In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Telling a dude about an impending abortion

I know a lot of folks around these parts aren’t big Dan Savage fans, but I personally am, and I think his general take on sexual ethics is pretty spot-on (even while I quibble with a lot of the details). But his column this week has me a little… hmmm. Basically, woman and man have unprotected sex, and while woman doesn’t actually get pregnant, if she had gotten pregnant she would have had an abortion. And she wants to know if Dan thinks she would have been under an obligation to tell the dude. Dan says:

A woman who is pregnant and has decided to have an abortion should tell the guy who knocked her up about the pregnancy and her decision to abort… unless she sincerely believes—or even legitimately suspects—that the guy is gonna bully, badger, and/or do violence to her in an attempt to prevent her from choosing abortion.

Guys need to know when they’ve dodged a bullet, CL. Being made aware that he came this close to 18 years’ worth of child support payments can lead a guy to be more cautious with his spunk—and, in some cases, more likely to support choice.

Take the guy you fucked: He needs to know that not all birth control methods are foolproof and not every woman who claims to be on birth control is telling the truth and/or being diligent about taking those pills every day. Hearing that almost-a-daddy bullet whiz past his head may convince him to put on that condom the next time he’s fucking a woman he isn’t serious about, even if she is (or claims to be) on birth control.

And… um… gee. This bit is going to get me scratched off NARAL’s Christmas card list, which will be a real bummer (last year’s card was great: “The Crusades, the Inquisition, clerical sex-abuse scandals—all of this could have been prevented. Happy holidays from your friends at NARAL”), but I gotta be me. A guy—a good, decent, nonabusive guy—should be told about an impending abortion so he can, if he feels the abortion is a mistake, make a case for keeping the baby. It’s still the woman’s choice in the end—there should be absolutely no question about that—but the fetus, if not the uterus, is his, too. It’s only fair that the same guy who would be on the hook for child support payments if you decide to go through with the pregnancy be heard out before you follow through on your decision to end it.

So I actually kind of agree with the first paragraph, in a general sense (not at all in a legal one). As a general rule, if you get pregnant, is it a good idea to tell the person who was involved in your pregnancy? Sure. Are general rules typically pretty crappy when you apply them to the breadth of human experience? You betcha.

Yes, it’s great for dudes to know that they dodged a bullet. It’s also good for dudes to know that women they care about (or at least women they know exist) have abortions — abortion isn’t often talked about in first-person narratives, which is part of why it’s so easy to politically demonize it. I’m personally of the mind that a dude who got you pregnant should also be there to support you — whether that’s holding your hand through child birth and supporting his child, or sitting with you in the abortion clinic waiting room.

But then. Not all dudes are good dudes. In fact, a lot of dudes are actively bad dudes; a lot more dudes are somewhere in between good and bad. And while Dan says that you don’t have to tell a dude if you think he’ll bully or badger you out of an abortion, he also says that you should tell the dude so that the dude can make the argument for you going through nine months of pregnancy and giving birth to a child that will ultimately be your responsibility for the rest of your life. The line between “making the argument” and “badgering” or “bullying” can be quite a fine one when we’re talking about a potential child.

Also, abortion is incredibly stigmatized. My friends who have had abortions — and I think this is true for most women who have abortions — tend not to speak publicly about it. If the dude in question isn’t your serious partner — and if he is your serious partner, you’re probably going to tell him that you’re undergoing surgery unless he’s abusive or your relationship is otherwise unhealthy — there are real reasons not to take on the stigma of abortion just so that he can make a case you aren’t going to accept anyway. You tell that dude and he tells his friends? Especially in smaller communities, that can really harm your reputation. It can impact your job and your relationships. It’s fucked that that’s the case — that one of the most common surgical procedures in the United States is so stigmatized — but that’s reality. I only write about abortion and I’ve gotten death threats and enraged emails sent to my employers trying to get me fired. Is it really up to a woman to take on the possibility of back-channel reputation or career destruction just so a dude can know that his sperm swam into an egg?

Don’t get me totally wrong: I am sympathetic to Dan’s position, and I think that under good circumstances, you should tell the man who got you pregnant. But the thing about circumstances is that “good” is a sliding scale, and there are a lot of factors to consider beyond just “is the person being told abusive?”


188 thoughts on Telling a dude about an impending abortion

  1. I think that since this concerns a woman’s body and her body alone, it is always 100% up to her whether to abort or not and whether to discuss it with anybody or not.

  2. From my experience, telling was the right thing to do (even with a big teary discussion). The biggest reason, is that it’s a simple medical procedure, and that lets it remain one, instead of “the secret abortion”. Sometimes dudes are supportive, sometimes they’re not, but if they know in advance, they can get it all out ahead of time and walk away feeling like they had some input, even if they didn’t. If they find out later, then it can become a real problem. No one wants to worry about hiding this kind of stuff, or worrying what’ll happens if someone else finds out.

  3. This is the one area of the abortion debate that always gets me… I’m staunchly pro-choice, but when someone says “well, what about the guys choice in the matter?” it’s really really really really really hard for me to go “Well, sucks to be him, but it is what it is, and what it is is not his body, thus not his choice.”

    Ultimately, that’s what I end up saying, but I always feel like a little bit of an asshole about it.

  4. “I think that since this concerns a woman’s body and her body alone, it is always 100% up to her whether to abort or not and whether to discuss it with anybody or not.”

    Yeah. I mean, the only time I really see the “dude makes a case” thing working out well is if the woman in question is ambivalent about aborting and his response (“I will pay child support but do not want to act as a parent in any other way”/”I’m in this 100%, I want to be a dad”) will clarify what sort of situation she’s looking at if she doesn’t. If the pregnant woman is already sure of what she wants and either not super-close to the guy or unsure of his character, you’re asking her to run an unnecessary personal risk.

  5. So, what if a “good” guy finds out he got his girlfriend pregnant, and she wants to keep it, but he doesn’t? Does he have the right to choose to not be held responsible for that child?

    I’m genuinely curious. I seem to have found that it is possible through some paperwork, but no real references.

    1. So, what if a “good” guy finds out he got his girlfriend pregnant, and she wants to keep it, but he doesn’t? Does he have the right to choose to not be held responsible for that child?

      No. Abortion is a bodily autonomy issue; child support is an issue of supporting a creature that is unable to support itself.

  6. The making a case thing makes me twitch. It’s one thing to say, “Look, I want you to know that if you want to have the baby, you’ll I will of course support our child financially and will co-parent, no matter what happens with us” is very different from “ITS MY CHOICE TOO” or “You should have the baby, don’t kill it,” etc.

    Also, I’ve known guys who’d want to know because a) they’d want to help pay for the procedure and b) they’d want to be there in the waiting room to take their girlfriend/FWB home. Etc.

  7. preying mantis:
    Yeah.I mean, the only time I really see the “dude makes a case” thing working out well is if the woman in question is ambivalent about aborting and his response (“I will pay child support but do not want to act as a parent in any other way”/”I’m in this 100%, I want to be a dad”) will clarify what sort of situation she’s looking at if she doesn’t.If the pregnant woman is already sure of what she wants and either not super-close to the guy or unsure of his character, you’re asking her to run an unnecessary personal risk.

    This is a good point, but then you find you have to deal with what happens if you’re ambivalent, talk to potential baby-daddy and he’s all got his game face on ready to be dad and you decide to abort anyway, because you’re JUST NOT READY, regardless of the circumstances.

  8. I think that line about “the fetus is his, too” is effed, and completely ignores how skewed and unequal this situation is.

    Also: the potential effed-ness from dudes does not just come before the abortion. I’ll never forget mentioning mine to the man in question a year later and watching him look up at me, perplexed, to say “oh… you still think about that?” I wish I’d just done it and never told him. It would have saved me a pain in the ass of which that comment is only the beginning.

  9. Sorry for double commenting, but I just have to also mention: what about dudes who decide to tell the whole world about something you’d have rather kept private? I don’t see why any woman should be expected to give a guy that power because according to Dan Savage it’s “the right thing to do.”

    I see Savage’s comments as a treatment of abortion in theory, as opposed to in practice / lived experience… which, of course, is a privilege of dudes like him.

  10. Also, Mizz Alice, if the guy wants to be a father and the woman doesn’t and agrees to relinquish custody to him, she is on the hook for child support.

  11. I really hate hearing that having a kid is just 18 years of child support. I hope no one believes that. Financially, I lived with my parents until 22. Emotionally I got really sick at 23 and depended on my parents more than I had in years. At 26 I’m pretty independent but I still go to my mom for support, and she’s one of the first people I go to.

  12. I feel like I’m going to get jumped on for this, but I can definitely see a set of situations where it’d be best to make sure that the guy knows what’s going on. Definitely there are women who would have a child, but only under certain circumstances, just as there are women who would always have a child, and women who would never have a child.

    Let’s take me: I almost certainly would not have a child unless I got married to the man I loved/the father of the baby in short order. I don’t want to sign up for single motherhood as a young woman. I might end up there, but I don’t want to sign up for that, no thanks, not me. I can’t be the only woman out there for whom clarity about the emotional/relational/financial situation that I have with my current partner might change my mind… If he was up for getting married and I wanted to marry him, that would definitely change my perspective on the choices I would want to make, and like I said, it’d probably be wife/baby/mom time for me. I’d take hastily-married mom over single mom something like 9 times out of 10 if I was in love with the guy, and it’d be nice to have all the facts out on the table in front of me.

    This is, again, going off of the assumption that you know whether or not your partner is a respectful and kind person, which, like others have said, you would probably know better than anyone else.

  13. Perspective from a non-religious European country – a series of NSA sexual encounters between two of my friends lead to an unwanted, unexpected pregnancy. Both are in their early 20s, college students. The news eventually spread among the circle of people they know, abortion being considered the most likely solution. The universal reaction was: “Damn, poor girl. It must be so tough for her.”

    Just trying to say that it doesn’t always have to be stigmatization and rejection. Society can evolve.

  14. I don’t think a woman is under any obligation to tell a man what is going on with her own body. What if it’s due to a one-time deal? What if it’s with a casual partner? It’s ultimately up to her.

  15. ”Not all dudes are good dudes”

    Amen to that.

    I wish that I hadn’t had to tell the man concerned that I was having a termination, but it would have been impossible to hide it. I wish I would have been able to.

    I had a pregnancy terminated at 16 after the fuckhead I was with interfered with my birth control (hiding my pills and insisting he’d seen me take them, I knew what was going on but was, well, too under his thumb to tell him to take a hike) and I couldn’t refuse sex in the situation I was in. He couldn’t prevent me from having the termination (he didn’t really want a baby, just for me to be dependent on him), but he did not make it easy.

    I realise that there was absolutely no legal reason why I should have had to tell him, so I may be going off on a tangent here, but I don’t see why it would have been morally wrong for me to not inform him had my situation permitted it. I should not need anybody’s consent for this (I’m in the UK so received my termination free on the NHS without the need for parental consent – I’m not sure what parental consent would/wouldn’t be needed in the states for a sixteen year old, but I believe the need for parental consent in this situation would be pretty fucked up as well).

    Yes, it was his fetus too. But it’s MY body and my life. Nobody should have the right to force anyone to keep an unwanted pregnancy anymore than they should have the right to force somebody to abort against their will.

    [tangent/] The worst thing is, eight years later and I’m still blaming myself. I can’t abide victim-blaming, but that doesn’t seem to cover things that I have done. [/tangent].

  16. I would personally want to be told and want to be actively involved. Not like I’m ever not real with everyone, but I may have gotten a woman pregnant several years back. This is going to get really salacious, but I don’t know how else to put it. I’ll need to choose my words carefully.

    My girlfriend at the time was a sex worker. So it may not have been my child. But since I was her boyfriend, she assumed it was mine. And I was going to pay for it. And I was the person who called to arrange the appointment at Planned Parenthood. She insisted. But in the end she didn’t follow through with it because she’d been raised pro-life and had a complete moral crisis on her hands.

    And then she completely left town without telling me. I still don’t know where she is. But in any case, she didn’t want me actively involved in the life of the child, assuming she kept it or didn’t decide later to go through with the procedure. My memories of those days are sad and I try to avoid thinking about what happened, but I still am glad I was told.

  17. And while he says there should be no obligation to inform someone who’s going to bully/badger/be violent, it’s not always easy to tell how someone will react on getting news of an unplanned pregnancy, and it isn’t always easy to tell when the person you’re with is a bully.

    Hindsight is 20-20. The person I now see as a controlling evil fuckhead I saw at the time as my loving, if troubled, partner, and his attempts to control me, bully me and make me dependent on him I saw only as evidence that he loved me. Oh fuck it, I don’t want to think about this anymore.

  18. andrea: This is the one area of the abortion debate that always gets me… I’m staunchly pro-choice, but when someone says “well, what about the guys choice in the matter?” it’s really really really really really hard for me to go “Well, sucks to be him, but it is what it is, and what it is is not his body, thus not his choice.”

    Ditto. I think it’s reasonable to expect that a woman in trusting relationship with a guy who got her pregnant should let him know, because, like arimel above mentioned, many women *would* be happy to give birth if they knew they had the full support and commitment from their partner.

    Of course, also ditto to a lot of the excellent points about possible ramifications of this, by way of dudes unexpectedly reacting poorly, telling people, etc. It’s something that I think women should consider, but it’s certainly not something I’d stand behind requiring. I was lucky in that, when I told my partner I wanted an abortion a few years ago, even though he really wanted to have a baby, he was unceasingly supportive. And I understood when he confided in a good friend, because I respected 100% his need to talk about his feelings about everything, including his grief, with someone other than me. But that’s isn’t the case in all relationships, which is something that desperately needs to change.

  19. After reading about how stigmatized people who have abortions or are even considering them, or really even Pro-Choice who people who don’t actually intend to ever use abortion but support the idea that women should be able to choose to keep the pregnancy or abort are demonized (I had no idea you got sent death threats for just talking about abortion, Jill o.o). I don’t think she should feel under any obligation to tell the man in the relationship. Also.. kinda squicked out when he said the uterus is the dude’s too O.o I might’ve been reading that wrong too.

  20. After reading about how stigmatized people who have abortions or are even considering them, or really even Pro-Choice who people who don’t actually intend to ever use abortion but support the idea that women should be able to choose to keep the pregnancy or abort are demonized (I had no idea you got sent death threats for just talking about abortion, Jill o.o). I don’t think she should feel under any obligation to tell the man in the relationship. Also.. kinda squicked out when he said the uterus is the dude’s too O.o I might’ve been reading that wrong too.

  21. Actually, depending on the state (and sometimes on the judge) voluntary termination of parental rights can also terminate the obligation to pay child support. Which makes sense to me — if a a woman can terminate her obligation to support the child by giving him/her up for adoption, the father needs to have a similar method by which he can terminate his obligation to support the child even if the mother wants to keep it. (I use mother and father in that order because in the vast majority of these cases it is a mother with physical and legal custody of the child, but of course the situation can be reversed.)

  22. And more on topic: I agree with Dan’s advice to the extent that it’s viewed as desireable but not an obligation. In an ideal world, I think the guy probably should be told and that there should be a conversation about the choice being made (whatever it is) — though that conversation should take place with the understanding that a) he isn’t trying to talk her into something, they’re just both expressing their thoughts/feelings and listening to one another, and b) the ultimate decision is her choice and should be respected.

    There are lots of situations in which that can’t happen, or you don’t know whether it will happen, or you don’t want to tell him for other reasons (because it’s too traumatic for you, because you barely know him, because you can’t take the risk of anyone else finding out, etc.). Which is why I really, really don’t think there’s an obligation to tell. But ideally, I think he should know. Not the least of which is because, as Dan and Jill both pointed out, men need to have a stake in reproductive decisions and to understand their importance as more than something abstract.

  23. I agree with Esti that Dan’s comments are desirable in an ideal world. Personally, speaking as a man, I’d want to be told, if for no other reason than this person I’m involved with is about to go through a medical procedure (let alone the serious emotional weight of social pressure she’d be under).

    BUT, there are abusive people of all genders and sexual orientations, and telling your partner something this (unfortunately) controversial might always be risky. I don’t think Dan meant his comments as universally applicable, but a matter of personal circumstance under that sliding scale Jill referred to.

    Also, SephONE, he wasn’t saying the uterus was the man’s. He was saying the fetus is his too (both parties genetic material, yadda yadda yadda), even though the uterus it “resides” in isn’t his. The fetus is, the uterus isn’t.

  24. Getting anectdotal on you, I had a ‘Would you want me to tell you’ talk with an ex (for health reasons, I can’t carry a child without putting myself at HUGE risk of death.. between health issues and my first two pregnancies, the baby days are over for me. My tubes are tied, but 99% effective still isn’t 100%) since an accidental pregnancy would likely mean aborting, since I don’t relish the idea of leaving my existing children motherless. He knew my situation and said he’d like to know anyway.

    I think the ‘is ignorance bliss?’ question should definitely be broached as part of the ‘what will we do if pregnant’ conversation that het pairs should ideally be having pre-sex.

  25. but the fetus, if not the uterus, is his, too

    This is where it really breaks down for me. Ownership or possession of a foetus (or zygote or embryo, depending on the stage of development), by the en-uterused partner or otherwise, is entirely the wrong framework for this. It’s completely unnecessary for one, because the bodily autonomy of the person in whom the zygote/embryo/foetus is located and upon whose internal organs it is dependent is a standalone issue – it doesn’t require a discussion of ownership to be important in its own right. Also, to the extent that a zygote/embryo/foetus is capable of developing into an autonomous being, I think the “ownership” idea also goes into the problematic territory of “owning” one’s children, having a genetic or legal dibs on them, which I think is detrimental and antithetical to the whole endeavour of child-raising.

    (There is a difference between this kind of ownership attitude and, say, using “my child” as a shorthand for referring to a child with whom one has [possesses] a relationship, or the realistic responsibilities of caring for and raising a child which does involve creating and enforcing rules and expectations. I’m talking about the kind of attitude where a person feels *entitled* to control another person by virtue of their genetic or legal parental status.)

  26. If the only questions were: does the woman want to have it, and does the man want to financially support it? It would be a much simpler world. Unfortunately, we don’t just drop off the kid at day care or “school” and leave it at that. Even if the man helps really a lot, we are the ones that’s lives are in danger; we are the one’s that put in all the energy, time, and etc into growing that child. Then most of the time, we are the ones that do the actual raising of the child, even if we have full “support” of our husbands or boyfriends. So it is a decision that has to be up to us. Society would never think of giving a man a non-paid job for 25 years. Why they might call it JAIL.

  27. Sheelzebub:
    Also, Mizz Alice, if the guy wants to be a father and the woman doesn’t and agrees to relinquish custody to him, she is on the hook for child support.

    This is something I’ve always wondered about–would it be possible (in a legal context) for a man and a woman to come to an agreement about this such that the woman is not on the hook for child support? I realize it might set a dangerous precedent since a man doesn’t (shouldn’t) really get a say in whether or not a woman keeps a child and ends up being responsible for it financially, if not emotionally. But let’s say I get pregnant, plan to abort, and then the guy and I come to an agreement early on in the pregnancy that I will carry the child to term and then sever all ties (including financial obligations) once the child is born. Stigma and public shaming aside, is there any legal system in the world that would allow for this kind of agreement?

    (I’m asking as a genuine question based on sheer curiosity, and am in no way intending to be facetious or rhetorical.)

  28. Before I write this, let me just say that I am a devoted feminist, and have been campaigning for reproductive rights both online and in the real world for several years now. I do not think what I am about to say contradicts that, but I would very much like not to be dismissed as ‘anti-feminist’ and ‘misogynistic’, though I accept other people may not agree with my views.

    I too read Dan Savage, and I have to say that I actually agree with him on this. Savage makes it clear that this is his opinion “unless she sincerely believes—or even legitimately suspects—that the guy is gonna bully, badger, and/or do violence to her in an attempt to prevent her from choosing abortion”. I realise that you can draw that line wherever you want to, but the fact that he includes “legitimately suspects” puts it entirely in the woman’s hands. If she feels afraid, whether for rational reasons or not, she has no obligation to tell him. Her health and safety, both physically and emotionally, come first.

    I am a passionate activist for reproductive rights. If I were to get pregnant at the moment, I know I would have an abortion, no question, and my boyfriend (or friend, or one-night-stand, or whoever) would not get a say in that. My uterus, my decision. However, it takes two to cause an unintended pregnancy (reproductive coercion aside, which I know is a valid issue, but not if we’ve already excluded abusive relationships), and both partners are responsible for the foetus. Does the man have the right to make the decision? No – he’s not going to have to carry the foetus inside him for nine months. Does he have the right to know? If he has shown no signs of bullying or abuse in the past, then yes. And does he have the right to state a preference? IF (and this is a very big if) he does so in a considerate, fair, non-confrontational way, and makes it clear that ultimate the decision is entirely that of the woman, then yes, I think he does.

    While I do take the point that Savage’s “ownership” argument isn’t particularly well put, I agree with the sentiment. There is a difference between giving up a woman’s bodily autonomy and handing her rights entirely over to the man who got her pregnant, and acknowledging that he had something to do with the foetus too, and, if she does decide to continue with the pregnancy, deserves some interaction with the child as well. (Again, this depends on him being entirely non-abusive and in supporting the woman through the pregnancy.) I am certainly not one to support MRA in any way, shape or form, which is why I will state again that the decision is entirely that of whoever will have to carry a growing human inside them for nine months. But if she does decide to abort, that’s a decision which is going to affect both of them, and he has the right to know, if nothing else.

  29. Is it just me or does the section “he needs to be told so he can be more cautious next time” rub you the wrong way?

    Like, if a dude can’t realize that every time he sticks his penis in a vagina, a baby can possibly happen, that dude is probably not a guy you want to tell.

  30. Valerie: This is something I’ve always wondered about–would it be possible (in a legal context) for a man and a woman to come to an agreement about this such that the woman is not on the hook for child support? I realize it might set a dangerous precedent since a man doesn’t (shouldn’t) really get a say in whether or not a woman keeps a child and ends up being responsible for it financially, if not emotionally. But let’s say I get pregnant, plan to abort, and then the guy and I come to an agreement early on in the pregnancy that I will carry the child to term and then sever all ties (including financial obligations) once the child is born. Stigma and public shaming aside, is there any legal system in the world that would allow for this kind of agreement?

    (I’m asking as a genuine question based on sheer curiosity, and am in no way intending to be facetious or rhetorical.)

    From what others have told me, it’s extremely hard for parental rights to be terminated especially if the parent isn’t a danger to the kid.

  31. Athenia:
    Is it just me or does the section “he needs to be told so he can be more cautious next time” rub you the wrong way?

    Like, if a dude can’t realize that every time he sticks his penis in a vagina, a baby can possibly happen, that dude is probably not a guy you want to tell.

    Definitely. Like Jill, I agree with the first paragraph, but he lost me at the second one. It’s almost like he’s saying “women happen to men the way that babies happen to women,” ignoring of the bigger issue at hand in the most offensive way possible.

    Lolz, there would be no babies if not for them pesky womenz! SURE DODGED A BULLET THERE, SON.

  32. @Valerie, if both progentitors agreed, yes, most states will allow one party to relinquish parental rights. Sperm donation, second parent adoption, etc. often utilize something similar to this. The issue is when one party disagrees, or when they lack the means to go through the complicated legal hoops.

    But, I fail to see how he is being denied rights if she wants the child and he does not. Both parties have equal legal rights to their own cells, they also (as has been consistently ruled in IVF cases) have equal rights to embryos not in either’s body, and they have equal rights after birth. The only discrepancy is that the person who is pregnant is the one who gets to decide the use of their body. This applies when the pregnant person is not the egg provider. Surrogates maintian the right to abort-the egg provider has no more right to force or deny an abortion than the sperm provider. So, yes, the progenitors do have equal rights to the fetus, but those are essentially moot during pregnancy because the fetus is using another’s body and only the pregnant person can permit or refuse to permit such use.

    I really do not think there is a moral imperitive to tell one’s partner about an abortion, period. I do think, however, that this falls under the “open communication” issues. If one is not comfortable discussing these things with a partner (granted, not all pregnancies involve serious partners), then that is a troubling sign about the relationship. It is sort of like interviewing for an out of town job without telling your boyfriend, or writing a secret novel. Hiding big decisions can signal issues in a serious relationship, but that does not mean that there is some sort of mandatory disclosure around any particular issue.

  33. I’m married and have never been pregnant. My husband is a good guy and knows, as I do, that birth control iis not foolproof, that every instance of PIV sex could potentially lead to a pregnancy, and what happens to that pregnancy would ultimately be up to me (and luck, cause, miscarriages etv happen).

    But I must say: in a committed or loving or trusting relationship, the fastest way to end it would be to lie, even through omission, about something important. Like this. And though we may not be trying to have a baby, if a pregnancy resulted, I’d tell him. And if our ideal visions of the future of the pregnancy differed- if one wanted it kept or terminated and if it was kept or terminated to the deep disappointment of the other – the relationship would suffer.

    But if I, as the woman, got an abortion secretly- the relationship would end: because of the lying and the broken trust. Because trust and love go both ways in a non-abusive relationship – at least when we are talking about “good” guys and (I guess, by extension) “good” girls.

  34. You know, I might have agreed with Dan Savage a few months ago. But as I sit here, 7 months pregnant, with a bag of ice under my hip (very painful sciatica due to pregnancy), a brace on my ankle (old injury aggravated by the 30lbs I’ve gained due to pregnancy), my ability to do my very physical job diminished to the point that I am now financially dependent on my partner, etc…I am now aware that being pregnant is a VERY BIG DEAL.

    I think debates about abortion often make this leap from sex to baby that ignores the several months of PREGNANCY. I know before I got pregnant, and even right after I found out I was pregnant, I didn’t think about all it entailed, including tons of medical appointments, expensive vitamins, a new wardrobe (can’t fit into any of my pre-pregnancy clothes right now), changes to the way I eat, drink and exercise, and the way people react to my pregnancy every single day (it gets mentioned by strangers constantly…not a huge deal but it makes me feel very inconspicuous).

    So yeah, genetically, this fetus is half his. And I’m sure when our son arrives, my partner will have a big part in raising him. But right now? I’m certainly doing the heavy lifting!

    I really do want this baby, but as I keep telling people, being pregnant has made me more pro-choice than ever!

  35. And I will add that being partnered with a financially stable person who also wanted to have children gives me advantages many women don’t have.

  36. This is really neither here nor there, but perhaps a way to avoid this situation would be to sort of inform the boyfriend or whomever (if that seems like a good idea; obviously the woman is under no obligation to tell anyone about getting an abortion even if they’d be supportive because it is her body) before the situation occurs. Just something like “Hey, I thought I’d inform you that if I get pregnant I am getting an abortion.” Might be a litmus test of a sort, too. But yeah especially given the stigma no woman should have to feel guilty about not telling the theoretical father about having an abortion.

  37. I agree with Dan Savage as far as the principle “If you don’t have a good reason not to, you should tell.” Where I disagree is the idea that Dan Savage has the right to decide what constitutes a “good reason.” Sure, Savage’s suggestion that fear of “bullying, badgering, or abuse” about the decision constitutes a good enough reason isn’t wrong, as far as it goes, but it’s not nearly comprehensive enough, and even if he thought about it for more than the hour or so it probably took to write this column, he’d probably come up with principles that could be held against plenty of women who made sound decisions that not telling would be better.

    If you go with the principle that “whatever a woman thinks is a good enough reason not to tell is a good enough reason,” you probably will end up with some guys who don’t know about pregnancies they caused, and who could have benefited from knowing. That’s sad–it’s certainly not ideal. But it’s not nearly as unfortunate as women thinking they have to meet some arbitrary standard of Good Enough before they can decide how best to deal with an issue that’s still heavily stigmatized and sometimes dangerous.

  38. If I were going to get any other medical procedure done, I wouldn’t be obligated to tell my partner. Why should this be any different? If a woman wants to tell the man involved, fine. If not, fine.

    And that section where Savage talks about how it’s the woman’s responsibility to tell the man because it’s a lesson learned for him really pissed me off. It’s not our job to educate the men we sleep with, nor is it our job to teach them life lessons in responsibility or whatever it is he’s getting at there.

    And I’m sorry, but the wording of “the fetus, if not the uterus, is his” does, in fact, imply that the uterus is his. I guess by virtue of “you poke it, you own it.” I think Savage had a little Freudian slip there.

  39. Obviously this situation wouldn’t apply if the child conceived was the result of a single encounter, but in my last committed relationship I actually sat down with the guy and we discussed very openly our expectations if pregnancy occurred. I told him that if I did get pregnant, abortion was an option and that he would be expected to pay half the cost. He agreed that he wasn’t ready for fatherhood and would be supportive both emotionally and financially if I decided to get an abortion.

    After we had been together almost 2 years and I was turning 28, I realized I was at a point in my life that I might consider keeping an unexpected pregnancy. So I sat down with him again and let him know my feelings had changed. I thought it was only fair that he be aware, so he wouldn’t be blindsided if it did occur. By telling him, he knew what could occur and if he wasn’t ready for that, he always had the option to stop dating and having sex with me.

    I know it’s difficult to set expectations beforehand, because it’s all guesswork on how you will actually feel when it happens. I never told him I would definitely get an abortion if I got pregnant, only that it was the option I was leaning toward.

    Likewise, when I reached a point where I knew that keeping it would also be an option, I thought it was only fair to let him know. It takes two to tango and if he wasn’t prepared for fatherhood as an option, then he could also make the choice not to have sex with me.

    I know it’s not an answer for everyone, but I think if you’re in a committed relationship, setting those expectations before it happens could make it easier to tell the guy if it does, because you will hopefully have an idea of how he is going to react.

  40. The way I see it, if you are woman, and you find out you’re pregnant, you have from that moment until (whenever late term abortion options stop) to make up your mind. Obviously during that time I would assume that most women go through some serious soul searching about a) the choice to have an abortion and or b) what it means to be a mother. To assume that men don’t deserve this same time to figure out what it is going to mean for them if they become a father frankly comes across a grossly cruel and unfair.

    The only situation I can see in which telling the father is “optional” is when the mother has already decided to have an abortion if her pregnancy test comes out positive. At that point there is no “decision time” since she has made her choice already.

    But if a period of time exists where you think you might be a mother, the potential father is owed the same time to come to terms with something that’s going to irreparably alter his life.

  41. Yeah, most of Savage’s support for his argument seems misguided and weak. Although, I do feel that it is 100% the woman’s choice, I think she should tell her partner if she feels she can. And I agree with @bhuesca that if the woman is in a long term, stable, loving relationship, she should reasonably expect that an omission of this nature could end her relationship. But again, the choice is hers.

    While I would never, ever EVER suggest that a man should determine whether or not a woman carries a fetus to term, I do have a certain difficulty understanding what his rights are/should be regarding parenting, should she have *already* decided to deliver the child. I have a painful personal experience with this. Long story short, my brother wanted to raise his child with our family but the mother wanted to adopt their child out to another couple. The good news is that (from what we get in letters/pictures) the child is with a fantastic loving family but regardless, it was a complicated, heartbreaking experience for my brother and all of us.

  42. alynn:

    While I would never, ever EVER suggest that a man should determine whether or not a woman carries a fetus to term, I do have a certain difficulty understanding what his rights are/should be regarding parenting, should she have *already* decided to deliver the child. I have a painful personal experience with this. Long story short, my brother wanted to raise his child with our family but the mother wanted to adopt their child out to another couple. The good news is that (from what we get in letters/pictures) the child is with a fantastic loving family but regardless, it was a complicated, heartbreaking experience for my brother and all of us.

    That’s really unusual, because he shouldn’t have to terminate his parental rights simply because the baby’s mother did, both parents need to sign off on the adoption if both of them are known.

    As far as the column, I think it is entirely a gut decision as to whether or not a woman should tell the dude who knocked her up that she is planning on having an abortion. At its core, it is a medical procedure, and those are no one’s business except for those you choose to share it with. Granted, someone else was involved in getting one into that state, so it is nice to have them around to help out, but it I trust women to do what is best for their bodies and their lives.

  43. Athenia:
    Is it just me or does the section “he needs to be told so he can be more cautious next time” rub you the wrong way?

    Definitely. To me it’s just a step away of the lawmaker who was arguing that women should stop having abortions so that men would be more responsible. (For the life of me I can’t find the article I just read about it.)

  44. “To me it’s just a step away of the lawmaker who was arguing that women should stop having abortions so that men would be more responsible.”

    Dudes: finding a way to make even pregnancy all about them since mumble mumble mumble.

  45. Clearly whether to tell is going to depend on the relationship that created the pregnancy. But this advice? “let him try to talk you out of it if he wants. also, women are constantly trying to trick you by saying they’re on birth control!” pfft.

  46. Clarissa:
    I think that since this concerns a woman’s body and her body alone, it is always 100% up to her whether to abort or not and whether to discuss it with anybody or not.

    Agreed. My two cents. I would hope that I had a good enough relationship with the person who was pregnant that they would feel perfectly comfortable with either telling me or refraining from telling me that they were pregnant and whatever decision they had made.

    I don’t think there ought to be a “should” here. Other than perhaps we should trust women to know whether or not they should disclose personal medical information.

    The child support issue isn’t relevant. If a child is *born* then, both genetic contributors should be informed, assuming such disclosure won’t endanger the well-being of the child or the parent who gave birth. Does knowing that a child will be born change a person’s support obligation? No. So why create an exception to the general rule that a person does not have to disclose medical information?

  47. “Does knowing that a child will be born change a person’s support obligation? No. So why create an exception to the general rule that a person does not have to disclose medical information?”

    Insofar as being a parent tends to require more preparation than not being a parent, and women who are carrying to term tend to need more in the way of ongoing support than women who are terminating ASAP, it would be more helpful for a father-to-be to be informed prior to the birth than it would be for a man who unwittingly contributed to an abortion to know that, uh, his life will not change in the least. But yeah, one still caveats the fucking hell out of it in terms of the mother’s and/or fetus’s safety, the possibility that paternity can’t be easily determined until after the birth, etc. In terms of “things that count” in this situation, abstract ethics are not as high on the list as what’s going on in that individual relationship.

  48. I think it is entirely dependent upon the relationship between the two people. I’m in a committed relationship and while the choice would be mine and mine alone, I could not imagine NOT telling my boyfriend.

    However, I’ve worked at an abortion clinic for the past four years and have seen countless instances where the woman tried to do what she believed was the honorable thing and the man threatened her or talked shit about her to mutual friends or worse (in my opinion) told her he was against it just to avoid having to pay for it. That is the most disgusting thing of all to me. I can’t tell you how many men have probably been very relieved the woman chose abortion but pretended they weren’t just so they could a.) gain the supposed moral high ground while dodging any parental responsibility and b.) not have to cough up several hundred dollars. There are simply no hard and fast rules in this situation.

    As for other points that have been brought up, no a man does not and should not have the right to forgo child support just because he wanted the woman to abort and she didn’t. You are responsible for your sperm and where it goes.

  49. “if not the uterus, is his, too.” WTMF?! Issues of ownership of children and fetuses aside, how in the hell could the uterus be his?
    There is no logical way for one, and secondly, a man can’t stake claim to a woman’s uterus for any reason.

  50. Just for the heck of it, here’s my fantasy about how a guy could make the case for completing the pregnancy without badgering: He could say something like, “It’s your decision and I’ll support whatever you decide. But I’m ready for a baby and I’d be willing to take primary responsibility for the baby if you decided to have it. Or be the secondary parent if you decide you want to raise it. If this is something you’d like to consider, let me know and we’ll talk further about how to make it work. If it isn’t, tell me the date you’ve scheduled the abortion for and I’ll drive you there and help you after the procedure.”

  51. I think the “if not” was poor phrasing.

    Usually “if not” phrases are like this: “many, if not most, people think ‘Two and a Half Men’ is the worst TV show since ‘Everybody Loves Raymond'”, which means probably most people think that, but certainly many do.

    But I think he pretty clearly meant the fetus is partly his even though the uterus is not. Because saying that a woman’s uterus probably belongs to a man makes no sense to even a very ungenerous reading of Savage.

    Ideally women should be able to tell their partners, and in that ideal world then I think the man should be informed (if for no other reason than to do what he can to help bring about the procedure — in the ideal world he’s not second-guessing the choice). But for the many reasons given here, I think that’s got to be taken on a case-by-case basis and there’s no general “should” for the real world.

  52. @marianne – that ticked me off too.

    Uh, hello – do men have to remember to take the pill everyday to prevent conception? Is missing one an understandable mistake rather than, as he implies, a malicious or stupid thing? I’m sure feeling pressured into having sex even when you know it’s not fully protected from pregnancy never happens either, even in relatively healthy relationships. Bah.

  53. Hi first I am not really a feminist im a 19 year old guy and I am by no means a reproductive rights expert and I started reading this site and other feminist sites as a means of educating myself on subjects I was at the time mostly ignorant about. However ive often felt that feminists where often insensitive when its comes to how some of these issues affect men, for instance no human being should have to suffer their autonomy being taken away from them, but if a woman carrys to term a baby against the male parents will isnt she violating his autonomy by taking away his right to decide what is done with his own genetic material and by forcing an obligation on him that he might be unwilling to bear. It seem that most comments on this post are saying screw the men its completely the womans decision, which just doesnt seem feminist or egalitarian at all, yes its the woman body and her life but its also a the mans genetic material and his life and so to me it the only reasonable compromise would be that unless both parents consent to raising a child then it should in fact be mandatory abortion. I understand this could violate the womans autonomy but its my understanding that in a fair society(which is what we should be striving for) your free to do what you like provided it doesnt harm other people, which it would be harming someone if a woman used a mans genetic material against his will and changed the course of his life possibly for the worse by carrying a pregnancy to term (just like it would be harming someone if a man tried to force a woman to give birth against her will), who would want to have a child by an unwilling partner anyway(though i know it happens a fair bit). If my comment is offensive I apologize profusely however please understand my comment isnt an attack in any way on feminism it comes in good faith from a desire to understand further and to be educated if necessary incase I am missing some big feminist secret that makes my arguement completely void. My arguement basicaly is that bringing a child into this world should I feel be a completely mutual decision as opposed just the womans decision(which is the feel I was getting from the comments on this post) I hope someone will take the time to respond to this as I am curious to see what feminists make of my arguement and I as have said I am more than willing to reevaluate my beliefs if they are found to be based on ignorance and fucked up somehow though I dont think it is.

  54. I read Savages remark as a reflection of how a lot of guys might not be terribly pro-active about their own reproductive choices (i.e. insisting on condom use, even if his partner insists she’s on the pill, as the pill is not foolproof) until they actually have a brush with potential daddy-dom.

    I wouldn’t call it a decision-maker as far as whether to tell a guy about an abortion or not, but a guy taking a more pro-active approach to contraception would be a positive outcome should the woman choose to tell him.

  55. @ shfree RE adoption: You’d think that would be true but it really isn’t. Look up the putative father registry sometime. Unmarried fathers often have to jump through numerous hoops to establish their rights as parents and the process can be interfeared with in any number of ways.
    (first and foremost being telling him you’re in Utah. That counts as notification you’re planning to put the child you had together up for adoption and starts the timer ticking for him to contest it)

  56. I haven’t read all the comments yet, so I’m sorry if someone has already brought this up. He says she doesn’t need to tell the guy if she thinks he badger her into changing her mind, but then he says she SHOULD tell him so that he has a chance to badger her into changing her mind? Really?

  57. George,

    The (potential) father’s role in reproductive choices certainly leads to some complex moral questions, and good on you for engaging with them. I would say that, generally speaking, I agree with you that men and women should have equal rights no matter what, and generally, this is the basis of much of feminist thought because gender roles and gender-based limitations are constructed by society in order to constrict how people (of all genders) act.

    When it comes to pregnancy, though, this principal does not apply because, biologically speaking, pregnancy is not in the least egalitarian. Biologically, women have to endure all of the physical consequences of pregnancy, and being pregnant is often dangerous to a woman’s health, occasionally deadly, and even a completely healthy pregnancy changes your body drastically (and often it doesn’t ever really go back to the way it was before), as well as being very uncomfortable, causing all sorts of symptoms like vomiting, causing emotional changes (which often continue post-birth, in the form of postpartum depression), and forcing you to restrict your diet, your intake of alcohol/caffeine/tobacco, your activities (heavy lifting, certain yoga poses, etc) for several months. Not to mention the pain of actually giving birth. Men, no matter how involved they are in a partner’s pregnancy and in fatherhood, don’t have to go through any of that– once the sex is done, they have no biological role in the pregnancy, even though they almost always do have an emotional role, or a financial role, or a legal role.

    So I think you’re misunderstanding what feminists mean when we talk about “bodily autonomy”. We’re not talking about the right to decide whether or not you have children (though that certainly comes along with it), or the right to decide what happens to your genetic material (because we all leave genetic material everywhere on a daily basis, which I know is a bit of a glib answer, because leaving skin flakes on the bus is different than leaving sperm in a vagina, but the point still stands). When we talk about bodily autonomy, we’re talking about the right to decide whether or not you want to go through all of those risks, symptoms, and lifestyle changes I listed above (and many more! I’ve never been pregnant, so I’m probably leaving out lots of big ones). We all should have the right to bodily autonomy; that includes the right to decide whether or not you want to take certain medicines, and undergo certain surgeries, and only have sex when you want to. That applies to all human adults (or should… this right all too often gets taken away).

    But since pregnancy only happens to women, we have the right to decide whether we want to go through all that or not, and the baby’s father cannot force us to change our decisions. This is unfair. But it’s how the world works. If there were a way, if the mother wanted an abortion and the father wanted the baby, to transfer the fetus outside of the womb somehow without killing it, so that the father could carry the fetus to term and raise it without using the mother’s body to do so, I’m pretty sure I’d support that and give more credence to the ideas your raising. But that’s a science fiction scenario, not reality, and in reality, we have a right to decide whether we want to be pregnant or not, regardless of whether the man who impregnated us wants to have a child.

  58. Procne

    To quote you quoting Savage:

    ““unless she sincerely believes—or even legitimately suspects—that the guy is gonna bully, badger, and/or do violence to her in an attempt to prevent her from choosing abortion”.”

    emphasis mine

    If you actually feel the need to add those qualifiers in there, I strongly suspect that you and I have very different views on what would constitute sincere beliefs and legitimate suspicions. Which is why I think the pregnant woman, and not you or Dan Savage, is the one who should be deciding if she needs to have sincere beliefs and legitimate suspicions…or can just decided not to tell him for the hell of it. Not just in terms of the legalities, but morally as well.

    Or, you know, what Kathleen said. :p

    And maybe it’s just that particular quote, but…is it just me or is Savage very focused on whether or not the guy in question is going to do harm, and not particularly concerned about if the guy’s reaction might benefit the pregnant woman?

    Because part of what’s annoying me and pushing me to be more “screw the men” – as George would say – than normal: this low bar Savage has set where the guy just needs to do no more than not be an extreme asshole and the pregnant woman only has the right to be concerned about blowback if it’s certain and deliberate on the part of the guy. Most of all, she certainly doesn’t have the right to be focused at all on her own overall well-being.

    Also, Bridget? THANK YOU! I have never been pregnant but I’ve been around several co-workers as they went through the first 8 months or so and ZOMG is it physically demanding and hella emotional and financial strain.

    And on a related note, I get why we say the fetus is inside and not attached, but technically the latter is more accurate in terms of the relationship and bodily autonomy issues and it really bugs me that we so often seem to talk about fetuses as if they are watermelon seeds that magically grow inside wombs. It seems that whenever the issue of father’s rights comes up, the normally violent language surrounding abortion gives way to this placid description whose goal is the complete disappearance of the work of pregnancy. As if abortion was a matter of reaching in and taking it out, and then the heartless mother leaving it to die in the cold, what with us living in these primitive times without artificial wombs (which are clearly just around the corner, judging by how often they are mentioned in such debates).

  59. Hi ch
    thank for your polite and insightful response honestly I was dreading a more hostile response due to my less than perfect understanding of feminism, however I feel my point remains valid in that I would never argue that a woman shouldnt have control over what happens to her (but I would question how far that should go if she is using her autonomy to completely ignore rights of the person whose genetics she is using by forcing him to be a father).

    My point was should she be allowed to grow a child inside her against the will of the other person whose genetic material she is using (stealing really if its against the other persons will)? which I suppose you could also consider a copyright issue really and how do you think the rights of both parties should be protected? like I said previously the only fair solution to me seems to be manditory abortion if both people dont consent to becoming a parent.

    Kind off topic but dont get me started the presumed consent both parents assume for the child when they decide to have children, if I had know what this planet and what alot of the people on it are like beforehand I would of had a seriously difficult time deciding if I even wanted to be born, but thats kind of unrealistic considering our species would die out if we started taking that into consideration. My last point does tie into my arguement however if you consider I would never wish to inflict this world on some poor unsuspecting infant, if a woman tried to make me father a child in this world and I couldnt do anything about because its her body I dont know what I would do. I would feel so guilty and would have absolutely no say in the matter.

    There needs to be a middle ground protecting both men and womens reproductive rights instead of just protecting womens reproductive rights which is what I feel feminism mostly focuses on (Understandably considering men have not suffered the level of oppression that women have).

  60. @George, 64:

    My point was should she be allowed to grow a child inside her against the will of the other person whose genetic material she is using (stealing really if its against the other persons will)?

    If she broke into a sperm bank and made an involuntary withdrawal, then sure. But otherwise, that material was a gift.
    Delivery? Yep.
    Donative intent? Yep.
    Acceptance? Yep.

    Also, this is why it’s not a copyright issue. ‘Cause really? I mean, really?

    like I said previously the only fair solution to me seems to be manditory abortion if both people dont consent to becoming a parent.

    Abortion is an invasive medical procedure. You’re arguing that someone should be subjected to an invasive medical procedure, with its attendant risks, against their will, on someone else’s say so?

    Should women be able to unilaterally require guys to get vasectomies? Like, start dating a woman, she doesn’t consent to becoming a parent, so she can require him to have a mandatory vasectomy? You see how this concept quickly becomes unworkable?

  61. George,
    The problem with your mandatory abortion suggestion is that it would also violate the woman’s bodily autonomy. It can be physically painful and invasive, and some women consider it to be emotionally painful as well, especially when you consider the stigma against abortion that many cultures still have.

  62. “like I said previously the only fair solution to me seems to be manditory abortion if both people dont consent to becoming a parent.”

    Well, tracking the woman down, arresting her, transporting her to a clinic, and having a doctor perform an invasive medical procedure on her against her will seems totally super-fair to me. It’s not like women are people whose pain, suffering, or bodily autonomy matters or anything.

  63. Dan i think you misunderstand me i ment more in the way of accidental pregnancy which considering next to no contraceptives are 100% effective accidents do happen as i have seen myself, also i dont think its unreasonable to say i should have complete control of what is done with my genetics.
    Bridget I see that violating a persons autonomy to protect that of anothers is far from ideal which is why i asked if anyone could see a better alternative that helps both parties rather than screwing one person over in favour of the other.
    Again im sorry if my ideas are offensive just trying to gain a better understanding.

  64. Sympathetic to his position? What? Should? You have to tell your impregnator that you’re pregnant, not doing so is wrong. Dan is right and you are wrong. If you’re afraid to tell the dude that just impregnated you that you’re pregnant, maybe you shouldn’t be with him. If the dude acts like an asshole, that’s a good sign you’re with the wrong dude. This position is insulting to men and women.

    In fact, I’ll go you one better. Every relationship you enter into should have a conversation about pregnancy. That’s a logical outcome of any and all sexual male/female relationships and should be discussed.

  65. Anyway i sense an imminent pile on so i gonna shut up before people start ripping me to shreds. ch, Dan and bridget thanks for being civil, your insights have helped clarify the issue to a degree.

  66. Dan i think you misunderstand me i ment more in the way of accidental pregnancy which considering next to no contraceptives are 100% effective accidents do happen as i have seen myself,

    No, I understood you. It’s also irrelevant to my point: what right do you have to subject someone else to an invasive medical procedure, against their will? That there’s an accidental pregnancy involved doesn’t suddenly give you a Medical Proxy over another person. That’s why it’s similar to an involuntary vasectomy.

    … unless you think it’s different because there’s a pregnancy. As in, guys can’t get pregnant, so it would be unfair to force a guy to undergo a medical procedure; but women can get pregnant, so it’s perfectly fair to force them to undergo a medical procedure?
    If so, then say that, and we’ll shred that point separately.

    also i dont think its unreasonable to say i should have complete control of what is done with my genetics.

    Why? You no longer have possession of them. Do you think you should have an eternal right to anything that comes off your body? Should you be able to sue your barber for destruction of your hair? What about all the skin cells that litter the ground behind you?
    Furthermore, unlike skin cells, you intentionally gave away this particular wad of genetic material. Should you have an eternal right to repossess or revoke anything you’ve given away?

  67. I think the problem is that you’re thinking of this as two people with an equal interest in deciding what to do with the embryo. If it was you vs. the mother and the embryo was sitting in a test tube, your interests would be pretty equal. But when the embryo is *inside a woman*, she has an additional interest in the issue that you don’t have. Because she is being physically violated in a real (and painful, and sometimes dangerous) way if the father gets to impose his views on her.

    The question is what is less harmful to someone’s autonomy: (1) having a child with your genetic material that you didn’t want be born, or (2) being forcibly held down and having a vacuum shoved inside your body to pull a foetus out of you, which is generally a very painful process and which carries health risks (overblown as they are by pro-lifers). Or even in the reverse, which is a greater violation of autonomy: (1) having an embryo which includes your genetic material destroyed, or (2) being forced to remain pregnant for nine months, which as others have pointed out includes serious physical, emotional, and financial consequences.

    That’s why we say it needs to be the woman’s choice.

  68. Sorry, that hypothetical was incomplete. This is what I meant:

    (1) having a child with your genetic material that you didn’t want be born, or (2) having an foetus you wanted to become a child be aborted AND being forcibly held down and having a vacuum shoved inside your body to pull a foetus out of you, which is generally a very painful process and which carries health risks (overblown as they are by pro-lifers).

    And in the reverse: (1) having an embryo which includes your genetic material destroyed, or (2) having a child with your genetic material you didn’t want to be born AND being forced to remain pregnant for nine months, which as others have pointed out includes serious physical, emotional, and financial consequences.

  69. “Should you have an eternal right to repossess or revoke anything you’ve given away?”

    I’m looking forward to the explanation for how mandatory stomach-pumping is the only fair option if a woman refuses to vomit voluntarily in order to return semen ingested after consensual unprotected oral sex.

  70. To be fair, there’s a significant difference between “I want to have total control over every skin cell I’ve ever left anywhere” and “I want the ability to decide whether I become a parent or not”. There are obvious problems with George’s argument, but I don’t think the underlying concern is unreasonable.

  71. And it’s not like men have no way to prevent unwanted fatherhood. If you’re so concerned, get a vasectomy. You can even have it reversed if you change your mind.

  72. Once the fetus is actually inside the woman’s own body, however? Then yeah, it’s her call.

  73. Sure, Esti, but it points out a bit of hyperbole in his question… It’s not “genetic material” that he’s concerned about, but just a subset. And specifically, just the subset that happens to be merged with someone else’s genetic material.

  74. George

    “i dont think its unreasonable to say i should have complete control of what is done with my genetics.”

    You did have control, you chose to have sex, and deposit that semen somewhere off of your body, outside of your direct sphere of control. And the fact is, life isn’t fair, pregnancy isn’t fair, but it really, REALLY isn’t fair to the woman. The vast, vast burden is carried by us, as our bodies, our health and our lives our on the line when each time we are pregnant and each time we give birth, through time immemorial.

    You also have to consider that women and girls have been in between the rock and the hard place every time they face an unwanted pregnancy. They never, EVER have the option to just ignore it and cut and run the way men have been able to in the past, and the way some men continue to behave in the present. I’ve known someone who has literally left the country he was in when he found out he got a woman pregnant (he was an ex-pat in Ireland at the time, so he simply came home). A woman simply can’t flee her own pregnancy nearly as efficiently, she has to either deal with the physical and emotional changes for nine months, or have an abortion. The fact of the matter is women get the short end of the stick in this. We really, really do. So I feel little guilt in telling you that you are just going to have to suck it up.

  75. “i sense an imminent pile on so i gonna shut up before people start ripping me to shreds”

    Translation: I just proposed that the only fair thing if a dude decides, after impregnating a woman, that he doesn’t want to be a father is to *force* the woman to undergo *surgery* she may not want because I’m a boy and women should just do whatever’s most convenient to me. But because some people object to that, I’m going to cry victimization and run away – even though there were no person attacks, because women disagreeing with me is exactly the same as a personal attack and I don’t have to listen to them anyway.

  76. This argument is a red herring, however. The majority of people raising this line of argument are not concerned about “spreading of their genetic material,” so much as they’re concerned about paying child support for a kid they didn’t want. This is why the MRAs usually suggest a right to “male abortion” that comprises voluntary waiver of parental or visitation rights in exchange for indemnification of support obligations.

    ‘Course, that misses a crucial point. You can’t waive support obligations, unless you’re the kid or its guardian at litem. They’re not yours to waive, otherwise.

  77. I should add that that makes child support obligations entirely unwaiveable. The kid could only waive them after they’re 18, at which point, they tend to sunset anyway (college payment requirements aside). Prior to 18, a guardian would be in breach of it’s fiduciary duty to the kid to waive support obligations, and a court would accordingly not uphold the waiver.

  78. Ok this is my last comment then dan ok you make a fair bit of sense especially about accidental pregnancy not giving someone right over someones elses body simply because it affects them, overall i would say i agree. The only point i disagree over ownership of sperm, skin cells and hair are not comparable to sperm in any way sperm has the capability to create life possibly against the owners will, it isnt open for anyone to claim simply because its no longer inside the owners body.
    Esti i see you overall point and agree (manditory abortion extreme i know my apologies). I feel that regardless ultimately of however its enforced there needs to be a more mutual way of deciding to bring a child into the world rather than just giving the woman final say otherwise whats the point in a guy even deciding if he wants children one mistake and hes screwed, his life completely derailed in a direction what could very well make him miserable.
    Also the one or two people who felt it necessary to ridicule me why do that to someone who expresses a genuine desire to understand and be educated which i feel i have been to a degree because seriously ridicule isnt a great way of endearing people to a seriously needed movement.
    thanks to ch, dan, esti and shfree you where all very helpful

  79. “There are obvious problems with George’s argument, but I don’t think the underlying concern is unreasonable.”

    There does come a point at which one’s demands do become unreasonable, though.

    If I were to demand that my partners get a vasectomy because I don’t want to conceive and the pill is only 98% effective, I think most people would point out that a) I’m putting unreasonable demands on my partners and b) that pretty much no instance of heterosex is 100% risk-of-conception-free, even if they go and get that vasectomy. It comes with the territory.

    How you, personally, deal with the facts on the ground is up to you, but stomping your feet and demanding a 100% money-back guarantee that you can fuck all you want and not wind up a parent when you don’t want to be? Shit happens, and nobody’s currently that special a snowflake that it will never, ever happen to them.

    It sucks that men don’t have more options in the way of contraception, but condoms? Still pretty damn reliable when used consistently and correctly. If the 3% chance that you’ll impregnate someone is too much for you, you can exercise your personal autonomy and only have sex with women who are using another contraception method as well, who have already resolved to abort if they become pregnant, and have the means to do so.

    If the, what, 0.005% chance that both forms of contraception fail at once, and she conceives, and the zygote implants, and she doesn’t miscarry in the first month, and she changes her mind/can’t obtain an abortion is still too much for a man to be comfortable with, then he can either abstain completely or limit his acceptable range of sexual activity to oral and manual. Which is really restricted, yes, but we’re talking about a pretty radical aversion to risk.

    The guy who says “That’s too much, I’m exercising my option to not have sex at all” is not being a douchebag. The guy who says “That’s too much, I’m exercising my option to not have sex with women who have x attributes and never have sex without a condom” is also not being a douchebag. The guy who says “That’s too much, I want the right to have sex completely risk-free by acquiring the ability to force a surgical procedure on my partner if she should become pregnant and refuse to abort voluntarily”? Kind of not like the others. Also? Raging douchebag.

  80. I would direct George to cat’s really relevant comment #34 – in situations of surrogacy the surrogate, as preganant person, has the right to decide to continue or terminate the pregnancy. Neither the male who contributed genetic material nor the female who contributed genetic material has a right to force the pregnant person to carry to term or to abort. There are really three roles in pregnancy – genetic contributor 1, genetic contributor 2, and gestator. In the vast majority of cases, the woman is both a genetic contributor and gestator, but not always. And only the gestator gets to decide about abortion.

    I think that one problem MRAs and MRA sympatic people have with American law is that it has moved completely 100% away from visiting the “sins” of the parent upon the child. And there are situations in which most of us feel instinctively that a parent’s “sins” should “count” against him or her with respect to custody/visitation/child support issues. That it’s not “fair” for the “bad” parent not to be punished by either not getting support or not getting to have X relationship/visitation with the child. But this is a failure to step out of one’s own hurt and realize that it is not, in fact, the “bad” parent who suffers if a more intuitively “fair” decision is reached, but the child. And US law has made a conscious decision over the last 30 or 40 years to put the child first. It is certainly possible to argue with that philosophical decision, but not all that many of those who complain about family court decisions are willing to do so.

  81. “otherwise whats the point in a guy even deciding if he wants children one mistake and hes screwed, his life completely derailed in a direction what could very well make him miserable.”

    A) That is one hell of a false dichotomy you’re rocking, there.

    B) I assure you, this is not some super-special and unique pain that only men can ever know. Abortion access in the US is a sick joke and getting sicker by the day, and even countries that are really good by comparison have restrictions and unintentional access barriers that can conspire to fuck over certain subsets of women who want abortions but can’t wind up getting them. The appropriate response is not for women to throw up their hands and say “Why should I bother doing any of the shit that is in my power when one mistake can doom me forever? /nihilism” any more than it is for men to say “If I can’t have exactly what I want when I want it, I should just take no responsibility at all /pout.”

  82. @ preying mantis

    Oh, *obviously* the demands are unreasonable. My first two comments in response to George were attempts to point that out, and as I said upthread when this was still about Dan Savage’s column, I think that Dan is wrong to suggest that men be told about impending abortions so that they can try to change the woman’s mind.

    My point with that last comment was more that there are so many legitimate criticisms to be made of George’s proposed methods that it’s not really necessary to pretend that the underlying concern is entirely unreasonable. Lots of people have a strong aversion to becomming parents, at a particular time (or with a particular person) or in general. Condoms do fail, and sometimes the pill does too (particularly when not used correctly, or when combined with other medications, or when occasionally forgotten). Some women, like myself, can’t use hormonal BC at all, which means both parties — the man and the woman — are relying on condoms alone if they don’t want to deal with a pregnancy. Vasectomies also fail sometimes, and aren’t appropriate for everyone (in addition to being too expensive for many people), and reversal doesn’t always work if you think you might want kids later. And while it’s technically correct that men can just not have sex if they don’t want to risk dealing with a pregnancy, we don’t accept that argument from pro-lifers who suggest abstinence is an alternative to abortion and I’m not sure that it’s much more legitimate here.

    NONE of that means that men should get to dictate to women — through coercive means or otherwise — whether they abort an unplanned pregnancy. All I’m saying is that men do have legitimate concerns about unintentionally becomming parents. There may not be a whole lot we can do about it, because all of the alternatives (forced abortions, cutting off support for the child, etc.) are worse. But the concern is there, and I think we are more likely to make allies by acknowledging it than by ridiculing it.

  83. “And while it’s technically correct that men can just not have sex if they don’t want to risk dealing with a pregnancy, we don’t accept that argument from pro-lifers who suggest abstinence is an alternative to abortion and I’m not sure that it’s much more legitimate here.”

    Can we please not pretend the argument is the same? Pretty please? Abortion is an actual thing. Anti-choicers’ “just keep your legs closed” argument is pretty much “Let’s all pretend abortion doesn’t exist because religion.” If we wanted to make an analogous argument to men about not having sex if they don’t want to be dads, we’d have to say “Let’s all pretend condoms and variation in sex partners’ ideology and priorities don’t exist because what the fuck ever.”

    The point at which I’m saying “Well, you do have the option to not have sex” is the point at which we’ve blown past “Use condoms” and “Only have sex with women who openly state that they don’t want to be parents and will have an abortion” and “Only have sex when you’re sure abortion is available” being acceptable risk-reducers.

    I mean, what would you say to a woman who was all “Having a child would be unacceptable to me and I’m definitely not having an abortion if I become pregnant” and who also felt that the failure rate of condoms and the pill/whatever alternate contraception was acceptable to her was too high? Because I’d have to point out that not having sex until something in that equation changes may be the best answer for her, personally.

    It’s not a situation most hetero people face due to a lowered, managed risk of pregnancy being an acceptable one, for them, in exchange for sexual pleasure. Most of us have made our peace with the risk presented by our acceptable range of sexual activity, be it disease transmission or pregnancy. Pointing out that abstinence/non-procreative activity only is always an option for the super-risk-averse shouldn’t be interpreted as “lol keep it in your pants” so much as “We can’t wave a magic wand and make sex as risk-free as you seem to require.”

  84. There’s a lot of hypothesizing going on here. Instead of “If this, then that” I think it is more important to say that women who have abortions are the experts on their own lives. We need to be consistent about trusting women to make the decisions that need to be made within their unique circumstances, because if we don’t we’re actually no better than the antis.

    If it’s comforting, most women do tell their partners. But for those that don’t, including myself when I had my abortion, we have real, rational reasons for it even when abuse or fear is not involved. The last thing I really need is Dan Rape-Victims-Are-Selfish Savage or anyone else waxing poetical about what women like me should or shouldn’t have done while knowing absolutely nothing about us (except maybe that our vaginas are gross.)

    Just my two cents.

  85. Valerie: This is something I’ve always wondered about–would it be possible (in a legal context) for a man and a woman to come to an agreement about this such that the woman is not on the hook for child support? I realize it might set a dangerous precedent since a man doesn’t (shouldn’t) really get a say in whether or not a woman keeps a child and ends up being responsible for it financially, if not emotionally. But let’s say I get pregnant, plan to abort, and then the guy and I come to an agreement early on in the pregnancy that I will carry the child to term and then sever all ties (including financial obligations) once the child is born. Stigma and public shaming aside, is there any legal system in the world that would allow for this kind of agreement?

    (I’m asking as a genuine question based on sheer curiosity, and am in no way intending to be facetious or rhetorical.)

    I work for a program that’s tangentially related to child support and in Texas, at least, a man and a woman can set their child support to $0, meaning that a case has been opened, and neither party will be held accountable for any kind of back pay. The two parties have agreed to not pay each other anything.

    And even if a father does not establish paternity for a child, when a child support case is opened, that alleged father will be notified and summoned for a DNA test. If he does not respond or appear in court, the court counts it as an admission of guilt and names him as the legal father. Then he will be held accountable for child support payments.

  86. Regarding telling about pregnancy: I disagree with Jill.

    Knowing that you are pregnant or knowing that you have impregnated someone else is a right, not a privilege.

    That right should be waived only if there is grounds, for instance as Savage argues, if the man is abusive or is likely to be abusive regarding the pregnancy.

    I don’t agree with Jill that the right should be waived if the woman “feels like it”, for no real reason.

    About men’s right to parenthood:

    No feminist agrees that a woman’s consent to sex means she should be held responsible for parenthood.

    Likewise, no MRA agrees that a man’s consent to sex means he should be held responsible for parenthood.

    Her body, her choice to be a parent or not.

    His body, his choice to be a parent or not.

    1. Her body, her choice to be a parent or not.

      His body, his choice to be a parent or not.

      That’s not how it works, though. It’s not your “choice” to be a parent or not; it’s your choice to not be legally obligated to carry a pregnancy, or have some other thing happen to your body. Once the child is out of your body, you do have obligations.

  87. what if i’m a mermaid said “There’s a lot of hypothesizing going on here.”

    I giggled.

  88. Kat: I work for a program that’s tangentially related to child support and in Texas, at least, a man and a woman can set their child support to $0, meaning that a case has been opened, and neither party will be held accountable for any kind of back pay.The two parties have agreed to not pay each other anything.

    Respectfully, I’m not sure that’s correct. I haven’t checked the law in Texas, but I did have a family law final last week, and if there was any state that considered the child’s right to support as being negotiable between the parents, that would have been a major issue to be discussed. As far as I know, child support is never negotiable between the parties, because it’s not a right of either party: prenuptials, postnuptials, contracts, separation agreements, divorce settlements, etc. are all void with regard to anything mentioning the child – support, custody, and visitation.

    What program do you work for?

  89. Dan: Respectfully, I’m not sure that’s correct.I haven’t checked the law in Texas, but I did have a family law final last week, and if there was any state that considered the child’s right to support as being negotiable between the parents, that would have been a major issue to be discussed.As far as I know, child support is never negotiable between the parties, because it’s not a right of either party: prenuptials, postnuptials, contracts, separation agreements, divorce settlements, etc. are all void with regard to anything mentioning the child – support, custody, and visitation.

    What program do you work for?

    Parents can almost always negotiate child support. Such payments are subject to judical review and modification, but typically, IME, in the rare case where parents agree on child support the courts thank their lucky stars and move on.

  90. Abortion is an alternative to Pregnancy.
    Adoption is an alternative to Parenting.

    Agreed? Good. So, since pregnancy is pretty damn exclusively the uterus-bearer’s domain, the decision to end or continue said pregnancy is her* business and hers alone. End of story.

    *Or his or hirs or zirs, depending on the uterus-bearer’s preferred pronouns!

  91. shfree: That’s really unusual, because he shouldn’t have to terminate his parental rights simply because the baby’s mother did, both parents need to sign off on the adoption if both of them are known.

  92. “If it’s comforting, most women do tell their partners. But for those that don’t, including myself when I had my abortion, we have real, rational reasons for it even when abuse or fear is not involved.”

    Well, yes, and thank you for reminding us of that and also – that’s why discussions like this remind me so strongly of “advice” to women regarding not getting raped. It’s not that women taking risk assessments is a bad thing, it’s that 1) you really don’t need to remind women that they are at risk of being assaulted, 2) a lot of “advice” is actually not very good risk assessment, and 3) what women tend to actually need to be reminded of is the opposite of most “advice” – that risk assessment includes weighing lost opportunities, not just dangers.

    It’s not like women, in general, are conditioned to not think about the feelings of their intimate partners. The exact opposite, in fact. So why so many damn people think women need to be reminded when it comes to having abortions, I do not know.

    Well, actually, I do. and that’s rather the point. And why Savage’s clear lack of concern for the pregnant women’s emotional and mental well-being and her partner’s responsibility to help her – and not just refrain from actively hindering her – pisses me the hell off. When it comes to these kinds of situations, women are not the ones that tend to need to be reminded that this is not all about them. As Savages advice and certain comments in this thread plainly illustrate.

  93. shfree: That’s really unusual, because he shouldn’t have to terminate his parental rights simply because the baby’s mother did, both parents need to sign off on the adoption if both of them are known.

    It’s not all that unusual. In the states where I have lived (MO and TN), if the woman is unmarried, then she decides whether and who gets placed in the father slot on the birth certificate (she can say unknown, if she likes). If she doesn’t put anyone there, then she can adopt away. The only way that a guy who thinks he’s the father can do anything about it, is have a hearing and petition for a court order for a paternity test. That’s not cheap, and not really accessible to many men.

  94. Kristen J.: Parents can almost always negotiate child support.Such payments are subject to judical review and modification, but typically, IME, in the rare case where parents agree on child support the courts thank their lucky stars and move on.

    No, I don’t think that’s correct. It is true with regard to visitation agreements, and even custody arrangements (e.g. division of time, who gets weekends, where transfers occur, etc.), but not support. Courts apply the statutory guidelines set by their state legislature, or else they run afoul of federal law under the 1974 Social Services Amendments. Regardless of what the parents agree on – unless it exceeds the guideline amounts – courts will start from scratch, because it’s not up to the parents.

  95. Dan: No, I don’t think that’s correct. It is true with regard to visitation agreements, and even custody arrangements (e.g. division of time, who gets weekends, where transfers occur, etc.), but not support.

    I’ve practiced in this area. It is in fact true.

  96. Crap, that was me, not M. **glares at M for using her computer**

    In any event, see e.g., DC Code SS16.916.01(o)(1)

  97. I can’t speak for the laws in Texas or whereever you’re talking about, but Kristen J.’s experience is consistent with what I found with my divorce. we have 50/50 access, and no structured support payments, we just split expenses as they come.. as long as we were able to explain to the judge why we felt this arrangement benefitted the children (hi, no fighting about money!) they were okay with letting us run with it.

    It would stand to reason that a lot of judges would not want to create issues between parents that seem to be working stuff out for themselves.

  98. Thanks, Kristen… I’m not sure it’s different from what I said, since the statute’s still requiring application of the guidelines or a justification for departing from them, and any agreement from the parents is not upheld, but at best merged. But I will defer here, and specify that at least the earlier statement – that the parents could agree to $0 in support – was incorrect.

  99. Dan:
    Thanks, Kristen… I’m not sure it’s different from what I said, since the statute’s still requiring application of the guidelines or a justification for departing from them, and any agreement from the parents is not upheld, but at best merged.But I will defer here, and specify that at least the earlier statement – that the parents could agree to $0 in support – was incorrect.

    They can agree to zero, subject to a judicial determination that the amount is fair and just.

  100. They can agree to zero, subject to a judicial determination that the amount is fair and just.

    When would zero support ever be fair? Independently wealthy minor?

  101. “That right should be waived only if there is grounds, for instance as Savage argues, if the man is abusive or is likely to be abusive regarding the pregnancy.”

    Cuz all women are psychics who know exactly how a man will respond.

    And when he doesn’t respond that way, bitch shoulda known better.

    And, of course, having to pay child support is EXACTLY like going through pregnancy, birth and raising the child.

    Cuz a man’s money < a woman's body.

  102. Billionaire custodial parent, impoverished non-custodial parent?

    Kid still has a right to support from billionaire custodial parent.

    … which I think highlights a distinction in language here that may need to be clarified. The custodial parent also owes support to the child. In some jurisdictions, it’s even calculated as a total amount of support owed to the child from both parents, then divided by the parents proportional incomes.

  103. Dan: Kid still has a right to support from billionaire custodial parent.

    … which I think highlights a distinction in language here that may need to be clarified. The custodial parent also owes support to the child. In some jurisdictions, it’s even calculated as a total amount of support owed to the child from both parents, then divided by the parents proportional incomes.

    I’ve been reading all the references in this thread to support being negotiated between the parents as referring to the custodial parent’s right to negotiate a lower level of support than that provided for in statutory algorithms.

    Of course a custodial parent doesn’t have the right to stop feeding a child, or stop buying a child clothes. I’m pretty sure nobody was suggesting otherwise. What was under discussion was whether the parents could arrive at a support agreement in which the non-custodial parent was not obligated to meet statutory guidelines for support — or indeed on in which the non-custodial parent had no financial obligations at all. You suggested that such an agreement would not under any circumstances be approved by the courts. Others have disagreed.

  104. So if the billionaire parent has primary custody, and the impoverished parent has secondary custody so that the impoverished parent would owe the billionaire parent (as primary custodian of the child) child support….

    which is better for the interests of the child:

    1. mandate the impoverished parent pay child support, knowing that if this does not happen, the impoverished parent could go to jail – making a parent/child relationship difficult
    -or-
    2. not mandating that the impoverished parent pay child support, therefore maintaining that an inability to pay child support would not be something leading to the imprisonment of said parent, allowing the impoverished parent to at least have the physical freedom/ability to have a chance to have a relationship with the child if they want to?

    Of course this presupposes that the child is fed, housed, and all the other things that money does that the child cannot do for him/herself WHETHER OR NOT the impoverished parent pays any child support?

  105. Some may take into account support that is decidedly NOT monetary (for example, time.. although I am by rights the custodial parent, my kids spend a lot of non-school time with their dad, as he does not work… ) In our situation, the food eaten, clothes provided, and the daycare costs I’m not incurring when they are in his care (but dear God, don’t ever let anyone suggest he’s BABYSITTING his own kids LOL – more than one person has made THAT mistake) outweigh any monetary support I’d be given based on income tables, given his sketchy work history.

    In such a situation we were able to convince a judge that zero support was fair.

  106. re:my earlier comment:

    Also recognizing that presently in the US, persons of color are imprisoned at a higher rate, persons of color give birth outside of marriage at a higher rate, persons of color are unemployed at a higher rate, persons of color are in poverty at a higher rate….and “persons of color” could probably be substituted with persons with disabilities, persons who are not cisgendered, persons who are poor, persons who lack educational opportunities, persons who are not ‘conventionally attractive,’ etc. Yay intersectionality.

  107. Dan,

    FWIW: My experience (which is admittedly not huge and is limited to MA) is that the realities of family law are very far removed from the theory of law school.

    Yes, in theory, a judge must find that any child support agreement is fair and in the best interest of the child, and yes, in theory, child support is something the child is owed not something received by the custodial parent, and yes, in theory, there are few circumstances where it seems fair or in the child’s best interest that a non-custodial parent provide no child support.

    All that being said, in reality, my experience is that most judges who hear family law cases are so thrilled to see parents agree on anything that they will sign off on it. Probate judges spend most of their day listening to the most bitter and acrimonious cases in the justice system and have to spend far too much time trying to get parents to try to cooperate in the care of children, so when they hear that the parents have agreed to something they are very likely to sign off on it with minimal scrutiny. Plus, as an added bonus, when both parties agree to something neither is likely to appeal if the judge signs off on it, so the danger of being overturned on appeal is reduced too.

    The end result is that if the parents agree (especially if both are represented by lawyers) a judge is very likely to find that what the parents agreed to is just.

  108. Angus Johnston: What was under discussion was whether the parents could arrive at a support agreement in which the non-custodial parent was not obligated to meet statutory guidelines for support — or indeed on in which the non-custodial parent had no financial obligations at all. You suggested that such an agreement would not under any circumstances be approved by the courts. Others have disagreed.

    Yeah, hence my point above – I was interpreting the original post differently as being able to waive the rights of the child by agreement of the parents. Such an agreement will not, under any circumstances, be approved by the courts. If, for example, the custodial parent is unable to meet the support requirements of the kid and the non-custodial parent can chip in, the court won’t say “gosh, we’d like to award more, but you’ve got this here agreement.”

  109. Dan: I was interpreting the original post differently as being able to waive the rights of the child by agreement of the parents. Such an agreement will not, under any circumstances, be approved by the courts. If, for example, the custodial parent is unable to meet the support requirements of the kid and the non-custodial parent can chip in, the court won’t say “gosh, we’d like to award more, but you’ve got this here agreement.”

    Okay. But what you’re arguing now is pretty much what other folks in the thread have been arguing all along, and what you were until recently arguing against.

    “As far as I know, child support is never negotiable between the parties” was your original position in this discussion. You later expanded this to “Regardless of what the parents agree on – unless it exceeds the guideline amounts – courts will start from scratch, because it’s not up to the parents.”

    Neither of these statements are accurate.

  110. “Cuz all women are psychics who know exactly how a man will respond.

    And when he doesn’t respond that way, bitch shoulda known better.”

    People have a right to know if they have contributed to the conception of a fetus. That right should only be waived with good reason.

    You don’t actually have an argument here, you just have sarcasm. Sorry, that’s not actually saying anything. Please, I know it’s popular to use sarcasm when your argument is weak and you have no points, but let’s try to be smarter than that here.

    “That’s not how it works, though. It’s not your “choice” to be a parent or not; it’s your choice to not be legally obligated to carry a pregnancy, or have some other thing happen to your body. Once the child is out of your body, you do have obligations.”

    The problem here is that you are using biological factors to justify unequal rights.

    Women are the only ones that can get pregnant, so it is their choice to birth or abort a resulting fetus. And abortion is acceptable because a woman’s consent to sex is not the same as consent to birthing a child. And a woman’s choice to birthing a child is not necessarily the same as choosing responsibility for the child. (adoption, abandonment).

    Yet, you argue that if a man consents to sex and it results in conception and birth (neither of which he chose or desired), he should be responsible for said child.

    How do you justify these two arguments?

  111. jennygadget

    You’re right, I don’t know what savage meant by ‘legitimately suspects’. What I meant, and what I continue to mean, is any kind of suspicion at all (since, in my experience, if a woman suspects a man might cause her some sort of physical or emotional distress, she probably has a reason and is likely right). As far as I see it, any suspicions at all that this could be harmless, and the obligation is entirely removed.

    But no, I don’t think there necessarily has to be proof that telling him will cause a benefit. I think she just has to be confident that it won’t cause harm. It’s the ‘my rights end where yours begin argument’. The man has the right to know if he is potentially about to father a child. The woman has the right to complete bodily autonomy, and to physical and emotional well-being. Therefore if there is no risk that he will in any way harm her, he has the right to be told.

    I hope that clarifies my position a little.

  112. Angus Johnston: Neither of these statements are accurate.

    Sorry, I have to disagree. Given the context my interpretation above, which I stated was apparently different than others, those statements are entirely accurate.

    If you’re going to disregard me saying “hey, I realize we’re talking about different things here, this is what I thought we were discussing,” just so that you can continue claiming “in the context of [something entirely different than you were talking about], your statement is incorrect,” then feel free, though I don’t see the point in beating a dead horse.
    But if you’re going to argue they’re incorrect in view of what I was saying? No.

  113. Anna: It’s not all that unusual. In the states where I have lived (MO and TN), if the woman is unmarried, then she decides whether and who gets placed in the father slot on the birth certificate (she can say unknown, if she likes). If she doesn’t put anyone there, then she can adopt away. The only way that a guy who thinks he’s the father can do anything about it, is have a hearing and petition for acourt order for a paternity test. That’s not cheap, and not really accessible to many men.

    I was my experience understanding that there is a fair amount of pressure for women to put the father’s name on the birth certificate, simply because of the high rate of single mothers requiring state assistance. If there is a father on the birth certificate, the state can run after him to ding him for support.

  114. For those who are concerned about their comments: the spam queue appears to be hyperactive at the moment. Working on tidying it all up.

  115. “Well, sucks to be him, but it is what it is, and what it is is not his body, thus not his choice.”

    Yeah, well – when men can get pregnant, they can decide whether to continue the pregnancy. Pregnancy is not a 50/50 situation because it is inherently unequal. Facts: deal with them.

  116. tinfoil hattie:
    “Well, sucks to be him, but it is what it is, and what it is is not his body, thus not his choice.”

    Yeah, well – when men can get pregnant, they can decide whether to continue the pregnancy.Pregnancy is not a 50/50 situation because it is inherently unequal.Facts: deal with them.

    Read further in my comment and you’ll see that’s what I was basically getting at.

  117. I think what really got my hackles up in Dan’s post was “…but the fetus, if not the uterus, is his too.” I love his work and have a huge amount of respect for this guy, and I don’t always see things his way. The guy contributes only one cell to that fetus; it isn’t even half his after the first day. And the implication that he has some claim to her uterus is icky, icky patriarchy through and through. I bet Dan just slipped up and had a male privilege moment; As in ‘if you don’t look where your going, you might step in something nasty.’ But, I think he should chew on the question of why he wrote that in the first place, and then how it ever made it to publication.

    Everybody has secrets, it’s her body, her life, her choice, period. It isn’t fair to her that the burden of making it fair for him falls squarely on her shoulders. Life isn’t fair, guys need to get comfortable with drawing the short straw. If she thinks he’ll take it badly, he probably will, and, Dan, she knows him better than you do. If she’s going to tell him, she shouldn’t present it as though it’s up for debate if it isn’t. Not even to be polite. That will be bad.

    I’ve nothing more of value to add, that hasn’t already been said.

    Until such time, take care.

  118. Just want to send up a gentle reminder that some men can in fact get pregnant. Let’s not unintentionally write them out of the conversation.

  119. This is the Dan immediately above, not the Dan from further above, (who is acting out his male privilege). Who knew Dan was such a common name, Right?

    Moderator, please feel free to change my name in the above post, and delete this one, if you care.

    Until such time,

  120. “Sympathetic to his position? What? Should? You have to tell your impregnator that you’re pregnant, not doing so is wrong. Dan is right and you are wrong. If you’re afraid to tell the dude that just impregnated you that you’re pregnant, maybe you shouldn’t be with him. If the dude acts like an asshole, that’s a good sign you’re with the wrong dude. This position is insulting to men and women.”

    Whoa, paul. I know this is probably a troll and I shouldn’t respond to it, but, BRO, you are making us look bad! The Pauls of the world already don’t get enough respect, dude. Now you gotta talk down to women and victim-blame? And talk in all black-and-white about morality? Pauls should be deep thinkers, man. I’m bringing this up at next week’s meeting. And capitalize the “P”, for God’s sake! Have some self-respect!

  121. You know, in the olden days, dudes could just go sleep with a prostitute and not worry about paying for the kid!

    Yes, let’s go back to those days… [/sarcasm]

  122. Sorry, andrea – I realized after I hit “Submit” that my post might appear to be disagreeing with yours. I was speaking in shortmind – iow, “They will be able to read what was in my mind between these two thoughts.”

  123. Also, for the record, Dude is offensive to a lot of men as chick is to women. Get some class

    1. Also, for the record, Dude is offensive to a lot of men as chick is to women. Get some class

      Haha. Ok. How about if I just call you a douche then?

  124. Also, for the record, Dude is offensive to a lot of men as chick is to women. Get some class

    Yeah, Jill! Just like how “Cracker” is just as offensive as that N word! It’s exactly the same! What do you mean “privileged”?

    *snerk*

  125. tinfoil hattie:
    Sorry, andrea – I realized after I hit “Submit” that my post might appear to be disagreeing with yours.I was speaking in shortmind – iow, “They will be able to read what was in my mind between these two thoughts.”

    Ahh okay.. no worries 🙂

  126. Ok- so if the post is rejected for some reason, but the follow up post by the same poster is not rejected it makes the poster look like he’s lost. Please erase both comments above, if you won’t let the first post through. Thanks.

    DannyBoy:
    This is the Dan immediately above, not the Dan from further above, (who is acting out his male privilege). Who knew Dan was such a common name, Right?

    Moderator, please feel free to change my name in the above post, and delete this one, if you care.

    Until such time,

  127. Ok- so if the post is rejected for some reason, but the follow up post by the same poster is not rejected it makes the poster look like he’s lost. Please erase both comments above, if you won’t let the first post through. Thanks.

    DannyBoy:
    This is the Dan immediately above, not the Dan from further above, (who is acting out his male privilege). Who knew Dan was such a common name, Right?

    Moderator, please feel free to change my name in the above post, and delete this one, if you care.

    Until such time,

  128. GOD Jill, get some class, why don’t you. I mean, you already have a weird, foreign-sounding last name. Who knows, maybe you’re an illegal immigrant or something. You totally can’t hang out at my country club until you stop using the word “dude” and being such a classless skank all the time.

  129. I actually know of someone who in her initial shock of it all, told the fetus father that she was pregnant (they had just broken up at the time). After she had a chance to really think iot over, she knew abortion was right for her because they weren’t together and she didn’t want to have a baby and risk raising it alone. She had an aborton but told him that she miscarried (or that it was ectopic but I think miscarried was what she told him). Fast forward, they get together again and she is scared out of her mind that he will find out she terminated that pregnancy and he actually finds out that she had an abortion and he left her because of it. Not because she terminated but because she didn’t tell him. He counted it as a trust issue. That if she would lie about an abortion, she could lie about anything.

  130. -looks up at Azalea’s post- So you’re saying she was better off without him because he didn’t get It Wasn’t About Him and lived happily ever after. Right? I make the best endings.

  131. Sephone, that sounds exactly like what happened, except that it was she who lived happily ever after. Or, certainly had the chance to be much happier without that douchebag.

    And for the record, I was lost, but now I’m found. Sorry to all for the clutter.

  132. shfree: I was my experience understanding that there is a fair amount of pressure for women to put the father’s name on the birth certificate, simply because of the high rate of single mothers requiring state assistance.If there is a father on the birth certificate, the state can run after him to ding him for support.

    That may often be the case. It probably depends on the state and the hospital/ hospital staff members as well. If the mother tells the hospital social worker that she is planning to give the baby up for adoption, there may be less pressure in this area.
    In one of the cases that I’m familiar with, the mother wasn’t giving her daughter up for adoption, but she was middle class and clearly had supportive parents, so there may have not been much pressure for her to put the father’s name on the certificate (not being there, I wouldn’t know). Her (by then ex) boyfriend got a court order for a paternity test and sued for shared custody.
    It’s kind of an interesting case where different kinds of priviledge can garner the ‘right’ to parent alone.

  133. @Nicole
    I know it’s not an answer for everyone, but I think if you’re in a committed relationship, setting those expectations before it happens could make it easier to tell the guy if it does, because you will hopefully have an idea of how he is going to react.

    YES THIS! Thank you so much, I couldn’t have said it better myself.

    And I think Dan Savage meant well with his post. He’s just not a woman so at the end of the day, whatever he says about abortion is probably going to come out wrong. I think if you trust and care about the person you’re with, you should tell him. If not, you should probably have an abortion and break up with him (or stop fucking him) because he’s not worth your time.

  134. Jill: That’s not how it works, though. It’s not your “choice” to be a parent or not; it’s your choice to not be legally obligated to carry a pregnancy, or have some other thing happen to your body. Once the child is out of your body, you do have obligations.

    There is always adoption for women. A woman can terminate her parental rights at will within a certain time frame and there are evn laws that allow for a woman to legally abandon a small child (usually a newborn) at a firestation or other safe haven. However a man can not unilaterally give a child up for adoption or terminate his parental rights. The father is the only one in the equation who has no say in his legal parental obligation, it’s up to the corts and the child’s mother.

  135. George: Hi first I am not really a feminist im a 19 year old guy and I am by no means a reproductive rights expert and I started reading this site and other feminist sites as a means of educating myself on subjects I was at the time mostly ignorant about. However ive often felt that feminists where often insensitive when its comes to how some of these issues affect men, for instance no human being should have to suffer their autonomy being taken away from them, but if a woman carrys to term a baby against the male parents will isnt she violating his autonomy by taking away his right to decide what is done with his own genetic material and by forcing an obligation on him that he might be unwilling to bear. It seem that most comments on this post are saying screw the men its completely the womans decision, which just doesnt seem feminist or egalitarian at all, yes its the woman body and her life but its also a the mans genetic material and his life and so to me it the only reasonable compromise would be that unless both parents consent to raising a child then it should in fact be mandatory abortion. P>

    Hi George,

    Abortion isn’t some easy peasy procedure for every woman. You can impregnant someone who neither wants to be pregnant nor want sto EVER EVER EVER have an abortion EVER. Trust me when I say, she feels a LOT more loss in bodily autonomy than you will with whatever decision she makes becuase its HER body that will either ahve to endure an UNWANTED pregnancy and all of its pains or an UNWANTED abortion and all of its pain. She will always have to deal with her own feelings about either decision being the lesser of two “evils” for her at the time because she wanted neither one to occur. You can wear a condom with spermicide ( a LOT more effective than a condom without one) and you can also pull out before ejaculating WHILE wearing a condom just to ensure that you keep your geentic material to yourself until you’re actually ready to give it to someone and trust her to use it as you would like her to. I know that isn’t exactly fair but neither is having to decide and bear the brunt of that decision ALONE as to carry a pregnancy to term or have an abortion when you don’t want either one.

  136. Azalea: There is always adoption for women. A woman can terminate her parental rights at will within a certain time frame and there are evn laws that allow for a woman to legally abandon a small child (usually a newborn) at a firestation or other safe haven. However a man can not unilaterally give a child up for adoption or terminate his parental rights. The father is the only one in the equation who has no say in his legal parental obligation, it’s up to the corts and the child’s mother.

    This is not correct, but I’ve done enough lawyering on this thread for one lifetime. If you research adoption/family law you’ll see that “mothers” cannot terminate their support obligations like that.

  137. Jill: No. Abortion is a bodily autonomy issue; child support is an issue of supporting a creature that is unable to support itself.

    Agreed. But if you are THE ONLY person who gets to decide whether that person (I do not like the word creature) gets to come into this world, then you ALONE should be obligated to support it.

  138. Agreed. But if you are THE ONLY person who gets to decide whether that person (I do not like the word creature) gets to come into this world, then you ALONE should be obligated to support it.

    But this is never the case. Men do get to decide, but the point in time when they can and do make that decision is *before* a woman gets pregnant. That is the specific risk that men take on when they engage in penetrative sex with women.

    So many people want to pretend that the level playing field *starts* when the woman becomes pregnant – but it doesn’t. The level playing field, in terms of human reproduction, and because of the unique biology of women, is before penetrative sex. That is when men and women have the same choices; after that, the risk for men is not, and cannot be, the same as that for women.

    If men truly respected the bodily autonomy of women, they would understand this. Instead, men try to place their physical experiences/framework of understanding onto women and then think it’s unfair when biology demands a deeper understanding. Rather than accepting that their control over the situation lies well before they think it should, men engage in social, medical, and legal actions that serve to restrict the control that women have over their own bodies.

  139. Q Grrl: But this is never the case. Men do get to decide, but the point in time when they can and do make that decision is *before* a woman gets pregnant. That is the specific risk that men take on when they engage in penetrative sex with women.

    So many people want to pretend that the level playing field *starts* when the woman becomes pregnant – but it doesn’t. The level playing field, in terms of human reproduction, and because of the unique biology of women, is before penetrative sex.That is when men and women have the same choices; after that, the risk for men is not, and cannot be, the same as that for women.

    If men truly respected the bodily autonomy of women, they would understand this.Instead, men try to place their physical experiences/framework of understanding onto women and then think it’s unfair when biology demands a deeper understanding. Rather than accepting that their control over the situation lies well before they think it should, men engage in social, medical, and legal actions that serve to restrict the control that women have over their own bodies.

    I believe you misunderstand me. I am not against abortion. It takes insurmountable self sacrifice to give birth to a child and a woman alone should make the decision to go through this ordeal. But the issue here is of choice and decision.

    Women are exposed to a higher specific risk because consequences of becoming pregnant mean bodily changes for the woman. But when the woman engages in consensual sex she is willingly taking that risk. I am not saying that the man is not responsible for the pregnancy. He is also willingly exposing himself to that risk. However, things are NOT on a level playing field when the woman does get pregnant.

    Pro-choice dictates that it is the woman’s decision to have the child as it should be. If both the man and woman want the child, there is no issue. If the woman opts for abortion, the man has to accept it and move on. But if the woman wants the child and the man does not and she does not opt to abort, then she alone should be legally and financially responsible for the child. I would not say this if abortion was NOT an option.

    We all make decisions in life based on choices offered to us. Holding other people responsible for them implies that the decision was not ours to begin with.

  140. But if the woman wants the child and the man does not and she does not opt to abort, then she alone should be legally and financially responsible for the child.

    I don’t understand how her desire to keep the child negates his responsibility to financially support the children that he creates. Is he not the father anymore?

  141. I forgot to add the following in my post above. It is imperative that the man is supportive throughout the pregnancy or abortion in all aspects. This is irrespective of whether he wants the child or not.

  142. I don’t understand how her desire to keep the child negates his responsibility to financially support the children that he creates. Is he not the father anymore?

    Because the bitch disobeyed him. That totally justifies deliberately abandoning the child who had nothing to do with any of it.

  143. Q Grrl: I don’t understand how her desire to keep the child negates his responsibility to financially support the children that he creates.Is he not the father anymore?

    No because he did not want the child. Sperm donors help create children. It does not mean they are their fathers.

  144. Aatish: No because he did not want the child. Sperm donors help create children. It does not mean they are their fathers.

    Sperm donors also don’t get to fuck the person with the uterus.
    As was pointed out, if you don’t want to be a parent, and you are contemplating PIV sex, have your contraceptive plan in place, and understand that one of the forseeable risks is an unintended pregnancy.

  145. So he’s signing a contract beforehand stating that his sperm is for sale? Or are you just using that as a cover for a man’s laziness in anticipating child support when he chooses to engage in PIV sex.

    There are thousands of ways to get off — just ask us queers. All very satisfactory. So. When a man decides to engage in PIV sex, he is deciding to take on the risk of child support. No if’s. No and’s. No but’s. That is the reality.

    If he doesn’t want to pay any child support, he should choose to get off in a way that doesn’t deposit sperm in an impregnable manner. This also includes him acknowledging the failure rates for various birth control methods.

  146. IrishUp: Sperm donors also don’t get to fuck the person with the uterus.
    As was pointed out, if you don’t want to be a parent, and you are contemplating PIV sex, have your contraceptive plan in place, and understand that one of the forseeable risks is an unintended pregnancy.

    The person with the uterus is also fucking the person with the sperm. The issue here is not pregnancy. Its what happens after it.

  147. Q Grrl:
    So he’s signing a contract beforehand stating that his sperm is for sale?Or are you just using that as a cover for a man’s laziness in anticipating child support when he chooses to engage in PIV sex.

    There are thousands of ways to get off — just ask us queers. All very satisfactory. So. When a man decides to engage in PIV sex, he is deciding to take on the risk of child support. No if’s. No and’s. No but’s. That is the reality.

    If he doesn’t want to pay any child support, he should choose to get off in a way that doesn’t deposit sperm in an impregnable manner. This also includes him acknowledging the failure rates for various birth control methods.

    Motherhood is a choice as it should be and so is fatherhod. Sperm donor example was an attempt to make that clear.

    The man isn’t the only one engaging in PIV sex. The woman is involved with her consent in that act. Both partners are equally responsbile for birth control during the act. This is why I believe that the man should be fully supportive during the pregnancy even if he does not want the child. After the child is born, he should have the choice to support the child not be made to do it.

  148. The person with the uterus is also fucking the person with the sperm. The issue here is not pregnancy. Its what happens after it.

    What don’t you understand about the inherent biological inequality of the situation? Men need to make the commitment/decision BEFORE engaging in PIV sex. They can’t just send their boys off and pray for a good outcome.

    You’re partially right — the issue isn’t pregnancy. But you are wrong that it is about what happens after pregnancy. It is all about what happens before the pregnancy, and men will be better off if they make decisions about sex based on the potential for paying child support. If the man doesn’t want to pay, he, and only he, has the responsibility to avoid situations in which a woman could become pregnant by him.

    Women make these choices all the time. The range from abstinence, to sex-only-in-marriage, to non-PIV sex, to sex with other women, to birth control, to abortion, to adoption, or to raising a child.

    And the men? It appears that you want them to be able to just walk away.

    I mean, you’re right there sorta. Nothing really stops men from walking away. Certainly they have lots of support in doing so.

    But who want to be *that* man?

  149. Why the hell am I feeding the troll? I never get sucked into that isht. WTF is wrong with me? Must be the benedryl I had to take yesterday; I am still loopy as hell.

  150. Q Grrl: What don’t you understand about the inherent biological inequality of the situation? Men need to make the commitment/decision BEFORE engaging in PIV sex. They can’t just send their boys off and pray for a good outcome.

    You’re partially right — the issue isn’t pregnancy.But you are wrong that it is about what happens after pregnancy.It is all about what happens before the pregnancy, and men will be better off if they make decisions about sex based on the potential for paying child support. If the man doesn’t want to pay, he, and only he, has the responsibility to avoid situations in which a woman could become pregnant by him.

    Women make these choices all the time. The range from abstinence, to sex-only-in-marriage, to non-PIV sex, to sex with other women, to birth control, to abortion, to adoption, or to raising a child.

    And the men?It appears that you want them to be able to just walk away.

    I mean, you’re right there sorta. Nothing really stops men from walking away. Certainly they have lots of support in doing so.

    But who want to be *that* man?

    You and I are going to have to agree to disagree. Your argument assumes that pregnancy and child birth are the same. Pregnancy and giving birth are two different stages. They are different because the choice to abort makes them different. This would not be a problem if men and women stopped having sex. But that’s not the case. The issue here is unintended pregnancy. Neither partner has control over that even with solid birth control. Birth control is the responsibility of both partners. If the man is not wearing a condom and the woman engages in sex with him, she is just as responsible as he is. You cannot hold the man responsible anymore than the woman for the pregnancy

    The inherent biological inequality gives the woman inherent control over whether the child is born or not and I am fine with that. But such control also implies that she cannot hold the man responsible for a child he does not want.

    My point being, men and women are responsible for the pregnancy but the women alone are responsible for child birth since they are the only ones who have the right to make that decision. The man has the choice to support her if he so chooses. I believe most men would make that decision and most that don’t would regret not doing it. Most of us men find children to be phenomenal people since they are the only ones who laugh at our immature jokes.

  151. The issue here is unintended pregnancy.

    Now you’re just changing the goal posts. The issue is a man not wanting to pay child support for the human being he fathered. The issue for men is *never* whether a pregnancy is intended or not (since he can’t get pregnant). The issue is whether he is willing to take on the risk of child support that is incumbent in having PIV sex.

  152. But such control also implies that she cannot hold the man responsible for a child he does not want.

    Sure she can. He got her pregnant.

  153. Aatish: The inherent biological inequality gives the woman inherent control over whether the child is born or not and I am fine with that. But such control also implies that she cannot hold the man responsible for a child he does not want.

    Aatish: The inherent biological inequality gives the woman inherent control over whether the child is born or not and I am fine with that. But such control also implies that she cannot hold the man responsible for a child he does not want.

    And this is the crux of what you’re missing. Child support isn’t about the woman holding the man responsible for the child, it’s about society, acting on the child’s behalf, holding him responsible.

    The whole premise of child support is that both of a child’s parents have an obligation to help it thrive. That’s why support can flow from either parent to the other, depending on custody arrangements and income. That’s why the government will step in to make sure child support payments are forthcoming if a single mother applies for welfare. It’s about the kid, not the mom.

    Everyone here understands your position, Aatish. We get what you’re saying. It’s not at all clear that you understand OUR position, though, or that you’re trying to.

  154. Or we could think about this as the *child’s* right to financial support from both contributors and bypass this discussion which seems to inevitably put the burden of support on the birthing parent.

  155. Q Grrl: Now you’re just changing the goal posts. The issue is a man not wanting to pay child support for the human being he fathered. The issue for men is *never* whether a pregnancy is intended or not (since he can’t get pregnant). The issue is whether he is willing to take on the risk of child support that is incumbent in having PIV sex.

    Pregnancy is an issue for men. Plenty of men want children and that makes pregnancy an issue for them. I do not believe I changed the subject at all. The post discusses abortion and majority of the time abortion is an option in unintended pregnancies. I apologize if I failed to mention that specifically in my posts above.

    Q Grrl: Sure she can.He got her pregnant.

    And she had nothing to do with it? she is just as responsible as he is. Thats irrelevant anyway because this is NOT about pregnancy, it is about child birth.

    Angus Johnston:
    And this is the crux of what you’re missing. Child support isn’t about the woman holding the man responsible for the child, it’s about society, acting on the child’s behalf, holding him responsible.

    The whole premise of child support is that both of a child’s parents have an obligation to help it thrive. That’s why support can flow from either parent to the other, depending on custody arrangements and income. That’s why the government will step in to make sure child support payments are forthcoming if a single mother applies for welfare. It’s about the kid, not the mom.

    Everyone here understands your position, Aatish. We get what you’re saying. It’s not at all clear that you understand OUR position, though, or that you’re trying to.

    I am trying to understand your point of view. I do not condone abandoning children at all. Unfortunately, they are the ones who suffer the most in all this.
    I am talking about choice here. But help me understand how can you justify holding someone responsbile for something they have no control over? Please keep in mind I am not talking about pregnancy, I am talking about child birth.

  156. Kristen J.’s Husband:
    Or we could think about this as the *child’s* right to financial support from both contributors and bypass this discussion which seems to inevitably put the burden of support on the birthing parent.

    Thats a good perspective. I can agree with that.

  157. But help me understand how can you justify holding someone responsbile for something they have no control over?

    Please help me understand how you can justify either the brutal removal of a woman’s right to autonomy OR the abandonment of a child because one thing on god’s green earth doesn’t privilege men?

    Because, like it or not, those are your two options. Either you force women to submit to the whims of the men who happened to impregnate them, or, if the woman choses to have the kid, allow the impregnator to abandon the kid because he feels like it.

    I’m not trying to be nasty – just to be clear. These really are the options. Enslaving women or abandoning children.

    Pregnancy is not an issue for cismen. The fact that some want kids doesn’t change that.

  158. Rare Vos: Please help me understand how you can justify either the brutal removal of a woman’s right to autonomy OR the abandonment of a child because one thing on god’s green earth doesn’t privilege men?

    Because, like it or not, those are your two options.Either you force women to submit to the whims of the men who happened to impregnate them, or, if the woman choses to have the kid, allow the impregnator to abandon the kid because he feels like it.

    I’m not trying to be nasty – just to be clear.These really are the options.Enslaving women or abandoning children.

    Pregnancy is not an issue for cismen.The fact that some want kids doesn’t change that.

    With the child’s interest a priority, this discussion becomes irrelevant. I don’t mind you being nasty but I am opposed to you using words and ideas that I do not condone.

    It is a woman’s right to have the child or not. It is her decision entirely. How does she lose her autonomy? Where have I implied that? I do believe that when we make a decision we should live with its consequences. My point was that if she wants to have the child, she needs to be sure that she can support it. If she is not capable of having a child, why does she CHOOSE to have one when there is an alternative options? Having autonomy requires responsibility for your decisions.

    Why would the child be abandoned? She/he has a mother right. The one that CHOOSE to have him/her? Your argument implies that children of single women are “abandoned”. Let me assure you they are not.

    Let me repeat what I have been saying. Women that allow men to impregnate them are just as responsible as the men that impregnate them. This is true regardless of the intention. You cannot place men entirely responsible for the pregnancy.

    Pregnancy is an issue for cismen. It is a life changing experience for a man to have a child and father it. That is fact. Besides, pregnancy being an issue for men does not mean it makes the woman’s role any less.

    Again all of this is irrelevant because the child’s future is the priority. Please understand that I cannot allow you to distort what I have been saying.

  159. But help me understand how can you justify holding someone responsbile for something they have no control over?

    Where does the man lack control? He has absolute control (unless he is raped) over whether he engages in PIV sex. He has absolute control over whether he chooses to ejaculate inside of a woman, or resume penetration after ejaculation.

    What we are saying is that *after* PIV sex has begun, he loses that control. This isn’t rocket science. Most men already know this on a gut level. It’s part of why women are punished for having sex. It’s why obtaining birth control or abortions is so damn difficult, even in a 1st world country. Men want women to co-incidentally experience the same loss of control that they do biologically.

    How does she lose her autonomy?

    She loses her autonomy when the male model of biology is the litmus test for the science, laws, and social conditioning that get superimposed on her biology. When his biology is validated, but hers is regulated, well, that’s a loss of autonomy.

  160. OFFS, Aatish, your argument presumes that pregnancy is a choice. In the real world meaningful choice is denied to people who become pregnant.

    Forced or coerced sexual activity is the fucking norm.
    Restricted contraception and reproductive healthcare access is the fucking norm.
    Marginalization, exploitation, higher unemployment and lower wages, and the full burden of any criminal sanctions for attempting to alter the above are the fucking norm.

    Your argument presumes a privilege MOST people who can get pregnant do not have.

    FFS.

  161. Q Grrl: Where does the man lack control?He has absolute control (unless he is raped) over whether he engages in PIV sex. He has absolute control over whether he chooses to ejaculate inside of a woman, or resume penetration after ejaculation.

    What we are saying is that *after* PIV sex has begun, he loses that control.This isn’t rocket science.Most men already know this on a gut level.It’s part of why women are punished for having sex. It’s why obtaining birth control or abortions is so damn difficult, even in a 1st world country. Men want women to co-incidentally experience the same loss of control that they do biologically.

    She loses her autonomy when the male model of biology is the litmus test for the science, laws, and social conditioning that get superimposed on her biology. When his biology is validated, but hers is regulated, well, that’s a loss of autonomy.

    You are talking about pregnancy. I am talking about child birth. Not the same thing. Getting pregnant does not mean the child will be born.

    Child birth does not involve the man at all. All he can do is sit and watch and be a supportive spectator. In this scenario the male model is not a litmus test for anything.

  162. I don’t mind you being nasty but I am opposed to you using words and ideas that I do not condone.

    I wasn’t being nasty. I also wasn’t accusing you of being in support of either of those options. I’m simply trying to get through to you that this leaves one with only those two options, if one decides to focus on men’s “rights” vis a vis pregnancy.

    How does she lose her autonomy?
    . . .
    Your argument implies that children of single women are “abandoned”. Let me assure you they are not.
    . . .
    You cannot place men entirely responsible for the pregnancy.
    . . .

    *facepalm* Wow. Just wow. I suppose that’s my fault for assuming you were actually interested in learning. I see now this is just a WATM! Parade.

    Please understand that I cannot allow you to distort what I have been saying.

    *headdesk* Which I didn’t do. I was pointing out the real world consequences of this “men should have an easy out” nonsense. But, hey, if you want to feign offense, have fun.

  163. She loses her autonomy when the male model of biology is the litmus test for the science, laws, and social conditioning that get superimposed on her biology. When his biology is validated, but hers is regulated, well, that’s a loss of autonomy.

    This was what was most interesting to me about George’s “forced compulsory surgery on my demand” thing upthread: do these guys actually think that having to pay child support for a child they fathered “ruins a guy’s life forever” in a worse way then what happens to the mother’s life?

    Or do they simply not even realize the mother’s life would be altered, much more severely, at all?

  164. One last try, and then I’m done.

    Aatish. Imagine a guy who tells his girlfriend he wants to be a father, or takes off the condom without her knowing, or coerces her into unprotected sex, or tells her he’s had a vasectomy. Imagine, as IrishUp notes, a situation in which a woman’s pregnancy is the result of wrongful action by the man she slept with.

    What should happen here? Should the guy who changes his mind about wanting to be a dad get off scot free? Should the woman have to prove to a judge that he tricked her, or lied, or coerced her? Or is the kid just out of luck? Are we taxpayers on the hook?

    Your ethical vision is only coherent if you imagine a man and a woman making a freely chosen, mutual decision. Apply it to a case in which that’s even vaguely in doubt, and your whole approach falls apart completely.

  165. IrishUp:
    OFFS, Aatish, your argument presumes that pregnancy is a choice. In the real world meaningful choice is denied to people who become pregnant.

    Forced or coerced sexual activity is the fucking norm.
    Restricted contraception and reproductive healthcare access is the fucking norm.
    Marginalization, exploitation, higher unemployment andlower wages, and the full burden of any criminal sanctions for attempting to alter the above are the fucking norm.

    Your argument presumes a privilege MOST people who can get pregnant do not have.

    FFS.

    I am talking about unintended pregnancy. It can never be a choice. Not sure how you came to the conclusion that I assumed pregnancy was a choice.

    My argument relates to child birth which is not the same thing as pregnancy. I have been very clear about that. I have also specifically mentioned consenting partners. I am not sure how that turned into coercion.

    I agree that abortion and contraceptive measures are not readily available to everybody. But please understand that my argument specifically mentions women having access to these measures and having the privilege of this choice. I believe I have mentioned choice and decision and responsibility for such decisions several times. In fact I have clearly said above, that I would not be saying this if abortion was not an option. In other words, my argument does not presume this privilege at all.

    It seems that I have triggered you. Please understand that my interest is in learning not in intentionally triggering people.

  166. Angus Johnston:
    One last try, and then I’m done.

    Aatish. Imagine a guy who tells his girlfriend he wants to be a father, or takes off the condom without her knowing, or coerces her into unprotected sex, or tells her he’s had a vasectomy. Imagine, as IrishUp notes, a situation in which a woman’s pregnancy is the result of wrongful action by the man she slept with.

    What should happen here? Should the guy who changes his mind about wanting to be a dad get off scot free? Should the woman have to prove to a judge that he tricked her, or lied, or coerced her? Or is the kid just out of luck? Are we taxpayers on the hook?

    Your ethical vision is only coherent if you imagine a man and a woman making a freely chosen, mutual decision. Apply it to a case in which that’s even vaguely in doubt, and your whole approach falls apart completely.

    Fair enough. Let me share another scenario.

    What about the wrongful action of a woman? I do not have to assume this at all. Someone posted a link about a women using fellatio to obtain sperm and impregnate herself without the man knowing about it. Infact he had clearly stated that he does not want children.

    We can discuss the worst human kind has to offer all day long and everyone’s argument will fall apart. But if we start holding people responsible simply because of a few bad apples then where does this all end?

  167. But if we start holding people responsible simply because of a few bad apples then where does this all end?

    Hopefully with children receiving the financial support they need?

  168. Aatish, what you don’t seem to understand that EVER SINGLE TIME a cisman engages in penetrative intercourse with a ciswoman he runs the risk of inpregnating her, and AT THAT POINT he loses all his agency as to deciding whether or not she will ultimately give birth. And that is simply biologically how it is, it just flat out isn’t equal. Sure, it sucks for you, but it sucks harder for us, because we bear the entire physical burden of actually being pregnant and ultimately giving birth.

    And after the child is born, it is in the state’s interest to make sure that child is taken care of, so the state will do its damndest to make sure both parents or on the hook financially, to the best of their ability, to pay what they can to support their child. The burden, and the privilege of caring for the child isn’t solely the mother’s province, but legally belongs to both parents unless a whole bunch of legal wrangling takes place.

  169. Hey, I have a great idea.
    If the men who run the gumment enact socialized healthcare, decent maternity and family leave policies, adequate allowances for childcare, adequate and encouraged access to reporductive healthcare, and other support systems for single-parent or marginalized/exploited parent families, us money-grubbing-achor-child-plannin-shouldda-thought-o-that-before-you-spread-yo-knees-why-you-gotta-dress-like-that-lynig BITCEZ won’t go around shakin down the poor baby-daddies, and the MRA types will all be happy.

    AMIRITE?

  170. Q Grrl: Hopefully with children receiving the financial support they need?

    That I agree with.

    shfree:
    Aatish, what you don’t seem to understand that EVER SINGLE TIME a cisman engages in penetrative intercourse with a ciswoman he runs the risk of inpregnating her, and AT THAT POINT he loses all his agency as to deciding whether or not she will ultimately give birth.And that is simply biologically how it is, it just flat out isn’t equal.Sure, it sucks for you, but it sucks harder for us, because we bear the entire physical burden of actually being pregnant and ultimately giving birth.

    And after the child is born, it is in the state’s interest to make sure that child is taken care of, so the state will do its damndest to make sure both parents or on the hook financially, to the best of their ability, to pay what they can to support their child.The burden, and the privilege of caring for the child isn’t solely the mother’s province, but legally belongs to both parents unless a whole bunch of legal wrangling takes place.

    🙂 what you seem to undertstand is that I GET this. I am not disagreeing with you. The argument at this moment is people making claims on my behalf that I did not make.

  171. Q Grrl: Hopefully with children receiving the financial support they need?

    That I agree with.

    shfree:
    Aatish, what you don’t seem to understand that EVER SINGLE TIME a cisman engages in penetrative intercourse with a ciswoman he runs the risk of inpregnating her, and AT THAT POINT he loses all his agency as to deciding whether or not she will ultimately give birth.And that is simply biologically how it is, it just flat out isn’t equal.Sure, it sucks for you, but it sucks harder for us, because we bear the entire physical burden of actually being pregnant and ultimately giving birth.

    And after the child is born, it is in the state’s interest to make sure that child is taken care of, so the state will do its damndest to make sure both parents or on the hook financially, to the best of their ability, to pay what they can to support their child.The burden, and the privilege of caring for the child isn’t solely the mother’s province, but legally belongs to both parents unless a whole bunch of legal wrangling takes place.

    🙂 what you do not seem to undertstand is that I GET this. I am not disagreeing with you. The argument at this moment is people making claims on my behalf that I did not make.

  172. Rare Vos: I wasn’t being nasty. I also wasn’t accusing you of being in support of either of those options.I’m simply trying to get through to you that this leaves one with only those two options, if one decides to focus on men’s “rights” vis a vis pregnancy.

    *facepalm* Wow.Just wow.I suppose that’s my fault for assuming you were actually interested in learning. I see now this is just a WATM! Parade.

    *headdesk*Which I didn’t do.I was pointing out the real world consequences of this “men should have an easy out” nonsense.But, hey, if you want to feign offense, have fun.

    I still disagree with the two options you have mentioned. Having the ability to choose does not indicate enslavement. But with choice comes responsibility for that choice. This is true for all individuals.

    I never implied that men should have an easy way out. Infact I was clear about how they should be involved in the pregnancy and the abortion based on the woman’s choice. I am not offended that my views were distorted. Maybe it was a misunderstanding. However, I intend to clarify anytime I believe that they are distorted.

  173. Aatish, scrolling up and re-reading, I think I understand what you are trying to say, and that you don’t believe that men are solely responsible for women’s pregnancies, and that other posters are implying that. And I have to say I’m really uncomfortable with some of the language you use to get there, which is this the following:

    “Women that allow men to impregnate them are just as responsible as the men that impregnate them.”

    As a person who had an unintended pregnancy, there was no “allowing” involved, regardless of the fact that I opted to continue the pregnancy. The language choice here was kind of icky, and still implies a dynamic between the two that is, in my mind, regressive, and brings little to your argument.

    Anyway. I don’t think that anyone here is saying that women aren’t responsible for their own pregnancies, there is physically no way they can blithely walk away and pretend they don’t exist, so I think it is fair use a bit of good faith and assume that some logic was applied here.

  174. I can assure you that it was not my intention to make you uncomfortable. I was too involved in clarifying my position. Thats not a good enough excuse and I offer you my apology. It is not in my interest to alienate people who make a good faith attempt to understand my position.

  175. One admits that today’s life seems to be high priced, nevertheless some people require cash for various things and not every man earns enough cash. Hence to get good home loans and just commercial loan will be good solution.

Comments are currently closed.