« Funny, isn't it, when a 'Men's Rights' group imitates moslems | Main | The Cotillion -- Themed dance week »
March 14, 2006
Vulva Diary: Musings on Gestation, Bastards, 'War between the Sexes' and the children caught in the crossfire
This is the first part of a followup on the so-called "Roe v Wade for Men" lawsuit that has gotten so many so upset. Particularly I want to explain in detail on the how and why I find this lawsuit so abhorent.
Keep in mind that I am always mindful of the difference between the moral and the law. The law is based on morality, but morality is not and should not always be articulated through the legislature. When a law is proposed, it should always be the last course of action because the state finds a compelling interest it cannot solve any other way. Therefore we see three different issues in play here:
- Sex between consenting adults
- Gestation
- Born child
Second point - Gestation. Sorry, guys, but only one person post-conception gestates the 'product of conception'. If a conflict arises on the gestation, who gets the final word? Obviously, this lawsuit says that the male should have "the right" to declare he doesn't want to be a father. Ok. Last I looked, the only country dragging screaming pregnant women into abortion clinics against their will is China. Is that what you want? Because if the child is born then the male is a father whether or not he decides to be a man. The claim is that there is no "parity" with the gestational person who has "all the choices". South Dakota just took that choice away. Are impregnators in SD going to be any less putout because they knocked up a girl in SD and will have to pay child support? If this lawsuit were to go through and males are no longer responsible for the children they create -- that will increase their responsibility for birth control how?
- She wants it, he doesn't - whose view prevails?
- He wants it, she doesn't - ditto
Third point - A child is born. S/he is entitled, legally, morally and ethically to the support of both parents, regardless of the circumstance of conception. Family law varies from state to state and in many ways some of it is behind the times (ie DNA). Some states have no-fault divorce, some are community property and the vagarities of Family Law from state to state add both to the confusion of the issues. Scrape away the anecdotal horror stories (and it falls on both sides) and get to the core of the issue. If the male of the lawsuit were married to the female would we at all support his idea of "I don't want to be a father." If the marriage busted up, both parents would be compelled to keep supporting the child. So, with this lawsuit, what we are looking at is an idea of creating two classes of children. Legitimate children who are entitled to the support of both parents, and bastards who are legally considered "fatherless" with no right to support or inheritance.
Is that what you want to do to children? Return to the days that children born out of wedlock carry the sin of their parents by being legal BASTARDS?
One of the first things that a divorce lawyer will explain to his/her client before the first hearing on custody "It doesn't matter how nasty your spouse is to you. Someone can be a nasty spouse and a good parent. Deal with it."
Children are not responsible for the stupidity of their parents, yet this lawsuit is about punishing women who choose not to abort their child. If the woman won't kill the child in the womb, the male who doesn't want to be a dad will legally wipe out that child for him.
Wow. Isn't that special?
Next post I'll address Family Law issues.
Technorati: Men's Rights, Child Support
Posted by Darleen at March 14, 2006 12:32 PM
Comments
The case is not about punishing women, anymore than abortion is about punishing men. The case is about discrimination based on gender of the right to reproduce. Now, at it's most basic the case would be about the right of a man to force a woman to have an abortion if she wanted the child and he didn't. However we all recognize how morally repugnant that would be. Therefore, when it comes to the "right" of reproduction, the woman will always have rights, and the man never will. This is prima fascia discrimination based on gender.
So the only way to seek equity is to adress reproductive responsibility. A woman can evade her reproductive responsibilities by having an abortion, adoption, or forcing a man to support the child. The man cannot evade his responsibility. Again this is discriminatory. Now is giving a man the right of abandoning his responsibilities to support his child morally repugnant? Yes, but far less repugnant than forcing an abortion on a woman, and it does address a significant inequity under the law.
As an aside, there is a significant chance that allowing a man to reject his financial responsibilities will have an effect in reducing promiscous sex, in that it greatly increases the risks for women (approaching pre-Roe), and women have the ultimate say in sexual decisions. (outside of rape)
Posted by: Gahrie at March 14, 2006 01:54 PM
Gahrie
The lawsuit is not an affirmative suit. It doesn't seek to gain a male's right to have a say during gestation to bring a child to term, or to seek some sort of sanction on a woman proven to have acted fraudulently.
It seeks to create a class of children legally known as bastards.
Just how is promiscuous sex (and please, not all unintended pregnancies are due to promiscuity!) when a male has but MORE incentive to bed as many females as he can since he can leave lots of little bastards in his wake and never worry about his car payment?
You don't punish children because of the stupidity of their parents.
Tell me where this law does NOT create legal bastards.
Posted by: Darleen at March 14, 2006 10:40 PM
Darleen:
I've already addressed why the suit doesn't seek reproductive rights durning gestation. The idea of a man forcing a woman to have an abortion is morally repugnant in every way. (besides numerous court cases have already rejected any ability of the father to effect a woman's reproductive choices during gestation)
As to sanctioning a woman for reproductive fraud, the courts have consistently rewarded women for reproductive fraud. There are thousands of cases of boyfriends and husbands being forced to support children even when it is proven by DNA that they are not the fathers. There is also a notorious case where a woman saved the results from oral sex, impregnated herself, and still got child support.(http://writ.news.findlaw.com/colb/20050309.html)
I am a firm believer in orphanages and adoptions. I believe that if a woman decides to have a child (and note I am anti-abortion) the father wishes to reject, she can either raise it herself, arrange an adoption, or place it in an orphanage.
Immoral men will always seek to have as much casual sex as possible. Their only limitation is the supply of willing women. Until Roe, the birth control pill, and the sexual revolution, it has always been women who controlled irresponsible sexual behavior. I do not think it is out of line to state that since women possess all gestational rights, it also falls on them to be responsible for regulating sexual activity. (which traditionally they have always done anyway)
Posted by: Gahrie at March 15, 2006 01:30 AM
I have written a longer response on my blog at: http://gahrie.blogspot.com/2006/03/roe-v-wade-for-men.html
Posted by: gahrie at March 15, 2006 03:48 AM
It's doubtful if any court or legislature will ever allow a father to use state action (the courts) to force a woman he has impregnated, to have an abortion.
There are always strange lawsuits; I wouldn't pay too much attention to this one.
If a man father's a child, he's responsible in every sense of the word.
That state of affairs isn't going to change anytime soon.
Posted by: Carl W. Goss at March 15, 2006 08:57 AM
I'm trying to get a copy of the complaint in the Dubay case, but I havn't been able so far.
Dubay is simply interested in getting out of his obligation to pay child support.
At least so far as I can see, based on the few blogs and newspaper articles I've read.
Posted by: Carl W. Goss at March 15, 2006 09:16 AM
For the past 40 or so years, the feminist movement has worked to gain women all of the rights and privileges traditionally held by men. Good for them. And, arguably good for us as a species.
The problem is that gender feminism has simultaneously (and quite hypocritically in my opinion) attempted to allow women to keep all of their counterbalancing feminine privileges and perks from they days of patriarchal tyranny.
Who can blame women for trying to get the best of both worlds? Not me. They would be stupid not to try.
Men, on the other hand have been stupid – but how very chivalrous – not to call women on this. It’s getting old ladies. Men are tired of you have it both ways.
Posted by: Royce at March 15, 2006 12:28 PM
Royce
Obviously I have real problems with gender feminism. Indeed I've already railed against single females being allowed to get finite fertility treatment - at taxpayer expense, no less!
I really have no problem with trying to figure out affirmative policies to try and bring back some responsibility in the realm of sexual relations.
But I will not have a whole class of children made legal bastards in a tit for tat exercise between gender feminists and gender masculinists.
Posted by: Darleen at March 15, 2006 01:04 PM
Darleen,
I have mixed thoughts and feelings on this one. I certainly do not want to see children suffer for their parents’ mistakes. I guess the question as I see it is: How do you protect kids and at the same time promote the classical liberal notions of individual rights and responsibility for adults?
This is a tough one to say the least. I think that women would have more of a leg to stand on in this discussion if gender feminism had not muddied the waters and weakened women’s positions in this matter. It would also ring truer if the ubiquitous progressive cry of "it's for the children!" were not used as a reason for every social program/prohibition under the sun.
Sometimes things on a societal level have to get worse before they get better - even for children. I suspect, if we want to work for a culture that promotes and expects adults - male of female - to behave like responsible adults, that things may well get worse for some children before they get better.
Given that the illegitimacy rate is so absurdly high, maybe the stigmatization of birthing a bastard - not being one - may be a step in the right direction.
It's probably a good thing for everyone that I'm not philosopher-king.
Posted by: Royce at March 15, 2006 05:38 PM
I have a question for you Darleen.
Here's the scenario:
A young couple couple agrees that they do not want to have children. They mutually agree on a birth control method. She gets pregnant anyway (these things happen). One of the parties changes their mind and wants to have the baby. The other says "No way. We agreed not to have children".
Should one party be able to force the other to become a mother/father against her/his wishes? If the answer depends on the sex of the party who changed their mind, isn't that hypocritical and unfair?
P.S. I'm a bastard. There are worse things to be.
Posted by: Hank at March 16, 2006 03:41 AM
A kid isn't an object; you can't just return it if you don't like it, or declare it a "non-person" because you're "just not ready to be a parent" (who ever is?); and isn't part of being an adult accepting those very things that "just happen?"
As I said before, neither one of these selfish, utterly creepy human beings, the man and the woman, sound fit to be parents. Give the kid up for adoption to a stable, two-parent family.
Posted by: TalkinKamel at March 16, 2006 05:32 PM
Hank
IMHO, if the couple is married, decision should go to the one wanting the kid (I'm taking it for granted that we are talking a healthy and non-life threatening pregnancy).
Non-married couple, the female's decision.
The sexes are biologically different. You cannot put an artificial "sameness" on both. We have laws that keep females from combat positions with the military. Why we have to treat a pregnancy as if it involves a nascent human life grows inside either sex.
We are not a hermaphrodite species.
Posted by: Darleen at March 16, 2006 11:29 PM
How about this though Darleen?
The Supreme Court has ruled that an employer may not ban pregnant women from certain jobs because they may harm the fetus. (International Union, United Auto Workers v. Johnson Controls, Inc)
However the courts have ruled that employers may give pregnant women preferential treatment (extended sick leave, saving a job etc) not available to expectant fathers.
So current law is that you may not discriminate against pregnant women (even to protect the fetus), but you may give them preferential treatment.
Posted by: gahrie at March 16, 2006 11:54 PM
Thanx for the reply Darleen.
Are you saying that if a wife becomes pregnant (even though she was using birth control to prevent it) and wants to have an abortion, the husband should be able to legally force her to have the baby anyway?
Posted by: Hank at March 17, 2006 03:42 AM
Hank
I know most people wouldn't agree, but I think believe, unless pre-nuptials have been signed, married couples have both certain responsibilitys and obligations they take on with the contract. That includes children. They either agree on a course of action, or in case of conflict, the baby should be brought to term. He shouldn't be allowed to force her into an abortion and she shouldn't be allowed to abort his legitimate child.
If your marriage isn't go to have children, have a tubal or vasectomy.
Posted by: Darleen at March 17, 2006 01:14 PM
gahrie
I'll look into the SCOTUS rulings, but at first blush I'd say it was akin to anti-discrimination via sexual orientation... You cannot discriminate AGAINST gays in hiring/promoting. But in giving benefits (ie medical, dental) a business is NOT obligated to give the same bene's to non-married couples as to married couples.
Posted by: Darleen at March 17, 2006 01:25 PM
Thanx for continuing the debate, Darleen.
In an earlier post about the SD abortion ban, you wrote "An adult woman, of sound mind and within the first 9 weeks of gestation has (and should keep) the option to seek an abortion sans any government interference."
Doesn't that quote contradict your reply to me: "or in case of conflict (between husband and wife), the baby should be brought to term. He shouldn't be allowed to force her into an abortion and she shouldn't be allowed to abort his legitimate child."?
Posted by: Hank at March 17, 2006 03:05 PM
Hank
You're correct I should have been a bit clearer. I was stating my position on abortion as a general rule.
However, I believe the contractual institution of marriage, a legal partnership, imposes certain obligations.
I don't believe either partner should be able to get a tubal or vasectomy without explicit notification. I don't believe one spouse who test positive for any STD, including HIV, should be allowed to keep that information from the other spouse.
Where it concerns unmarrieds, again I state Caveat Fornicatus.
Posted by: Darleen at March 17, 2006 06:54 PM
I don't mean to put words in your mouth, but is your position:
"An adult" *single* "woman, of sound mind and within the first 9 weeks of gestation has (and should keep) the option to seek an abortion sans any government interference", but a wife should not have that option if her husband objects.
"I don't believe either partner should be able to get a tubal or vasectomy without explicit notification. I don't believe one spouse who test positive for any STD, including HIV, should be allowed to keep that information from the other spouse."
I agree completely. Are these things currently allowable? I'm not married, so I don't know.
Posted by: Hank at March 17, 2006 10:30 PM