« Illegal Aliens - pic of the day and playing the Bu$Hitler and Reichwing card | Main | Note to Self »
March 30, 2006
Reproductive 'rights' will never be equal
Of course, I say that if we conflate three separate events and call them, collectively, reproductive rights. Those three events are:
- Consensual sex
- Gestation
- Parenting
However, it is point two, dealing with gestation/abortion, that is the major bone of contention between all the screaming for or against the mean-spirited "Roe v Wade for Men" lawsuit.
Scrape away all the lying and biological fallacies that attempt to pass for serious discussion about abortion, one is left with a clear (in in this discussion) two part point of discussion of legal policies.
At what point post-conception does the fetus become an individual worthy of legal intervention to protect it from harm and/or death
AND
If that point is fixed at a particular point after conception (ie 20 weeks), who will have controlling authority over the fetus prior to that point?
Now, in the collective reproductive rights (CRR) lobby, one finds either the extreme Feminist meme of "it's my body and you can't say anything about it or anything that comes out of it" vs the MRA (men's rights advocates) meme of "If women get to choose to be parents, it is discrimination if we men don't have the same right!". Under all the screeching, Feminists know, but won't admit, that the "body integrity" rant is really about power over men using the life/death of a child to wield it, just as the MRAs know, but won't admit, that the "I should not have to pay child support" rant is really about power over women using money to wield it.
This debate has really hit the skids because of several factors that make child bearing and raising less of one done within intact, married households than ever before. MRAs want to use point three to revenge point two. Feminists want point two with no interference, but also want point two to force point three in their favor.
And if you want to complicate the matter of CRR's even further, start talking responsibilities and obligation of adoptions (see Jeff Goldstein).
Let me propose a rather radical, Gordian knot kind of solution.
Conception/Gestation/Birth/Parenting outside of marriage: Biodad has no rights - no visitation, no adoption rights, nada, nothing. Mom has no claim on biodad - no support, no inheritance, nada nothing.
Conception/Gestation/Birth/Parenting within marriage: When a conflict arises, decision will go to the one that allows the child to be born - ie the parent that wants the child will have final say. In case of divorce, the child is entitled to support of both parents and 50/50 custody will be the default position unless other compelling factors are apparent.
If you wish, discuss.
Posted by Darleen at March 30, 2006 12:24 PM
Comments
If abortion were universally accepted as an acceptable and moral choice, then your "gordian knot" solution would actually be pretty good.
Clearly, however, abortion isn't, and thus the "solution" isn't. It would severely punish single pregnant women who either don't believe in or don't choose abortion. I'm not sure if that is a greater or lesser "punishment" than that currently put upon anti-abortion men whose offspring are aborted.
Personally, Darleen, I don't really think there is a "good" answer to all this, as presented; but I am VERY happy that this lawsuit has people actually discussing the issue *en masse* -- as in the past there has not been a real discussion of this aspect of the issue (the man's rights), and without discussion, no answers will ever be found.
Posted by: Strider at March 30, 2006 01:42 PM
As with the gay marriage question, this whole discussion in many ways goes beyond the level of individual rights and into the realm of "maintaining the basic fabric of society". In some cases (but IMO very very few), the latter consideration trumps the former.
I think Battlestar Galactica made a very interesting illustration of this point recently (I know you watch it...). In that show the entire human race has been reduced to roughly 50,000 individuals, and somebody calculates that unless they start reproducing, and NOW, the continuation of the species will be unlikely beyond 20 years or so....
So the President, flying in the face of long-established legal and cultural precedent, declares all abortion illegal.
This is a fictional exagerration, but for the past several decades we *have* been looking at the slow dissoultion of our societal fabric; first with the breakdown of marriage (and 60% divorce rate?), the extended denigration of concepts of personal responsibility, and now with the potential breakdown of familial connections throughout large swaths of society.
Posted by: Strider at March 30, 2006 01:53 PM
Is it in the best interests of the child for the biodad to have no rights outside of marriage? What if the mom has some kind of issue that stops an otherwise upstanding dad from visiting his kid? How does that help the kid?
The kid's interest should come first, because he's the most vulnerable, and adults are capable of dealing with adversity.
The principle should be: you made the kid, you should pay for his upkeep. Think it's not fair? Sometimes what's best isn't what's "fair". There's more to this than individual desire.
Posted by: SUZANNE at March 30, 2006 07:07 PM
Strider
I actually want abortion after 12 weeks to be limited to life/health issues (and fetal health) and after 21 weeks outlawed unless the life it is a life of mom/incapatibility for life of fetus issues.
Yes, my proposal is radical, but right now there are too many scenarios of unmarried men and women using pregnancy and birth to pummel each other. In the mix, it is the child that is hurt.
Does this create a "bastard" class of children? Possibly. But it equally penalizes both the males and females involved. Males could no longer claim they are only a "wallet" and that females are "making a profit" off of child bearing, and females could no longer claims undue interference (refusal to pay child support, refusal to visit, refusal to sign adoption papers) with them.
Would it encourage more abortion? I think the demographics are pretty fixed on that. There will be a percentage that will always have 'em, a percentage that will always refuse.
Considering that the average child support award is approximately $300/mo, no one truly has a kid to collect a check from a hostile biodad.
Marriage is a clear demarcation where we can spell out the rights, responsibilities and obligations of the parties involved.
We have a tough, and rather unthankful task, when we try and to the same with "casual" relationships.
A person wants to protect their child?
Get married.
Posted by: Darleen at March 30, 2006 07:55 PM
Suzanne
In many ways you're correct. A child does deserve the support of both parents.
But you need to understand that right now there is this huge fight about "equal rights of reproduction" going on where there are biodads screaming "but I don't want to be a dad! I didn't consent to be a dad! I'd rather have a car payment than a child support payment!"
Too many males want it both ways...they want to visit the child and bond with it in THEIR terms and they ony want to pay anything towards the raising of the child ON THEIR TERMS.
In the meantime, mom either has to fight to get child support or fight to allow the child to be adopted.
No marriage? Then biodad should not legally exist. No more middle ground. Either unmarried dads support legally being responsible or they opt out of even existing as a dad.
I'm not exactly happy about my proposal, but its the only thing that can slap a few people upside the head over what the issue truly is about.
Posted by: Darleen at March 30, 2006 08:24 PM
Darleen --
Basically I agree with you. My statement in my first comment was basically removing the moral question of abortion from the equation. In the Cold Hard Logic sense -- and assuming (for the sake of discussion only) that society's moral opinion is uniformly like a computer program where "IsMoral(abortion) = True" -- then your "Gordian Knot" solution is entirely acceptable, and in fact quite elegant.
So... the only confounding factor in that solution is the fact that a majority of women would never want an abortion, and thus would be more heavily burdened by the 100% responsibility in raising out-of-wedlock children. As I said before, I'm not sure if that is better or worse than the current situation.
As my momma always says, the morality of a society is pretty much dictated by what the women are willing to allow. Men are pretty much hard wired to be hornier than women, and in general are "up for it" a lot more casually than women. (I am currently reading a book written by a lesbian who talks at one point about the many gay men she knows who *brag* about the hundreds of guys they've screwed. It's reasonable to suggest that gay men are generally more promiscuous simply because the tempering influence of women is removed from the equation.) Thus, when the women are less casual about sex, the society as a whole is as well.
So... if your proposal were to become law, women would be pressured by the legal reality to not have sex until marriage -- which would reinforce the societally heathy concept of picking somebody and making a committment before having kids. This is becoming a fairly clear case of a law based on the concept I cited -- wherein maintaining the fabric of society trumps individual rights.
Hmmm... maybe it's a good idea after all.
(And too be clear, I am rarely in favor of "social benefit over individual rights", but childbearing and rearing is such a unique aspect of the human condition that it defies comparison.)
Posted by: Strider at March 30, 2006 08:39 PM
Incidentally, this has (over several posts) been one of the more interesting discussions I've had online in quite a while. It's also interesting, over the course of these posts, to witness the evolution of your argument.
At no point am I claiming that I've got the certain answers. I'm primarily trying to figure out what the right question is! The discussion is useful.
Posted by: Strider at March 30, 2006 08:55 PM
Your solution sounds pretty reasonble to me Mz Darleen.
Posted by: Carl W. Goss at March 31, 2006 11:24 AM