to full human rights, then prohibiting abortion makes perfect sense.” – Actually, that’s not necessary. It makes sense if you believe that a developing fetus has human rights regardless of whether or not you consider it to be a person. “any argument for abortion rights has to include an argument that blastocysts and fetuses aren’t people.” No, it has to include an argument that they don’t have rights. “This requires a comprehensive theory of what it is that makes an entity a person, entitled to… Read more »
I disagree with everything you say, but will only comment on a few things. When a sperm enters an egg, something amazing happens. That egg now has it’s own unique genetic code. Yes I will fall on that. No I am not religious at all. I am just against senseless killing and murder, and abortion is certainly murder. It is the extermination of unique individuals with genetic codes (albeit dependent on a mother while in fetal state, with or without feelings of fear) ultimately on a path to becoming a fully developed baby if everything is gestationally within normal limits.… Read more »
But at what point does that genetic material have a conscious, when is it it’s own being? Actively aware of life for the first time. Before anyone gives the coma argument those people have already become self-aware, have lived their lives, etc. But it’s entirely plausible that a fetus has no understanding, no conscious thoughts, no awareness until very late in pregnancy so to end it’s life before that stage is something I fully support if the host does not want to continue that pregnancy. After a point of consciousness and viability, then for my personal belief (not for other… Read more »
I think that much of the conversation, not in this sub thread, but in the comments in general, is about not when a child becomes a consciousness etc, but rather why women are given soul authority on that determination. Forcing a women to have an abortion when she does not want one is not moral, but giving women the right to opt out of responsibility for a child without also giving men the same right is also immoral. No matter what you think ethically we have reached a point wherein only women who truly desire a child need have a… Read more »
@ chicago jso,
I am located in Chicago. didnt know if your screen name was suggestive of your residence there as well, but I am looking to start a reproductive rights commission for men in Chicago to begin addressing this issue. Im tired of talking about it! Would you be willing to exchange contact info?
[email protected]
I really wanted to write on this topic, but I’m in the midst of dealing with a situation that makes it just a little too raw for me right now. While I do believe that a woman has absolutely 100% right to choose what she does with her body – whether it be abortion or carrying a fetus to term – I also think we need to change discourses of the male’s role in reproductive rights. We need to have more conversations about responsible sexuality, and we need to stop shaming men who walk away from children they didn’t mean… Read more »
“I truly believe that men shouldn’t be held automatically culpable when pregnancy occurs accidentally, anymore than a woman should be forced to carry to term a child she doesn’t want.”
Exactly! This is what some of us have been saying for a very long time. Finally something we agree on! Now, if we could only get the abortion rights lobby to become pro-choice, we might get the conversation started, and move this forward.
We way too often exclude males from conversations around reproductive rights and contraception, and that is problematic. If a woman can choose to refrain from becoming a mother, I think fathers need to have that option, too. It’s of course complex and nuanced, and there probably ought to be some limitations to a persons’ capacity to just opt out of parenting (in pregnancy, it makes sense, but things are a little more complicated if the decision is made later). It’s not just legally that men are bound to children they don’t necessarily want to have, though. It’s also through cultural… Read more »
It was easy to anticipate the cool reaction to this piece. As women have virtually full and total reproductive rights and men have virtually none, it’s not realistic to expect a great deal of sympathy. Perhaps once males get past having ~ zero reproductive rights things will be different.
Had an experience today that very much reminded me of some of the discussion in the comments here. I took a call from a gentleman that wanted to file a lawsuit because his licence was suspended in 2010 for child support. The thing is he actually payed his back child support back in 2006 and for some reason it took them four year to get around to taking his licence to drive. And the icing on the cake was that this man was a bus driver so he ended up losing his job. It boggles the mind that someone thinks… Read more »
Yeah, and it also boggles my mind how bassackward bureaucratic structures are. “I”m sorry, we can’t reinstate your license until you pay.” “I did pay, in 2006.”
“I’m sorry sir, please fill out form 123-943 and we’ll investigate.”
Gah.
This whole “her body her choice” thing kinda got me thinking about something. Do we apply this logic to another other areas of society. There are those that would say no other area of society has this kind of question regarding body authonomy. But imho, there is at least one area that is the same OR at least very close. WORK There are jobs that are very dangerous, firefighter, police, military. Yet we as a society don’t allow the people in those jobs who are taking 100% of the risk and toll on their bodies to make ALL the decisions… Read more »
And for that reason, men—at least, liberal and enlightened men who want to support the feminist project—face a daunting paradox when confronted (or when their female partners are confronted) with this choice. Every decent man today knows that, if his partner is faced with an unplanned pregnancy, his only response must be “Whatever you want to do, I’ll support you.” He cannot ethically try to compel his partner to end the pregnancy; but neither can he shirk his responsibilities as a parent if she chooses to go forward and have the child. In other words once he ejaculates he is… Read more »
Attorney Bodzin, An embryo is genetically distinct from an unfertilized egg, that’s a scientific fact, not a moral distinction. It is a unique individual, genetically, from the moment of conception, also a scientific fact. Opposition to abortion is based in large part on the discomfort many people feel on the arbitrariness of legal protections for individuals at some stages of development, but not for others. One does not have to depend on ‘moral’ arguments, as you claim, to oppose abortion. Your claim that opposition to abortion is based on moral considerations is merely an attempt to avoid having to take… Read more »
Puritanism and the Puritans are related only etymologically. What became Puritanism grew out of a long historical evolution.
Now, apply that gender reverse logic to this. Can you imagine the outcry if you forced women to register all sex acts with the governement to ensure they retained the rights to their child.
I realize that the biological reality is that a woman knows when a child is born and a man because of biology doesn’t BUT, an enlightened person would say that we should give MORE rights to those that are at a biological disadvantage not LESS rights.
http://adoption.about.com/cs/adoptionrights/a/the_what.htm
A really good explanation of the Putative Father registry.
Apply biological reality to this thing and you can see how much easier it makes it for the mother to get around the fathers rights.
@Jay: I can’t believe some of the things you are saying “AS A LAWYER”. It kinda scares me actually. And you are supposed to be a domestic relations lawyer to boot. Of course a woman can give a child up for adoption without the fathers consent, it is quite simple, all she has to say is “I am sorry I had a one night stand and I don’t know who the father is and am willing to sign a piece of paper to that effect”. Voila, adoption will go forward. Others have mentioned Putative Father registries. I would be very… Read more »
right. and even if he does, all the woman has to do is give the wrong name. there are case after case after case of women giving their babies up for adoption w/o the father’s consent and the father spending YEARS in court battles to get them back, meanwhile his child is being raised by the “adoptive parents” and the end result is the court saying, “well, the kid’s been with the adoptive parents for years now, it’s the only life they’ve known, and we dont want to disrupt that. Sucks to be you dad.” In fact, Utah has gotten… Read more »
Right but children do need stability…so moving a child out of their parents’ house because one of the biological parents wants custody is probably not in the best interest of the child, unless the adoptive parents are somehow abusing the child. In cases like that, the child’s best interest should be the most important thing.
And that’s why the courts drag it out for years, so that they can use that excuse to strip a father of his rights. But the fact of the matter is, if the father can prove he’s related biologically, and he’s fighting for his parental rights due to the actions of the mother (not him), why are the adoptive parents considered “the parents” (by your own wording)? You’re looking at the end result, instead of the problem that caused it to begin with. You’re looking at the 5 year old child who has been living with adoptive parents, while the… Read more »
“And that’s why the courts drag it out for years, so that they can use that excuse to strip a father of his rights.” That is creating a cause when all you have is a correlation. Everything in our court system gets dragged out, especially when it doesn’t involve potential incarceration. Heck, even then shit gets dragged on forever. So I think saying that this particular issue gets dragged out for the express purpose of using that time as an excuse to discriminate against a potential father is incorrect. That might be what ends up happening, but that’s not the… Read more »
Ah and I should probably add I’d be saying the same thing about a biological mother fighting for custody. I’m not anti-paternal rights, by any stretch. I think there are definitely problems in the way our judicial system handles child custody in divorce, for example. I just also think that adoptive parents shouldn’t be dismissed just because they don’t share any DNA with the child.
Except a biological mother signed her OWN rights away, so changing her mind after the fact is an entirely different situation from having someone else terminate your rights against your wishes.
“I just also think that adoptive parents shouldn’t be dismissed just because they don’t share any DNA with the child.”
Why not? When the child is 1 month old, what claim do the adoptive parents have over that child that trumps a biological parent’s rights?
“That is creating a cause when all you have is a correlation” Is it? Given how the courts treat fathers in custody battles, even when the father was the primary caretaker? Given the courts unwillingness to enforce their own custody arrangements? Given the government and the courts unwillingness to address father involvement when child services removes a child from the mother, even when the father is known and been granted visitation (thus deemed a fit parent)? Given the courts unwillingness grant a father in these cases any kind of visitation, and in doing so, refuse to acknowledge the father has… Read more »
I’m on my phone, so I’m only replying to the last bit there. First, the abortion debate is a different one to a debate about adoptive vs. bio parent rights. Second, and more importantly, putting the child first is part of the abortion debate. I’m of the opinion it’s better to have abortion as an option than having a kid grow up unwanted or in a group home.
Putting the child first, is that why Missouri is making it THAT MUCH EASIER to strip a father of his child? In a senate vote of 126 to 15 in favour of making it easier to terminate a fathers parental rights?
http://universitycity.patch.com/articles/when-should-a-father-s-rights-be-terminated
Heather: That is why lawyers will drag a case out for as long as possible. I wonder though, how would you feel if the a child had been kidnapped by a woman in the hospital and she never told her husband, he believed it was his. Years later, they find the child. Does the couple OR just the husband (who did nothing wrong) get to keep the child. After all, to the CHILD, there is no difference, to the husband there is no difference. The only difference in the cases is that someone USED the law to get a child,… Read more »
http://safehavenlaws.uslegal.com/oregon-safe-haven-laws/
Another link to Oregon safe haven laws.
Now, if you want to talk about reality. Do you know what happens when a MAN drops off a child at a safe haven vs what happens when a woman does.
You ought to look it up, the reaction to the drop off is quite different in most areas for the two genders.
You wouldn’t happen to have a link for that? I suspect I already know the answer to what happens when I man drops a baby off, it would be interesting to read nonetheless
I can’t believe that you are a domestic relations lawyer and didn’t know about the safe haven laws in your own state. That is very sad I am sorry to say
I would love to see an end to this bullshit hairsplitting about when a fetus is considered a human with rights. Just cut out all the argument all together and say that it is a human at conception and make an exception to the rules as to it being ok to end it’s life. At that point you can add it to the existing list we have, such as in cases of capital punishment, self defense, war and so on.
“the ”liberty,” of course, to refuse their employees access to contraception.” First lie. Nobody is refusing “ACCESS” to contraception. I refuse to pay for your lifestyle does not deny you the ability to pay for your own lifestyle. The repeated effort to make this claim demonstrates the sense of entitlement and selfishness of the left. And it dumbfounds me how people, anyone, could make the connection between “I won’t pay for your choices” to “you’re not allowed to have contraception of any kind”. “with several bills passed to severely punish women for seeking abortion,” Lie number two. Ultrasounds are not… Read more »
““Opposition to abortion, and to all manner of sexual liberty, has shaped the modern Conservative movement more than any other force.” I’ll agree that this is incorrect. The modern conservative movement in the U.S. has been shaped primarily by blind, reflexive market-worship and greed. It only panders to sexual intimidation to win over the religious ‘base,’ but it’s far from the driving force of American conservatism, as evidenced by what priorities the far right displays once they’re in offce. “Any woman who has carried a child says it is a joy and an experience they would never give up” I… Read more »
“I see you’ve never talked to any rape victims, Mark.” Seriously? The assertion was made that a pregnancy is seen as a personal invasion. The implication being that pregnancy is some kind of undesirable hardship women are forced to endure. Are you seriously going to try and counter my point against this assertion by crying rape? Are you seriously that callous, that ignorant? Are you seriously so desperate to ensure pregnancy is seen as some godforsaken burden women must endure, that you would stand on the backs of victims, and use their ordeal as if it was an example of… Read more »
You know what’s a good way to avoid that? Stop making blanket generalizations like “all women love pregnancy.”
Maybe if we had the male pill we wouldn’t be having this discussion. You would opposition form the religious right but.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JymN5yu-K_o “Dr. Elsimar Coutinho is a Brazilian endocrinologist and a human reproduction scientist. In this interview, he tells about the development of male contraceptive pill, how it works and why we don’t have it. In this interview he tells how and why feminists, leaded by Betty Friedan, boycotted his male birth control pill presentation, in the World Population Congress. Male birth control pill, unlike the female pill we use till now work, are much more profitable for laboratories, but… Read more »
There is ample evidence that the pill, gossypol proved toxic and caused complete sterility in enough cases that FDAs in China didn’t utilize it.
I think the biggest issue is pharma, personally. They’ve got a solid market in women who have to take the pill every day. They’ve got dollars invested in a produce women want en masse, to the point of politics.
I think when men and women push hard enough for male pills and RISUG (which believe me I am 100% for) then we’ll see them figure out how to make a mint on it.
Except our own governments are making life difficult for RISUG. Canada refused to allow it to enter testing, and the US said it needed to start from square one, and all the years of testing in India counted for nothing. And all those tests cost big money, and the US government would rather hand that over to big pharma through enforced coverage of birth control pills, and to VAWA recipients without any accountability.
Question. Do any drugs developed in other countries get approved without
Testing here first. I’d be surprised but I don’t know.
Testing in other countries often countries will often provide some credit towards the end result. Extensive testing will be reviewed and credit given towards some of the earlier requirements. Approval in some countries can even result in a bare minimum of top end testing being required to pass. It’s my understanding anything passed in Canada is on the short track to getting approval in the US (Canada has higher standards, so the other way takes a little more effort, but still gets a fast track compared to starting from scratch).
“And for that reason, men—at least, liberal and enlightened men who want to support the feminist project—face a daunting paradox when confronted (or when their female partners are confronted) with this choice. Every decent man today knows that, if his partner is faced with an unplanned pregnancy, his only response must be “Whatever you want to do, I’ll support you.” He cannot ethically try to compel his partner to end the pregnancy; but neither can he shirk his responsibilities as a parent if she chooses to go forward and have the child.” Legally she quite a bit of power over… Read more »
. She can shirk her responsibilities as a parent if she chooses but he has zero, I repeat, zero choice in the matter. So naturally she has more reproductive rights than he does. Legally speaking, this is not true, at least not in Oregon where I practice. Women have equal parenting responsibilities to men; both are subject to termination of parental rights for abuse or neglect; neither gender is preferred in the case of custody disputes. It is true that women have more rights over abortion decisions; but as I said, that’s reasonable and inevitable, given that it’s the woman’s… Read more »
The male abortion referred to would be a financial severing “opt out” for men who do not want to pay child support. Would that we lived in a more progressive nation with subsidized child care and health insurance for all (and protections in the workplace for parental leave) I’d be ok with that. What I’m told is that even if a woman and man agree on him severing his paternal rights, if she applies for medicaid and he is named as the father, the government will approach him for payment prior to them paying. What do you know about the… Read more »
I’m only licensed to practice law in Oregon, so I can’t say what happens in other states or countries. But in Oregon, yes, it’s quite right that parents (regardless of gender) can’t ‘opt out’ of parenting rights in order to avoid paying child support. It’s also true that if a parent applies for state assistance, and is not living with the other parent, the state is likely to pursue the other parent for support, to help remunerate those costs. The rationale is that parents should be responsible for caring for their children – whether they had intended to reproduce or… Read more »
Women opt out by aborting. Men should have reproductive rights by opting out during the same first 20 weeks, giving her time to abort if she chooses to. Note: there is no child at that point. So, he is aborting (in essence) his connection to a fetus, not a child. Just as she can do via abortion if she wishes. If she chooses to bring child into the world, that is her choice alone and should be her responsiblity alone. THAT is what reproductive rights are about. Choice. For women AND men, not just women. Opposition to this is opposition… Read more »
“Opposition to this is opposition to male reproductive rights. There are many who claim that there is a war on women who themselves continue to wage war on men. It well past time for equality, time for men to have equal reproductive rights. Please end the war.”
My earlier post proves they were even opposed to the male pill. .
The reason we don’t allow that is the following, entirely plausible, scenario: Man and women have sex. Woman discovers that she’s pregnant. Maybe they were stupid and didn’t use contraception; maybe they did everything right, and the contraception failed, as it does on rare occasion. The woman, for whatever spiritual, visceral, or other reason, doesn’t want to abort. She implores the man for assistance with the tremendous responsibility she’s about to face… what then? If we allow men to ‘opt out,’ then the woman in this scenario is going to be without any help or support at all. And it’s… Read more »
My stance has always been preventative. Hard core education, ample, low cost access to BC, communication out the wazzoo. Willingness to do other things than PIV and to wear condoms even if she’s on the pill. And I still think that if our country was like northern Europe in terms of its services, that woman wouldn’t be going it alone nearly so much. I do believe that women can bear and raise children alone, and I think that might be preferable to raising one with a man who hates you and feels deep resentment about the child he’s compelled to… Read more »
“Talk about what would happen if there was a pregnancy before you have sex.
You know, act like adults.”
Adults lie. Furthermore, google :”it’s a woman’s prerogative” and tell me if the most comment result you’ll find might have any impact on your suggestion.
most common
You know Mark, is there anything I could say that would agree with (given that I’m pro additional birth controls for men, etc etc etc), extraordinarily sympathetic to men’s issues and offer openings for conversations and want to seek solutions? Or is it because I’m even writing here you feel the need to shoot down any and all suggestions I offer. Cause I,and other women writing here, are on the side of figuring this out and promoting more protection for men. I’m not stupid Mark, I know adults lie. I’d go so far to say that lying means they are… Read more »
“You know Mark, is there anything I could say that would agree with … Or is it because I’m even writing here you feel the need to shoot down any and all suggestions I offer…” I was under the impression that making comments so personal was frowned upon. I believe I’ve been warned for such in the past. That said, while you may be sympathetic to men’s issues, your solutions, to this point, have been, in my opinion, impractical. Largely because they generally ignore human nature and equality, instead leaning towards the fluffy rainbow dreamworld of shouldLand. Keep this in… Read more »
I do not want to maintain the status quo, Mark. If that’s all you’ve taken from any of my comments, then I don’t suppose I can say anything else here.
Acting like adults to me means two things here Mark. Dealing with reality as it stands. Making that reality better for all concerned. 1) dealing with the reality that there are indeed inequities and since those are current, it’s even more beholden on couples who can get pregnant to be equally aware of those inequities, decide how to deal with the present current reality as to not get pregnant. 2) Act to push for a new state of affairs. If there are people in the world having sexual intercourse without availing themselves of their words, their minds and the access… Read more »
“I was under the impression that making comments so personal was frowned upon. I believe I’ve been warned for such in the past. That said, while you may be sympathetic to men’s issues, your solutions, to this point, have been, in my opinion, impractical. Largely because they generally ignore human nature and equality, instead leaning towards the fluffy rainbow dreamworld of shouldLand. Keep this in mind with the bellow comments.” K I’m just replying to this bit. So I don’t know what comments of yours you’ve been warned about…but generally…saying “you are saying something/doing something to me” is acceptable, meanwhile… Read more »
And I do see people in the real world doing work in real time, slow and deliberate and difficult work, all the time. Dealing with policies around sex ed in schools let’s say. Which is a part of a system currently that keeps kids from accurate info about their bodies, collectively. Kids have to take Driver’s Ed. They should have to take sex ed. They should have access to condoms and bc. Working towards this means a generation of kids with more skills (perhaps) to do that communication. It takes time. So I work personally with adults. I talk, speak,… Read more »
“I do not want to maintain the status quo, Mark. If that’s all you’ve taken from any of my comments, then I don’t suppose I can say anything else here.” What LEGAL changes have you proposed to protect men’s reproductive rights? Discussion and trust, that’s all you’ve offered. You have openly stated you do not agree with the opt out option for men because of the financial pressure it would put on the woman to provide for the child. If this isn’t advocating for more of the same, what do you think is different now that what you suggest? “Dealing… Read more »
I seriously think you are misinterpreting or misunderstanding me, Mark. Right now there is no law to oppose. It is an idea, yes, opt out? Are there bills currently being proposed in state legislatures? I am most certainly not marching down streets waving signs that say, “Don’t vote for the bill!” I’m also not writing anti-opt out letters to congresspeople. So, talking here isn’t opposing anything and even if it was, it would have no effect on an actual bill. So I don’t really see that my agreement with the idea, or my agreement with additional support is opposition in… Read more »
“Julie seems to be of the more future-oriented, optimistic, reach for the stars type of personality.” I wouldn’t really call “Dealing with reality as it stands.” as future oriented, optimistic or reach for the stars. Seems more status quo to me. More suck it up buttercup, man up and deal with your responsibilities, it’s your own damn fault. Though I will agree it’s different worldviews and personalities. “if we have perhaps unrealistic goals” There are unrealistic goals, there are unachievable goals, and there are red hearings. Telling people they should “discuss more” is not a solution to a legal inequity,… Read more »
Oh for goodness gracious…I was not associating negative with you and positive with Julie. Instead of pessimistic, perhaps I should have said pragmatic, or something. I wasn’t placing value on one or the other…just saying what I observe.
And I don’t see Julie as saying “suck it up.” In fact that’s the exact opposite of what she’s doing…she’s saying, hey let’s talk about this and figure out how to fix the problem.
” More suck it up buttercup, man up and deal with your responsibilities, it’s your own damn fault.” No, this is not at all what I said or what I mean. There is pragmatism and there is optimism and there is realizing the problem is huge and we have to figure out what parts we can address, work damn hard to address them, and try to support each other in the process while realizing that yes, there are bad people out there. I’m probably the least blaming, suck it up person I know… Though I want all adults to deal… Read more »
“If we allow men to ‘opt out,’ then the woman in this scenario is going to be without any help or support at all. ” And she will know this before she ever gives birth. She is more than cappable of making an informed decision, and many woman already do, having a child and never telling the father she was pregnant (unless something comes up and suddenly she needs those years upon years of backpay, which, in the US, she’ll get, despite it being her own choice to go it solo AND the fact the child was already supported for… Read more »
So basically we tell men, keep it in your pants otherwise tough shit yet women we say that’s fine, it’s your body, your choice, you can stop the pregnancy if you wish but you also have the power to continue this pregnancy against the wishes of the man. Women’s ability to blow it off is lowered how? You have the morning after pill, multiple forms of birth control, multiple forms of abortion, the ONLY CHOICE to keep or end a pregnancy. It’s funny listening to the reasons against giving men the choice to opt out as it’s always about her… Read more »
“and the childs hardship”
Child’s hardships rarely actually comes up. Only when the gynocentrism angle starts to fall apart, then the ever reliable “best interests of the child(‘s mother)” comes into play.
“Women are afforded a privilege that men do not get,”
Not just “a privilege, but multiple. Adoption does not require a man’s approval, it just requires a lack of a man’s opposition. Abandonment is available in some states (Jay isn’t sure about Oregon, but it could be there too)
Abortion is a red herring. It’s completely irrelevent to the debate on “father’s choice”
What is relevent is adoption and safe haven laws. People ask “where would choice for men leave women?” The answer is: In the exact same spot she is now. With full ability to not parent a child if she so chose. if the man opts out and she decides she can’t handle it? She can place the baby up for adoption… or, you know, abandon it.
Jay: I am not sure where you logic is in this with regards to choice. When a woman is pregnant, she has 2 choices, Abort or Carry to term. Those are her choices, They don’t change if the father ‘opts out’. They might more difficult but the choice doesn’t change. 1) Abort: A woman will decide to abort if she feels that she can’t handle the pregnancy (physically), if she can’t handle the baby financially OR if she simply doesn’t want a baby at this time. A man opting out might make some of those decisions harder but they don’t… Read more »
“The woman, for whatever spiritual, visceral, or other reason, doesn’t want to abort.” Her body, her choic. She made the choice unilaterally (in this instance) and should accept the responsiblity. By contrast, today, men have no choice. She STILL has 100% legal choice in the matter. “She implores the man for assistance with the tremendous responsibility she’s about to face… what then?” What if he implores her not to abort his child, but she wishes to anyway? What then? It’s still her choice, isn’t it? They each must have reproductive rights, whether the other party agrees or not, unless we… Read more »
@Jay I don’t think your getting it, you write: “Man and women have sex. Woman discovers that she’s pregnant. … The woman, for whatever spiritual, visceral, or other reason, doesn’t want to abort. She implores the man for assistance with the tremendous responsibility she’s about to face… what then?” The answer to what then, if man in a relationship decides that he doesn’t want to take responsibility for the child but the woman refuses to abort the child then the woman must take 100% responsibility for the child and absolve the man of any financial burden, that is the only… Read more »
You don’t make any sense. Women can also drop children off at a hospital after birth or unilaterally give up a child for adoption. Both options of “opting out” of parental rights.
Also, women can go to donor banks and have a child on their own, thus raising the child alone – their choice. If she chooses to keep an unwanted child, knowing it to be such, it is her choice and her responsibility.
the problem is that she can choose ether way regardless of his opinion he dose not have that same right for example she can have an abortion against his religious beliefs or his feeling on wanting a child or have a child knowing he is not emotionally or financially ready or willing. that is the definition of unfair.
Very well said, Eric. I’d love to see anyone attempt to counter this argument with a straight face.
Yeah I meant abortion as “shirking”, well, having the ability to opt out of parenthood by ending the cause of parenthood in that instance (I really don’t know how to word that sentence better). Guess I should have said some ways of shirking responsibility early on? On paternal-abortion, basically a period of time after being informed where he can say no and immediately his rights to the child are removed, no financial responsibility/no child support and basically can walk away with no responsibility. Probably a good idea though to ensure he has to still help pay for abortion if she… Read more »
” If we allow one or both parents to ‘opt out’, then the price of that liberty for them may be the survival of the child.” So in Oregon, where you practice, it is illegal for a woman to give her baby up for adoption? Does she require the fathers consent to do so, or just the absence of a legally recognized fathers opposition? Is it also illegal for a woman to abandon her child at designated locations like hospitals and fire/police stations? Or is it safe to say that a woman actually IS allowed to “opt out”, regardless of… Read more »
It is legal in Oregon for a woman to give a child up for adoption; however, the father’s consent is required so long as he is on the birth certificate or paternity has been established in another way. A father can seek to have paternity established at birth or thereafter. No parent can terminate another parent’s rights without giving that parent notice and due process. I don’t believe Oregon law allows mothers to abandon their children at ‘designated locations.’ Those laws were unique to Nebraska and maybe one or two other states, and they had consequences that legislators did not… Read more »
“It is legal in Oregon for a woman to give a child up for adoption; ” So then, it is legal for a woman to opt out, does a mother who adopts out her child still need to pay child support? Or re you willing to admit that you were incorrect in your assertion that “parents (regardless of gender) can’t ‘opt out’ of parenting rights in order to avoid paying child support”? Furthermore, you noted a father needs to be put on the birth certificate (and a hospital won’t do that without the mothers consent) or else he needs to… Read more »
@Jay
http://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/laws_policies/statutes/safehaven.cfm#backnotethree
Oregon according to this does in fact allow Safe Haven.
Most, if not all, states do. What’s rare is the ability for fathers to track down their abandoned children (only 4 states have anything close to the ability to do this, IIRC)
Safe Haven wasn’t some failed pilot program that only a handful of states tried
Actually Jay, she can shirk her responsibilities as a parent, by unilaterally getting an abortion, by unilaterally putting the child up for adoption and by unilaterally using a safe haven. Those are 3 ways she can legally shirk her parental responsibilities.
Okay, yes, and men need an equivalent. I’ll say it one more time, men need an equivalent. Men should be able to opt out or parental rights and responsibilities. Coupled with this we should have greater societal support for single parents, mothers and fathers. But yes, men should be able to opt out within a certain period. Alright with that out of the way, I would like to say that often when I hear people discuss abortion, it is treated as if it’s this simple answer. As if a woman says – oh what I was pregnant? Abort! – without… Read more »
“Mind you, I’m not saying we should have an easy choice…I’m just saying, when discussing abortion, it’d be great if we could all remember how difficult a decision it is. (And similarly, when men get an ‘opt out’ option, it’ll be important to remember how difficult a decision that is too).”
Word on this. This shouldn’t be an easy decision. But the acts we all take now to prevent pregnancies shouldn’t be as hard as they are.
I sure never said or implied they are easy choices. I know they aren’t. But if they are very hard, damn near impossible OR easy, it doesn’t matter , at least women have the choice. Remember heather, I am not speaking to you directly per se, but rather to the OP who essentially says that men should just “Sit down and STFU” and that when a man does “Sit down and STFU”, that man is now called enlightened. Could the OP be anymore condescending.
I wasn’t exactly speaking to you directly either, which I guess I wasn’t clear about. I was just talking about the general “women have abortion as a choice” discussion and what I see in the discussions around it.
“As if a woman says – oh what I was pregnant? Abort! – without any problems. Which, most women I know, even pro-choice women, would have a really difficult time deciding whether to abort an unwanted pregnancy.”
…er, you might want to have a chat with some members of the Feminist Collective (;)) about that one, because to hear them tell it any recounting of having an abortion that doesn’t amount to “Had an abortion today, might go for chinese food for lunch.” amounts to, for lack of a better term, emotional manipulation from the Pro-Life side.
I have nothing good to say about any pov that cites that abortions are akin to going out to lunch no matter who they blame for it. This to me, is the weakness of the left on abortion issues (for women). Ending a pregnancy is not like deciding to go out to lunch. We’ve sold ourselves out if those are the tactics we use.