A Man’s Right to Choose December 1, 2005 Jill Oh Dalton Conley, I used to love you when I had you for Intro to Sociology. Why did you have to cross over to the dark side? (I would pick this apart, but I’ve done it before.)
He’s absolutely right. Similarly, potential mothers should be allowed to seek a restraining order every time Mr. Conley wishes to ejaculate.
I am really, really getting tired of this argument. (Glenn Sacks opined about it in the LA Times not too long ago…See Hugo’s post on this The problem which Conley fails to acknowledge is that pregnancy is not inconsequential. In fact, he completely dismisses this by saying “Well, you might argue that all the man provides is his seed in a moment of pleasure.The real work consists of carrying a child for nine months, with the attendant morning sickness, leg cramps, biological risks and so on.” Reducing pregnancy to mere biology and overlooking the cultural baggage that, for example, comes with being a single, pregnant woman is just silly. It’s also a shame Conley hasn’t read Dahlia Lithwick’s take on it. She’s much more eloquent on this point than I am.
Jill, when I saw this this morning, I seriously considered canceling my Times subscription. The Journal has better biz coverage, their hard news is really good, and I don’t have to read the op-ed page. The Times is sloppy in its reporting, and they have this perverse self-flagellating urge to let right-wingers use the Op-Ed page. On top of that, they have done this series, as others have pointed out, of “put the upper class women in their place” pieces. They are neither the best broadsheet in the nation, nor are they effective as a voice for the center-left. If it were not for the Review of Books, and the much higher delivery charge for the Journal, I’d have dropped them already.
Yeah, but you weren’t convincing, Jill. If men and women are to be equal, then they ought to have equal, or (given the biological reality of pregnancy) at least similar, rights concerning the fetus. If women are to be privileged in this arena (which is a case that can be plausibly made), then let’s be honest about what’s being argued for: privilege, not equality.
The end result of pregnancy-related privilege is greater social and economic equality. I don’t think that’s contradictory at all.
I *knew* you would post on this, Jill. The notion that Conley is a “right-winger”, as Thomas suggested above. is laughable. I also had him once as a guest lecturer for my Intro to Soc class. The guy is basically an unreconstructed Marxist, but in light of this column, it’s not even funny how fast he’ll become persona non grata on the cocktail circuit. He’s just slightly less pro-abortion than your average Planned Parenthood member, it seems. And asone commentator has noted, Conley isn’t really advocating a pro-life position- he’s fine with lots and lots of abortions, as long as both parents agree.
If men and women are to be equal, then they ought to have equal, or (given the biological reality of pregnancy) at least similar, rights concerning the fetus. Can’t really have similar rights without similar burdens. And that guy who wants to take on care of the child today could be hit by a bus tomorrow, or just change his mind and walk away. Besides, why does the guy get to be the tiebreaker when he’s not doing the work?
Keep in mind, this is probably the guy who changed his son’s name to Yo Xing Heyno Augustus Eisner Alexander Weiser Knuckles Jeremijenko-Conley.
Yeah, but you weren’t convincing, Jill. If men and women are to be equal, then they ought to have equal, or (given the biological reality of pregnancy) at least similar, rights concerning the fetus. If women are to be privileged in this arena (which is a case that can be plausibly made), then let’s be honest about what’s being argued for: privilege, not equality. But the point, Robert, is that men and women do have equal reproductive rights. The right to abortion is premised on a Constitutional right to sexual privacy — that right to privacy is an individual right of bodily autonomy. The right to privacy isn’t about the right to the fetus, it’s about the right to control your own reproductive capacities. Men and women both have that right. Men can use birth control. They can have vasectomies. They can have consensual sex. They have every right to do what they want with their own penises, testicles, vas deferenses, and whatever the heck else they’ve got. But what Conley and others are arguing for is special rights for men — the right to determine what someone else does with their own body. That’s antithetical to the very notion of sexual privacy rights. Equality, when it comes to reproduction, says, “You have a right to your own body. I have a right to mine. You do not have the right to my body without my consent, and I do not have the right to yours.” The fetus isn’t the issue, the pregnancy itself is. If you want the fertilized egg or zygote or fetus, fine, let’s mandate that men have a legal right to it. But women still get to decide whether or not they carry it in their bodies. If they decide not to, feel free to propose a law which would give the expelled zygote to its “father.” That should solve things, right? Jon- I never said that Conley is a pro-lifer. I just said that he’s wrong.
Yeah, but you weren’t convincing, Jill. If men and women are to be equal, then they ought to have equal, or (given the biological reality of pregnancy) at least similar, rights concerning the fetus. If women are to be privileged in this arena (which is a case that can be plausibly made), then let’s be honest about what’s being argued for: privilege, not equality. because of pure biological reasons, we have to choose between two different kinds of “equality” here, robert. 1) both men and women have equal say in what happends to a fetus, or 2) both partners have a right to complete bodily integrity. unfortunately, we can’t have both of those at the same time. and when you’re talking about risking life and health, bodily integrity wins. every time.
Evil, thanks for linking my post on this… I don’t want to have to go through it again — but this is an issue we are going to be combatting for a while.
If Conley’s a Marxist, shouldn’t he have a problem with forcing a woman to provide labor in the form of a pregnancy?
But what Conley and others are arguing for is special rights for men — the right to determine what someone else does with their own body. Abortion rights advocates can attempt to frame pregnancy questions as being about just one body from now until Elvis returns. That won’t make it true.
Abortion rights advocates can attempt to frame pregnancy questions as being about just one body from now until Elvis returns. That won’t make it true. Well, that’s fine if you believe that way. But it’s not just abortion rights advocates, it’s the Supreme Court and the law of the land. There simply is not a way to reconcile individual sexual privacy rights with the right of men to determine whether or not their female partners have abortions.
Well, that’s fine if you believe that way. Fetuses exist. They have bodies. This is not a belief. It is a fact.
Well, that’s fine if you believe that way. But it’s not just abortion rights advocates, it’s the Supreme Court and the law of the land. What do you mean by “law of the land”? There is no federal law permitting abortion. The only federal law regarding abortion is the law that bans partial birth abortion.
Fetuses exist. They have bodies. This is not a belief. It is a fact. …thanks to the work the woman’s body does to sustain it.
If you want the fertilized egg or zygote or fetus, fine, let’s mandate that men have a legal right to it. But women still get to decide whether or not they carry it in their bodies. If they decide not to, feel free to propose a law which would give the expelled zygote to its “father.” That should solve things, right? Take my zygote! Please!
Reproduction is by its nature unilateral. I would think that anyone who has a basic grasp of biology would realise that the scales aren’t equal, and therefore the decision making process regarding reproduction is always the woman’s alone. After all, the man never loses his autonomy over his own body when women make decisions concerning reproduction, but when a man makes similar decisions, the woman’s personal autonomy is taken away. It would be different if the fetus were a separate entity that gestated in a cardboard box, completely independent of the woman and the man. Maybe that’s what these people think. Maybe they believe in the fucking stork. Maybe that’s why they think the woman’s autonomy over her own body is irrelevant.
I never said that Conley is a pro-lifer. I just said that he’s wrong. I never said that you said he’s a pro-lifer; I was just trying to put things in perspective. As a corollary to this whole debate, I have often wondered how pro-choicers who think the father should have no role in the decision to keep or abort the child feel about mandatory paternity payments. Glenn Reynolds recently raised the issue in the somewhat related context of spousal notification laws: I’m not sure about Pennsylvania, but in many states her spouse — even if he’s not the father of the child — would still be on the hook for child support. Likewise, if he didn’t want children, but she disagreed, lied to him about birth control, and got pregnant. And he certainly couldn’t force her to have an abortion if she did so, even if his desire not to have children was powerful, and explicitly expressed at the outset. (The usual response — “he made his choice when he had sex without a condom” — never comes up in discussions of women and abortion.)… The problem here is that you can say “my body, my choice” — but when you say, “my body, my choice but our responsibility,” well, it loses some of its punch. Do pro-choicers feel that it would be a fair trade-off to say “Okay, husbands and fathers get no say in whether to keep the baby, but they won’t necessarily be held strictly liable for child support?”. I ask because I’m genuinely interested in the answer. Personally, I think the father should have to contribute to the child’s upbringing, but I do think the scenario Reynolds raises is troubling on some levels.
I get the impression that those who counter the “woman’s choice only” argument with child-support stuff are literally equating gestation and/or childbirth and all its risks and expenses with paying out money. Am I off-base for assuming that? I kind of hope so, because it’s really offensive.
Jon, I personally think it depends. If a parent agrees to raise a child with a partner and the relationship dissolves, and proof of the former is reasonable, I think the parent who leaves should be held liable for economic contribution. By the same token, if someone doesn’t want to be a parent or to pay child support, one should have to sign away legal rights altogether.
If a) Equals the female’s ovum and a2) equals the female’s womb and b) equals the male’s sperm, then a + a2+ b = fetus. A and a subset 2 then get a 2 to 1 ratio over b, and therefore are 2/3 of the decision of fetus (f). After birth, the child is the responsibility of a + b = child: equal priveleges and responsibility of said child, plus f1 intrest (bodily integrity of child…subset of fetus). As such, most mothers still contribute more in terms of childrearing in both economic and emotional intrest when it comes to a broken family (ie where the father has to pay childsupport). So, I say that the responsibilities are still unequal: don’t get your information off the song “Goldiggers” for child support payments.
…thanks to the work the woman’s body does to sustain it. And the work that the man’s body did to help create it, and the work that both of their bodies did to help create it. So very well. You’ve now conceded that there are two bodies in question. Is it therefore valid to speak of the issue solely in terms of one person’s control of one body?
What do you mean by “law of the land”? There is no federal law permitting abortion. The only federal law regarding abortion is the law that bans partial birth abortion. …you’re kidding, right? You do know that law develops and is interpreted by the courts, who define what “law of the land” actually means?
Robert, what “work” does a father do in pregnancy? Seriously, what “work” is there in him coming? Excuse me for being vulgar, but seriously, I don’t see this link between 9 1- monthes of physical ramifications and social ramifications to a 30 second ejaculation.
30 seconds? I’m getting ripped off. A fetus is an individual. It has genetic material from two people, not one. It was created from the activity of two people, not one. That’s the relevance, Antigone. Lauren, that’s all well and good. Those are sound arguments for female privilege – “we ought to be the ones who get to make this decision, unfettered”. Fine. But then don’t turn around and claim that pro-choice feminism is about equality. It obviously isn’t.
Pregnancy is inherently unequal. Like Jill said, start a petition, case the neighborhood for signatures, and take the zygote. What are you going to do with it without a willing woman to sustain it for you? I know! Cages! We’ll put impregnated women in cages to prevent anything from happening to fetuses. Rows and rows of cages. Maybe a few warehouses. While we’re at it, we should see about creating a race of lipless, legless women and pack as many in as possible! Lord, the ideas! As long as you get that fetus, man. Your way, right away.
If a woman’s body is inside a man’s house, does he get to control it? Hell, no. She has bodily integrity and autonomy, remember? Bodily integrity and autonomy apparently materialize magically in a person’s body once they pass entirely through a vagina.
Do pro-choicers feel that it would be a fair trade-off to say “Okay, husbands and fathers get no say in whether to keep the baby, but they won’t necessarily be held strictly liable for child support?”. I ask because I’m genuinely interested in the answer. Personally, I think the father should have to contribute to the child’s upbringing, but I do think the scenario Reynolds raises is troubling on some levels. Let’s not forget that once that child is born, the child support issue transcends the mother-father relationship. That money is for the child, which means it should be extrasuper difficult for a parent to evade such responsibilities. It’s not like men aren’t aware of these rules when they decide to have sex sans birth control.
Pregnancy is inherently unequal. OK. How come when a man uses that argument in a context where there is some physical inequality that favors men having a greater freedom of action, you reject it, demand social change to equalize the situation, and call him a misogynist? If an argument that upholds male privilege is crap, then it’s crap to uphold female privilege, too. Or, it’s not a crap argument. One or the other, please. Rows and rows of cages. Maybe a few warehouses. While we’re at it, we should see about creating a race of lipless, legless women… Sure, thinking that men deserve a voice in the survival and propagation of the species is exactly the same as wanting a race of voiceless breeders to dwell in cages and deliver our baby products. What, are you channeling Amanda now?
Pregnancy is inherently unequal. OK. How come when a man uses that argument in a context where there is some physical inequality that favors men having a greater freedom of action, you reject it, demand social change to equalize the situation, and call him a misogynist? Look, I’m not bitching that it’s unfair I can’t get a vasectomy.
That’s true. Do you assert that there are no physical inequalities that favor men, then, for which you expect social change to compensate and create equality?
I assume that by “lame” you mean “I do not have an answer for the consistency lock that I am currently in.”
I’ve heard and understand the arguments for choice for men, but I just can’t buy into it. I think, however, this argument about it can end very simply, based on two points, as follows… Guys — listen up: 1. You cannot force a woman to carry a child for you. It’s her decision only. If you want a child and she don’t, tough cookies. Get over it. 2. You cannot force a woman to abort a child for you, if she wants the baby. If you don’t want the 18 years etc., then don’t take it out, you know what I mean? Is there really anything else to discuss???
“Lame” as in “I’m not fighting this argument because your questions have been answered above by people smart enough to stop engaging your lameness.”
Do you assert that there are no physical inequalities that favor men, then, for which you expect social change to compensate and create equality? Here’s the difference: the “physical inequalities” that you’re talking about aren’t completely divided by sex. In general, men have greater upper body strenth than women. But there are still many women who have greater upper body strength than many men, and/or are able to perform at the same level. Additionally, many jobs that used to require a particular level of physical strength — certain military positions, for example — have shifted so that they no longer do. Physical strength isn’t something that is soley in the domain of men. Pregnancy, though, is solely in the domain of women. It’s not a physical inequality that favors women, it’s something that only happens to women. You simply can’t equate it with something like how much you can benchpress. The day feminist women have op/eds in the New York Times demanding the right to pee standing up, I’ll buy your argument.
The question that was answered by your commenters wasn’t the question I asked you, Lauren. You used an argument which, when men use it, they are condemned for by feminists. Is this a valid argument, or not a valid argument? (Or, do you want to extend the argument for female privilege, and say that it’s OK for women to make the argument, but not for men.) Jill, your dichotomization doesn’t work. When men use this argument, they often take care to delineate the exceptional men and/or women for whom the argument does not apply; this changes nothing in how they are condemned. A modification to the scope of an argument does not generally validate or invalidate the argument’s logical integrity. It’s crap, or not crap, in other words, whether the scope is “everyone” (pregnancy) or “most people” (upper-body strength).
“It’s not like men aren’t aware of these rules when they decide to have sex sans birth control.” So, a man should have to throw away his life because he made one little mistake (and who said he wasn’t using birth control)? That would be like asking a woman to have to carry a child to term just because she knew she might get pregnant after having sex sans birth control. Should either of these people really have to pay so deeply for one mistake? Women are aware of the potential consequences whenever they decide to have sex with or without birth control. The difference is that women are allowed the right to choose whether they want the responsibility of a child whereas men simply have to live with the results of someone else’s decision. That is, if birth control fails, I have no right to choose my level of responsibility for the child, but my sexual partner has the right to decisions about my financial obligations. So I have to pay the cost for someone else’s decision. In a society where abortion on demand is a right, sex is not the same as choosing to have a child. The decision to have a child is the point where a woman decides (or doesn’t) to have an abortion. And don’t tell me about choices previous to sexual congress; women have those same choices (birth control, sterilization, abstinence) and still reserve the right to make a choice post congress. “2. You cannot force a woman to abort a child for you, if she wants the baby. If you don’t want the 18 years etc., then don’t take it out, you know what I mean?” I wouldn’t personally ever suggest that a woman have an abortion that she doesn’t want; but why are you so willing to see a man have to carry the burden of responsibility for somebody else’s choice? That’s like me saying that I don’t support abortion rights and if a woman doesn’t want to have kids she should practice abstinence–after all, she knows the potential consequences, doesn’t she? So, yeah, I’d say that there’s a lot to discuss.
Like I said above, if you have no interest in being involved with the child and don’t want to pay chid support, sign away your legal rights to the child. Problem solved.
My argument is really a question and a request. The question: In the reproductive arena, do feminists want equality with men, or do they want privilege over men? If feminists want equality, then it would seem that the question of pregnancy and abortion is an arena in which men and women need to be partners. Partnership, not power over; men being partners with women doesn’t mean that women can never get an abortion over her partner’s objection, or that men always have to father children whose existence they do not desire. It means that decisions are made by both people – and in cases where consensus cannot be achieved, there is some previously-agreed upon mechanism for resolving the dispute, and that mechanism is not “in case of a tie, the patriarch|matriarch wins”. Partnership would mean that, empirically, we would end up with women aborting children that they wanted to keep for their partner’s sake, bearing children that they didn’t really want to have for their partner’s sake, men fathering children that they didn’t really want to have, etc. and so forth. Nobody would get what they wanted all of the time. If feminists want privilege, then that would seem to undermine the claim made by feminists to be interested primarily in equality in overall gender relations. (IE, “we should be equal except for this incredibly important area of life, in which women will make all the decisions.”) Most (not all) feminists that I’ve interacted with have come down on the side of privilege. They want all decisions about pregnancy to be the sole domain of the woman involved. As I’ve said, I don’t particularly want to debate the merits of that position; I acknowledge that there is a case to be made for it. Certainly it is a case that many many women and men accept. Almost without exception, however, these privilege feminists also assert that feminism is about equality and freeing women from existing structures of domination – not crafting structures of domination that women get to run, ending structures of domination entirely. The request: I don’t understand that position. I want someone to explain it to me, if there is an explanation. I have a potential explanation on tap which covers the existing data just fine; “feminists, like other particularist groups, do not require intellectual consistency of themselves”. I’m hoping that’s not actually the answer.
Partnership would mean that, empirically, we would end up with women aborting children that they wanted to keep for their partner’s sake, bearing children that they didn’t really want to have for their partner’s sake, men fathering children that they didn’t really want to have, etc. and so forth. Nobody would get what they wanted all of the time. Uh, happens all the time anyway. Don’t need law for this one. I’ll have to answer the last part at length later because I’m supposed to be cleaning the house. At least, that’s what I’ve been saying for the last four hours I’ve spent on the internet.
Ah, you’ve been cleaning the house the way that I was finishing up book projects yesterday. We are SO productive!
…you’re kidding, right? You do know that law develops and is interpreted by the courts, who define what “law of the land” actually means? No shit. I’m well aware of the fact that the legislative branch is supposed to make law and the judicial branch interprets law. But since the 1930’s, the courts haven’t been interpreting law – they’ve been making law.
You don’t need for law for it, no. You do need men and women to each decide that they are going to give up some of their power. If you’d rather follow up somewhere else, seeing as this is a drift from the specific topic of non-support for unwilling fathers, feel free.
if birth control fails, I have no right to chose my level of responsibility for the child Sure you do. You can choose not to see your child, not to acknowledge her to your parents, friends, girlfriend. You can choose not to send her a birthday card, not to talk to her, not to give her your blood or bone marrow if she needs it to live, not to baby sit for her, not to take custody if her mother dies, even if the only oher option is state custody. You can choose to have nothing to do with her, and no court has the power to force you. You have total rights when it comes to your level of responsibiity for the child. Except in one area, financially you’re required to pony up some minimal, often negligible sum, generally totalling a tiny fraction of the child’s total expenses. If it makes you feel better about one mistake ruining your life, it may be no more than a couple grand a year. You understand elementary biology. You understand going in that even with protection, it’s possible that a pregnancy will result. You also understand that there’s basically a zero percent change that you’ll be carrying the child and thus making the decision, you also know that once a child is born both of its parents have some degree of financial obligation, and as a result, if you are absolutely dead set against having a child, the only way you can be sure that won’t happen is to abstain.
If feminists want privilege, then that would seem to undermine the claim made by feminists to be interested primarily in equality in overall gender relations. (IE, “we should be equal except for this incredibly important area of life, in which women will make all the decisions.”) robert, i find it a bit insulting that you immediately jump to “women are just doing this to lord it over men in revenge so that they can finally feel powerful; they’re not for *real* equality, only privilege of their own” (which is how i interpret your post; please correct me if i am mistaken). how about: “holy cow, this really scary, potentially risky thing is happening to my body. i’d like to have a say in how this whole thing goes down.” i’ve never been pregnant and, while i do want to have kids some day, and i hope it goes well, i have to admit that it does frighten me somewhat. pregnancy can involve major surgery (c-sections are now, what, 25% of births?), major health problems, permanent changes to one’s body, and significant pain. the list goes on and on. my wish to have the final say in what happens to a pregnancy is not to lord it over someone else. it is about self-preservation. it is about not being in a panic about what is going to happen to me because someone else is calling the shots (about a pregnancy or an abortion). how would you feel if you had a major medical problem, and no one let you make any decisions about it (or even if the law allowed you to have the final say, but you were being heavily pressured to do something that you didn’t agree was good for you)? frustrated? scared? angry? i think we all would. so why is pregnancy any different?
Partnership would mean that, empirically, we would end up with women aborting children they would like to keep for their partner’s sake, bearing childre that they didn’t want to have for their partner’s sake, men fathering children that they didn’t really want to have, etc and so forth. Nobody would get what they wanted all of the time. I believe the phenomenon you’re describing is “life as we know it.” Just because you’re entitled to complete personal autonomy under the law doesn’t mean you always exercise it in practice. Most relationshps are about compromise. Just ask the girl GW persuaded to get the abortion. lol Of course, I’m sure the whole bearing children you don’t want doesn’t work out so well if the relationship falls apart, he won’t take ’em and you get stuck with custody as a single parent, but what are you going to do…
To me, hearing men complain that their reproductive rights have been violated is like hearing white people claim they have been discriminated against. First, chances are it’s all in their heads and no such thing happened. Second, even if they’re right, cry me a river. That’s life, deal with it. God knows the other side has it much worse.
So, a man should have to throw away his life because he made one little mistake (and who said he wasn’t using birth control)? That would be like asking a woman to have to carry a child to term just because she knew she might get pregnant after having sex sans birth control. Should either of these people really have to pay so deeply for one mistake? The burden of reproducing is not equal. Post-ejaculation, a man is merely obliged to write 12 checks a year. A woman must bear the child, and also faces very significant risk of being stuck bearing the entire burden because the father disappears. Unequal burden, unequal rights. Women are aware of the potential consequences whenever they decide to have sex with or without birth control. The difference is that women are allowed the right to choose whether they want the responsibility of a child whereas men simply have to live with the results of someone else’s decision. As I noted above, the woman has more at stake than the man does. A disproportionate share of the burden falls on her shoulders, not his. That is, if birth control fails, I have no right to choose my level of responsibility for the child, but my sexual partner has the right to decisions about my financial obligations. So I have to pay the cost for someone else’s decision. In a society where abortion on demand is a right, sex is not the same as choosing to have a child. The decision to have a child is the point where a woman decides (or doesn’t) to have an abortion. You decided your financial obligation when you put your uncovered willy into someone of childbearing age. It is not up to the woman to relieve you of the consequences of your actions. Moreover, even if one characterizes this as her controlling your financial fate, it still pales in comparison to the notion that you can control what she does with her body. The 13th Amendment forbids slavery. And don’t tell me about choices previous to sexual congress; women have those same choices (birth control, sterilization, abstinence) and still reserve the right to make a choice post congress. Yes, because pregnancy has consequences for her body and personal liberty and lifestyle that far, far, far exceed any obligation imposed upon the father.
The fact of the law has been well argued and presented in both posts, so I’ll head straight for the opinion section…. The arguement in support of consent-like mechanisms for abortion is really superficial. The issue is so complex and there are so many “unfair” implications on all sides. The fact is that most couples negotiate this complexity in accordance to the health of their relationship. It appears that the assumptions inherent in the arguement for notification or consultation are that married couples want children, men are against abortion, women are devious by nature and likely to hide the fact of a pregnancy for no real sensible nor necessary reason…. If these assumptions were not present, then the arguement wouldn’t happen. Because the assumptions then would be that women whom do not share that information with their spouse have good reason not to. There are many fellas out there that have endeavorred to persuade women into abortions, for a variety of reasons and usually successfully because most women don’t prefer single motherhood at the startmark. I’ve witnessed this myself, I’ve listened to other women talk about it, this is not an entirely uncommon scenerio. Do the advocators of consultation/consent laws support this scenerio too? Because if they don’t, they aren’t supporting anything to do with equality or mutuality and are rather more interested in anti-choice on the topic of abortion. I read a comment that addressed maintenance issues in this regards as well, and I’d like to turn that around somewhat and ask: If you support the enforcement of consent issues in regard to abortion than you are supporting granting some additional authority and responsiblity to the men in those situations (additional because it is not their body, health, and in many cases their future that they are being consulted upon in those particular cases) . Why is this sensible while a much lessor degree of responsiblity (merely paying maintenance) is “hypocritical” in situations where the men didn’t want to be fathers but the women continued their pregnancies? While the commentor stated that feminists want the issue swayed in their favour on both sides of that issue, it is clear that this person wants the issue swayed in men’s favour, on both sides. While I do understand the frustration surrounding the complexities of this issue, it must be recognized that the “unfairness” issues exist for both genders no matter what the outcome or process is. An attempt to garner control of the situation or an absolutism will not diminish that truth. The best we can do is respect the basic and fundamentals of our mutual personal rights and freedoms and do the most to nurture healthy dynamics and relationships that circumvent as much of the “unfairness” as possible.
I think Chris Rock captured it pretty well when he said that a man has two things he can say if he impregnates someone: 1) “I love you, and I will do everything I can to support you and our child;” and 2) “So, what you gonna do?”
for robert: maybe you should not think about it as women’s privilege over men, but the privilege of physical autonomy over economic autonomy. your economic burden of paying child support or finding a woman who will give birth is trumped by the woman’s physical burden. the way it’s set up (mostly), both the man and the woman can do whatever s/he feels, where her/his body is concerned- this includes deciding whether the body continues a pregnancy. allowing a man to prevent a woman from getting an abortion gives him more rights because he is infringing on her physical autonomy; she is never able to do this to him. this is where ‘equality’ comes in. unfortunately, nature made it so that the woman has a much longer time frame in which to make a decision- but this is (currently) an insurmountable problem. work on making incubators or a way to transfer the fetus from the woman to a man, and then he can do whatever he likes with his body- gestate or abort. you can make all the decisons you want about your own reproduction while your body is participating. this goes for men and women, equally. but it means that the men better do more thinking and planning on the front end, before they get a woman pregnant. pregnancy is not a conspiracy of women against men. it’s just the way things are. i’m sure women would like to share the physical burden of pregnancy, breastfeeding and abortion with their male partners, but that’s not how it works. what we all really need is non-permanent male birth control, like the iud for men.
Robert, if one starts from the position that every person has the right to prevent his or her bodily organs from being used by the body of another person, one comes to the conclusion that equality mandates abortion on demand without apology whether there are one, two or three “bodies” involved. The only one whose organs are needed to sustain the life of another is the pregnant woman. Can you think of any circumstance when we want the bodily organs of one person to be used continually by another without mutual consent? I cannot think of a circumstance where I believe a man ought to be required to make his bodily organs available for the support of another body. Not even to save a life.
Robert, if one starts from the position that every person has the right to prevent his or her bodily organs from being used by the body of another person, one comes to the conclusion that equality mandates abortion on demand without apology whether there are one, two or three “bodies” involved. True. So why are (some) abortion rights advocates so insistent that there’s only one body involved? Can you think of any circumstance when we want the bodily organs of one person to be used continually by another without mutual consent? Conjoined twins.
Robert, that example is not as good as you probably think it is. If the pair only possesses one of a necessary organ between them, neither can say it is “theirs” in the exclusive sense that my liver is mine. If, on the other hand, each twin has all the necessary organs, but one twin cannot live without the supplementary support of a better organ in the other, I think each twin has a right to demand separation even at the cost of the life of the other. A person, even an adult with a developed brain and driver’s license, who is incapable of living without being a daily, physical invasion into the body of another does not have the right to demand that compromise, in my view.
You might be interested in my own response to Conley’s piece: richardjeffreynewman.blogspot.com. The thing he fails to recognize is that his argument, if it is adopted, absolves men of almost all heterosexual responsibility and dissolves any notion of male heterosexual boundaries. It’s scary.