Jezebel 
Enter your username and password.
-
posts about #roevsdude more → 
Blogger: How Abortion Rights Make Bad Boyfriends
New York, 2:42 AM
Sun Dec 20
19 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip your editors:
Editor-in-Chief:
Anna Holmes
| Twitter
Deputy Editor:
Dodai Stewart
| Twitter
Senior Contributing Editor:
Tracie Egan Morrissey
| Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Anna North
| Twitter
Sadie Stein
| Twitter
Reporter:
Irin Carmon
| Twitter
Editorial Assistant:
Margaret Hartmann
| Twitter
Contributors:
Rich Juzwiak
Email | Twitter
Latoya Peterson
Email
Jenna Sauers
Lizzie Skurnick
Interns:
Katy Kelleher
Twitter
Weekends/Commenter Moderator:
Hortense
| Twitter
| posts about #roevsdude more → |
Blogger: How Abortion Rights Make Bad Boyfriends |
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
07/16/09
The world is horribly, unfairly skewed in favor of men. Why are women so eager to give up one of the few rights they have that men don't?
07/16/09
Firstly, abortion is a loaded word. It implicitly connotes an intention behind the action. IE you abort a launch, because you intended to launch, but something went wrong, so you stop it. I do not know of many people who abort pregnancies they intend to have, those are only health related occurrences. Termination is more appropriate, and more common. The oops, we had sex and now I'm pregnant. I cannot for the life of me understand why someone would carry to term a child they did not actively want to have. It is an archaic predisposition leftover from a society which depended upon sheer numbers and the reproductive might of its believers to cement its role in shifting power structures.
There are immutable elements to this problem; such as if someone is pregnant, then the knowledge of a lack of a present father is likely to induce a disposition toward termination, and thats unfairly influencing the woman's freedom over her own body. However, I think this problem only arises because the default is "keeping it" and there is a stigma against termination.
If one does not intend to have a child, one should not have one — and I believe we as a society need to simply realize this. Having sex, does not mean a man consents to his sperm being used to create a child, and furthermore, it does not mean a woman consents to her eggs being fertilized, yet there is some form hesitancy to admit to this. If both parties simply enter the relationship with this understanding then there is no expectation and any change from the status quo is subject to agreement from both parties. Not only is it harmful to both parties who had sex, but it is morally unjust to bring a child into this world who will not be loved and cared for. I don't care how much you don't want to risk the termination procedure or how scared you are of pissing off God.
If it were the natural thing to do to terminate it, this would in fact leave the woman much broader choice. She could keep it if she wanted to, independent of any influence of a man, and this might in fact make for better boyfriends who stand up for their impressive women who make a noble choice, and who implicitly in expressing their active desire to keep the child, show their confidence in themselves, and their mate. If its so easy to not do something, actively doing it says something, and might encourage an otherwise deadbeat dad to step up.
A man who does not want a child is never going to be there for the unwanted child, court ordered alimony or not. All our current society fosters, is the creation of embattled women who have to make difficult choices, men who feel like pariahs through no intended fault of their own, and children who feel unwanted because of society's stereotypes about what a family unit must be. A restructuring of beliefs can mitigate all three, while also economically benefiting society in terms of more sustainable population numbers, and happier, more loved children.
07/16/09
Because doing otherwise--refusing to support the child--is basically punishing that child for the bad blood between you and the kid's mother.
The child is here, the child is wanted. The mother is raising it, teaching it, driving it to school, buying it new shoes. You're not. All you have to do it send money.
But you won't, because why? You're mad that mom could have had an abortion and didn't? I'm sure the kid will understand, after years of therapy.
This line of thinking just reeks of adolescent petulance. Grow up already, Conor Friedersdorf.
07/16/09
07/16/09
07/16/09
Yeah, it's the kind of argument that anti-choice people could turn on its head, but, you know, they're anti-choice, so of course they'd favour an interpretation that excludes a woman's right to choose.
07/16/09
07/16/09
07/16/09
07/16/09
I'm not too fond of MRA types or this argument or even this particular notarized-document-system, but they have thought of this.
07/16/09
07/16/09
07/16/09
A woman should have 100% say over whether she carries a fetus to term or not. Hopefully, she would talk this over with the sperm donor (father of the fetus) to make an informed decision, but the final decision must be hers alone.
A man should have (but doesn't) the right to informed consent. If a man doesn't want to be a father, then he should be able to inform the woman of his decision, while she still has the opportunity to abort the pregnancy, and absolve himself of parental rights & responsibilities.
In effect, the man gives up any rights to the child when he absolves responsibility. Call it "Male Abortion". Both parents (and there are 2) should have the opportunity to say that they don't want to have a child, even though only the woman should be allowed to choose to have a child (meaning that she can't be forced to carry a fetus to term).
I recognize that some may disagree, but I see giving both parties a choice as the only fair solution.
07/16/09
07/16/09
07/16/09
07/16/09
07/16/09
07/16/09
Not when women don't want it to apparently. This is what I have a problem with. Pick a stance...you can't just go waving your uterus around when it's convenient to get you out of an undesirable situation.
07/16/09
For the record, I think this goes both ways. If Mom gives birth, hands the baby to Dad (who didn't want it aborted), and disappears, I damn well expect her to be sending checks too.
07/16/09
07/16/09
Child support laws are unfair only if men are selfish giant babies who want to make everyone else pay for their actions.
07/16/09
07/16/09
07/16/09
07/16/09
Until it is born, a fetus is inextricable from its mother. There is no honest comparison between wallets and bodies. Most importantly, men didn't start shirking fatherhood in 1973, and they will continue to do so if they are legally allowed again to force women to abort or give birth.
07/16/09
07/16/09
07/16/09
It's YOUR body? Don't let him put sperm in it then. If we're all equal and the "you got laid so deal with the consequences" argument works for men, then it works for us too. Goose/gander folks. We can't faint on a chaise and cry "slut-shaming" if someone suggests we are equally responsible for being impregnated.
Sure, he got laid. So did you. If that's all that was agreed upon upfront then that's all you get without further negotiation and agreement. You might be able to defend the unilateral decision to an abortion but you can't then also defend the unilateral decision to make someone else pay for your orgasm for the next 18 years.
And I don't think the article is passive-aggressive at all...tentative maybe in light of the anticipated shit storm, but can you blame the guy?
07/16/09
07/16/09
It's complicated. But I don't disagree.
07/16/09
07/16/09
07/16/09
07/16/09
07/16/09
07/16/09
07/16/09
07/16/09
Whoa whoa whoa...wait just a minute! So can I use that argument to support a woman's obligation to have the child rather than have an abortion? Because I'm happy to.
07/16/09
as to your other comment, I'm not being flip I don't understand your point?
07/16/09
07/16/09
07/16/09
Child support is so society doesn't have to pay for the kid. Shit happens. Men want to have the road paved for them at everybody else's expense. That's bull.
07/16/09
I love how all the hypotheticals involved some perfect guy, when the the reality is a wee bit different. Come on. Why do people talk about women only conniving? Men do it too. Why do we believe them and support them over women? Do men lie? Do men say, "Oh, I'd LOVE to have a baby!"---then change their mind at month seven? Evidently there's a huge pool of people who'll believe any fool thing some guy whines.
07/16/09
@stobrobbers: There are two choices here: the choice to have an orgasm and the choice to let an orgasm become a baby. That second decision is the one where you claim "human life is at issue" and the baby should be supported, but the man is not being given a decision. If the mother claims the right to make that decision unilaterally then she needs to accept the attendant responsibility unilaterally. We call this an "assumed risk". You should not be able to make someone else liable for a risk you unilaterally assume.
As far as the third human life goes, if you're saying its right to support trumps the father's rights then why not the mother's? If it trumps one it trumps both (which in my personal view it does).
@PilgrimSoul: We meet again...
07/16/09
07/16/09
07/16/09
@bluebears: "That decision was made, now a human life is at issue and that human being has a right to be supported, on however small a scale, by one of its biological parents if said parent has the means. My point is, child support isn't put in place to punish men or to reward women, its to help out a child."
Whoa whoa whoa...wait just a minute! So can I use that argument to support a woman's obligation to have the child rather than have an abortion? Because I'm happy to.
If you believe that life begins at conception, then yes, you could make that argument.
I reckon bluebears does not believe that, and neither do I. A human being's legal rights become separate from its mother's after it is separated from its mother's body.
It's the whole "When does human life begin" question, which is not the topic at hand.
07/16/09
It boils down to this: women need to chose whether they want a medical "out" or a financial "out" in the case of an unplanned pregnancy. Because so long as a woman has consensual sex, she has assumed the risk of being impregnated. Like you said, it's biology. It's reality, stop whining. You don't get to be compensated every time you gamble on an orgasm and get the downside. The victimization of women is implicit in that logic and it helps none of us.
07/16/09
07/16/09
07/16/09
In olden times, this meant getting a legally binding commitment and a substantial sum of money (such as might be used to purchase a diamond ring, as a guarantee in case the lousy bastard renegs) upfront before assuming such a significant risk. But ohhhh no, that's oppressive and we just want to have fun without all the strings. So...
@missteenwordpower: So a woman gets a second chance AFTER sex but BEFORE birth to decide she wants out, but a man only gets one shot and thereafter if anything goes wrong he's bound by the woman's choice? That's not equitable. Again if you're going to claim the right because it's YOUR body then it's YOUR responsibility. You should not be able to put a third party with no right to negotiate on the hook for the decision.
07/16/09
07/16/09
07/16/09
This is why most states that still have the death penalty only allow it to be imposed by a jury and not a judge. Pro-choice advocates like to cry hypocrisy when pro-life advocates are also in favor of the death penalty, but the death penalty doesn't usually make one individual the arbiter over another human life (except arguably the governor or President - but in that case it's that one vote can save a life not end it). That's a significant distinction.
07/16/09
I think there's a bigger problem, here, though. In the sense that sure, I'd love it if people used common sense all the time and everything was equal, etc. But it isn't and people don't. And in the end, it's the children from these situations who suffer.
And if we advocate for choice, then we have to advocate for women carrying to term, even if we think they shouldn't.
Child support doesn't go to the mother, it goes to directly support the child. It's not like alimony. A father who pays child support is not required to be a parent. Just provide a (usually) minimal amount of money to make sure the child is clothed and fed. Child support is generally dependent on income, so no one is getting rich off it.
And what happens if a father decides, at some point, he's just tired of supporting a child he wanted at first? What if a married couple who has children separates? Is the father then no longer responsible for helping to support them financially? Can he say he never really wanted kids? That happens way more often, honestly. Usually when a mother has become financially dependent on the partner, too.
The reality is, people are going to have sex for reasons we don't like and have consequences they didn't intend. It's not victimizing women to say that our system is loaded against them, especially single mothers, and require monetary compensation from the other half of the equation. Because the reality is, it's the children who suffer.
Child support isn't punishment, it's a consequence. Like the child is to the parent who, in a scenario with child support, has chosen to keep the child. Or they wouldn't need the support.
If we had a more socialized system of healthcare and actual government support for mothers (as they do in, say, France) this would be way less of an issue. But we don't.
All your suggestion would do is make sure more kids grow up in poverty. And besides all that, to assume all women have equal access to abortions is ridiculous. Or that we should require people to have them because of whatever stupidity we think they're guilty of is as bad as the others who want everyone to carry to term. It just doesn't work.
I mean, i'm just trying to see the solution here. No child support if a father doesn't want to pay it...and then what do all these mothers with children do? Are we talking about forcing abortions? Getting people state aid? What?
07/16/09
07/16/09
And I'm thinking that, yes, men should be expected to bear responsibility for children born of an unplanned pregnancy, even if they had wished the foetus aborted. And (here's where the wishful thinking comes in) society should drill this expectation into men's heads, so that it becomes generally accepted to be as "natural" as the consequences are for a woman. And with that should come the understanding that the biological lottery is such that, when it comes down to baby or no baby, the opportunity for the man to have a choice ends with the choice to have sex, whereas the woman has options open to her after that. I don't think that's unfair, at least not any more than other biological differences are unfair.
Plus you better believe that in this fantasy world that I'm thinking of, there would be a hell of a lot more male contraceptive options than there are right now. Which would be great, because I absolutely believe that men should be able to avoid fatherhood, if it's not something they want. But generally they should take steps to do that (1) before the child is born (which in their case would also be "before the foetus is conceived") and (2) in ways that involve control over their own bodies, rather than the bodies of their sexual partners.
07/16/09
And you're being disingenuous if you compare spoiled whiners with women who were in chains to their bodies till abortion and birth control were both legalized.
And keep the victimization bullshit out of it. Women do get victimized. It's a fact. Factor it in. It's a reality. That's an insult to women who've been and are being victimized---like by these stupid men----and are trying to find a way out of it.
07/16/09
Right, but now that abortion is legal mothers who don't want to accept the responsibility of supporting their children have the unfettered right not to do so. They can simply flush them away and society gives it a pass not so much because we care about a woman's choice, but because it doesn't put any burden on the rest of us.
The point of the article is that rather than have a pro-life framework where the woman has the biological burden and no choice to back out or a pro-choice framework where the man has the biological burden and no chance to back out, the most equitable, gender-neutral solution is to build a framework around mutual consensus.
And I agree. We can't demand gender equality when it suits us and also demand disproportionate rights on account of our sex.
07/16/09
07/16/09
I understand the reflexive fear of a return to reproductive oppression, but to chastize and deride that male perspective seems like a flippant abuse of the reproductive rights that we currently DO HAVE (everyone who doesn't agree with me, don't worry...you win).
At the end of the day I'm more troubled by some of my fellow women's attitudes than by the laws themselves.
07/16/09
Both men and woman need to realise that when you have that orgasm, you're running the risk that you're making a baby, even if you don't want one, and that will have consequences for both of the people involved, and that both people involved will have to take responsibility in some way. And both men and women need to realise that, because of biology, women have a choice in the matter for quite some time after the man does, and therefore the man would have to exercise more caution/control about contraception at an earlier stage.
If there had ever been gender equality in terms of the consequences of having a baby as a result of unplanned pregnancy, a lot of this debate would be moot, because men would have made damn sure that they had more independent control of the chances of having a baby in the first place. Men would have more choice if they had more independent contraceptive options, and they would have developed more contraceptive options, if they had to bear more of the consequences of unplanned pregnancy and subsequent parenthood.
07/16/09
That's fair. :} And I do think it's valuable to discuss the fact that, like it or not, pregnancy can be a consequence of sex no matter how casual it was intended to be.
But I supposed I put that firmly in the personal category. I personally feel that way, and I've never had a one night stand because of it. But I'm not going to tell other people what to do in that area, because legislating common sense (though tempting sometimes) just leads to all kinds of problems.
I would hope on a personal level that women who felt they could, discussed the situation with the father. But I don't think it should be required, in the legal sense, as that just opens the door back up to men telling women what to do reproductively. We've got enough of that already.
I think abortion is still relatively taboo outside very specific circles (such as feminist spaces) so that a lot of people really don't see it as an option. Or perhaps carrying to term is their way of taking responsibility for the sex they had, regardless of whether or not they wanted a child. When it comes down to personal decision, I'm firmly in the camp of "none of my business". Mostly because I don't want anyone telling me what's the best decision for myself reproductively.
In some ways, I think child support is a social consequence, put forth to require some financial responsibility exist in an unequal system. It's not legislating fatherhood, just some financial support. Whereas the mother in this scenario, based on the specifics required to get the support, is in fact taking on the lionshare. The financial part is, really, minimal and far less a burden than raising a child.
In that sense, I don't see it as unfair.
My issue with the article is more that there's a...hurt tone. One that suggests that women are hurting men's feelings by not including them in this discussion. Which may be true, but on a basic level, is emotional blackmail. A woman should make the decision that's best for her, not her partner. Because she's the one who will either have to go through a procedure that carries risks and stigma, or pregnancy and birth...which also carries risks and (more) responsibilities.
I can appreciate how unpleasant and immoral abortion can seem to folks opposed to it. I really can. And I can even see the over-simplified logic in the "well, just don't have sex" arguments. But it's not realistic, and the truth is, morality is highly personal. Especially when it comes to ones own body.
The last person I'd want having a baby is someone who didn't want one, even if her partner did. That feels like A. turning women into baby factories and B. our general concern with trying to parent women as though they're infants.
07/16/09
Yeah, we women are SO LUCKY to be the final decision makers on that.
07/16/09
Any woman worth her salt who is in a relationship will probably think and talk to her partner about abortion. But, one cannot ignore that men and women have fundamentally different issue to think about when it comes to abortion. The argument of a woman's right to choose comes directly from a history when men had that right - not women.
Friedersdorf can take his "ode to the progressive men" op-ed and shove it, as far as I'm concerned. What he says about a man's role in parenthood isn't something new and amazing that women have never thought of. Unfortunately, the fact that men get an unequal say on the matter is not that big of a deal. This is a pill that men are going to have to swallow. Women have had to swallowed similar pills enough times to know that, on this, it's the man's turn.
07/16/09
07/16/09
JUST SAY NO TO SEX WITH PRO LIFERS!
With that, I shall return to my little corner of hell.
[AND YES, MY TOUNGE IS RIGHT WHERE IT BELONGS...PLANTED IN MY CHEEK. Can I make that my catch phrase?]
07/16/09
That last item is clearly how such a discussion would go down in the Lily / Marshall household, amirite?
07/16/09
07/16/09
07/16/09
Who in fuck has tantrums? I saw that word quoted and I was like....What the fucking fuck?