May 14, 2001

3:53 AM

"Men Too" abortion leaflet.
"Men have no legal rights when it comes to abortion. Legally an abortion is a matter between a woman and her doctor - and this is as it should be. "
posted by nonharmful (42 comments total)

This link was not posted to repeat the recent thread on pro's and con's of abortion. But it's interesting to pay some thoughts to the man's point of view:

From the article:

* 75% of men said they would support a partner's choice
* 54% said they personally knew a woman who had had an abortion
* 63% said they felt there was insufficient information for men about abortion
posted by nonharmful at 4:01 AM on May 14, 2001

Editor's cut
posted by holloway at 4:08 AM on May 14, 2001

"Men have no legal rights when it comes to abortion. Legally an abortion is a matter between a woman and her doctor - and this is as it should be. "

It's attitudes like this that make me pro-life - because the almost hysterical level of rhetoric on the subject all but forces you to "choose sides," and I cannot accept this kind of misbegotten remark. Sorry, Ann, but unless and until women can get pregnant without men, you're leaving someone out of your equation...
posted by m.polo at 5:50 AM on May 14, 2001

m.polo: How would you suggest a law for that?
posted by holloway at 7:18 AM on May 14, 2001

m.polo - Your point about women getting pregnant without men is a nice sophistry; for one thing, it implies that the contribution of sperm conveys a right of title over the products of conception. I'm not a lawyer, but I think it's been decided that this is not the case. (Someone either back me up or correct me, here.) For another thing, it is currently possible for a woman to get pregnant without a man, and it may soon be possible for a woman to get pregnant without sperm, so that argument is pretty much a straw man.

Could you explain your view to me? At what point does the male have the right to decide what a female does with her body, and why?
posted by RylandDotNet at 7:25 AM on May 14, 2001

Ryland: No one said contributing sperm means ownership. You seem to be saying contributing eggs and a womb means ownership though, why?
posted by holloway at 7:53 AM on May 14, 2001

Oh come on. Pregnancy effects a man very little if at all. Sure, the sperm is yours however men probably waste more through masturbation then intercourse. When a woman becomes pregnant her body goes through major changes chemically and physically. When men must conserve sperm for the purpose of procreation only and stop spewing into whatever kleenexs that make their way to the trash, then they can complain that abortion is having a somewhat larger effect on their lives.

If men were the ones getting pregnant, abortion would be a non-issue.
posted by bkdelong at 8:02 AM on May 14, 2001

You seem to be saying contributing eggs and a womb means ownership though, why?

"Possession is nine points of the law."
posted by kindall at 8:07 AM on May 14, 2001

At what point does the male have the right to decide what a female does with her body, and why?

At the point at which it may be conclusively proven that the female is pregnant with a human child that is the offspring of the male who demonstrates on interest in knowing what happens with his sperm. Why? Because it is a child and not a tumor, or an underdeveloped breast, or a fractured left pinkie - and not some medical condition the female found herself in without the participation of a male.

(One presumes that in the case of a woman who became pregnant "without a male" (a medical impossibility, at least in the universe the rest of us appear to live in, but I presume you mean through sperm donation), an abortion is hardly a likely necessity - if she went to that much trouble to get pregnant, terminanting it is probably not high on her list of things to do this week.)
posted by m.polo at 8:09 AM on May 14, 2001

So, Ryland, bkdelong, et al., you'd agree that child-support laws should be abandoned? Just being devil's advocate here--I'm as bleeding heart as the next guy, very pro-choice, all that. But your use of the argument that the father is only marginally affected by the pregnancy, and thus has no rights, would lead one to believe that you would also argue he has no responsibility for it, and thus no obligation to provide support. There are plenty of good arguments to support the mother's exclusive right to choose; saying the father is unaffected is not one of them.
posted by MrMoonPie at 8:19 AM on May 14, 2001

If a man chooses not support a woman's decision against abortion, is he not to be held accountable for the rearing and support of that child upon birth.

The role of fatherhood can be decided by a woman, of which a disagreeing sperm donor has no control. Any responsible man would dutifully fill this role, although the reason for this role may have been against his wishes. If a woman does not wish to be a mother, the decision in entirely under her control. To say pregnancy is a non-issue for men is short-sighted.
posted by jasondigitized at 8:29 AM on May 14, 2001

Point of addition to what jasondigitized wrote.
If a man chooses not support a woman's decision against abortion, is he not to be held accountable for the rearing and support of that child upon birth.
I don't understand precisely what you mean by that question. It can be (and legally is) the case where the man (read sperm-donor) has no decision to "support" or not support a woman's choice at all. If another is allowed to decide and there is no acceptance of the man's will or wish, isn't holding him accountable for another's wishes just a form of slavery? If that is what you meant, I tend to agree with you (somewhat uncomfortably).
Also, when we speak of the role of fatherhood, I would like to point out that there is a huge difference between being a "father" to a child, and being a financial supporter by will of law. The first (fatherhood) is commendable, the second I agree should be done for the wellfare of the yougun' but can't reconcile my agreement with the idea that you can't morally pick and choose the role of the male in reproduction based on a checkbook without some form of allowed consent. I'm gettin' a headache thinking about this.
posted by Wulfgar! at 8:55 AM on May 14, 2001

MrMoonPie said: So, Ryland, bkdelong, et al., you'd agree that child-support laws should be abandoned?

Not at all, that's a separate issue. We're talking about the termination of a pregnancy, in which case the father ultimately has no say. If the mother chooses not to abort the pregnancy, at that point the father is as responsible as the mother and father agree he is. (and if they can't agree, a court decides). If there's no baby, there's no issue of responsibility.
posted by RylandDotNet at 9:01 AM on May 14, 2001

Ryland, whether accurate or not on all levels, that's a nice restatement of the facts as is. The question is: should it be that way and why? Why is a man held in bondage by the decision of another?
posted by Wulfgar! at 9:09 AM on May 14, 2001

Why is a man held in bondage by the decision of another?

I keep forgetting the difference between irony and sarcasm. What is it again?
posted by rdr at 9:32 AM on May 14, 2001

rdr, its all too easy to get a dictionary and look the words up. Your point is?
posted by Wulfgar! at 9:46 AM on May 14, 2001

It all comes down to cases.

Let's see;

If a man and woman are in cahoots and trying to get pregnant, then, well, abortion is usually a non-issue. Unless, of course, you end up with a situation where the amnio comes back with bad news, which I have had happen to me, and you have to make a decision about long-term survivability, impact on family, quality of life, etc..

In that case, it has to be a joint decision, either way.

Then we have the couple who are not trying to get pregnant, and are taking measures to prevent it. Well, on the guy side, it's kind of unfair since he really doesn't have control over the decision, even if they talked about the possibilities before hand, because the woman can always change her mind. But then, is it fair to saddle him with child support when he was trying hard not to get pregnant?

Well, although it may not be fair, he did participate in the whole thing with the 'known risks', being that he was helping in the prevention and all. But, of course, if the woman stopped taking the pill or put pinholes in the condoms, then I'd say he has a case to get out of child support - but not to prevent to pregnancy.

Then you have the case of people who are just too young to be smart, or just stupid for no reason at all other than being stupid. Well, the law is there to protect the meek and stupid. And at this level, I tend to go with the woman having the say, with vary levels of responsibility on the man's side.

And of course then you have the whole rape/incest/non consentual thing. Where the victim should have all the rights, and the wrongdoer should be responsible for everything regardless. And remember - male rape does happen.

Hmm.. I mean, it's all in intention and context, so with something so subjective, how can anyone be so specific on the whole contract/ownership rights thing?
posted by rich at 9:49 AM on May 14, 2001

I mean, it's all in intention and context, so with something so subjective, how can anyone be so specific on the whole contract/ownership rights thing?

Precisely, rich. Which is why I am opposed to the unilateral view that only women get to decide when to abort an unborn child. In any case where the father is (1) known and (2) involved in any meaningful way, I simply think that the abortion of his child should be something about which he has the opportunity to express an opinion. That RylandDotNet would treat the unborn child as casually as they would treat, say, an appendix to be removed is nauseating to me and many other people who are probably near the middle of the road on this issue. Absolutist talk like "Men have no legal rights when it comes to abortion" is a moral situation we cannot bring ourselves to agree with, and so we end up in that "other camp," saying, "Unless we can be reasonable and treat this as a serious, sensitive issue, we're going to go with the 'don't do it at all' crowd."
posted by m.polo at 11:23 AM on May 14, 2001

Well, that being said, I'll still be hard pressed to come up with a situation where the decision a woman makes should be overridden by the man's opinion.

This is, of course, because the impact on the woman is more than 9 months of physical changes, but life style changes for work, time for doctors, money, etc.. that the man, technically, is not bound to go through whatsoever.
posted by rich at 11:47 AM on May 14, 2001

I have always thought there needs to be a male obligation equivalent of abortion, but until there is, it isn't all that hard to take the steps to make sure you don't get anyone pregnant that you don't want to. We cannot be allowed to control each other, but we must be allowed to have some control of our own circumstances.
posted by thirteen at 12:07 PM on May 14, 2001

Well, that being said, I'll still be hard pressed to come up with a situation where the decision a woman makes should be overridden by the man's opinion.

rich, I see now I have not been entirely clear. I do not believe the father's opinion should override that of the mother automatically; but I do believe that the opinion of the father should be considered somehow (no, I don't know how legally this would be accomplished).
posted by m.polo at 1:02 PM on May 14, 2001

If the male and female cannot agree on abortion policy, then isn't there a major flaw in the relationship? If one wants the baby, and the other really doesn't.. isn't this likely to destroy the relationship anyway?

I think it's a decision that the couple should come to together, but then the woman has the final say. It's her body.

And while I disagree with abortion anyway, I think the woman should be allowed to choose. If she chooses badly, then the unskilful outcome is in her hands.
posted by wackybrit at 1:47 PM on May 14, 2001

m.polo said: I do not believe the father's opinion should override that of the mother automatically; but I do believe that the opinion of the father should be considered somehow (no, I don't know how legally this would be accomplished).

That, as someone or other once said, is the crux of the biscuit.

Wulfgar said: The question is: should it be that way and why? Why is a man held in bondage by the decision of another?

The way I look at it, it's a matter of what's fair. A woman's life is fundamentally upheaved by a pregnancy, at best; at worst, pregnancy can be a catastrophic event. A man can't get pregnant, and so he can't know what it's like, so if a man insists on making a decision about a woman's pregnancy and her life, he's speaking from ignorance from the get-go. A man, when you get right down to it, always has an out. He will never have his life upheaved by a pregnancy the way a woman will. If I were able to get pregnant, I would not want someone else to make a life decision like that for me. It's just not fair. I can't even think of a good analogy, an equal-but-opposite situation for a man; there's nothing that can happen to a man that's like getting pregnant, but if there were, I wouldn't want someone else to decide for me what to do, especially someone who can't possibly know what I'm going through.
posted by RylandDotNet at 2:37 PM on May 14, 2001

i agree with ryland.

people who propose equal rights for both men and women in regard to abortion don't quite recognize that women tend to have a much larger obligation toward a child than a man does, and more obstacles.

women in the US, on the average, earn 70% of the salary that a man does. controling for differences in seniority, experience, choices of career (women tend to choose careers less upwardly mobile than men do--for example, marketing or human resources), women tend to earn 90% of the salary that a man would.

in a married household, regardless of whether the wife is employed in or out of the house, the male tends to spend a quarter of an hour--fifteen minutes--caring for the child.

(that psychology of gender class paid off!)

coming from a broken household--and i think i can safely assume a significant number of abortions would occur between separated, or soon-to-be separated, couples--i can tell you that "visitation" situations sucked. the fact that they became special made my father a more distant figure.

but some men whine to the death that they should have equal rights when it comes to abortion. makes sense to me.
posted by moz at 2:53 PM on May 14, 2001

women in the US, on the average, earn 70% of the salary that a man does. controling for differences in seniority, experience, choices of career (women tend to choose careers less upwardly mobile than men do--for example, marketing or human resources), women tend to earn 90% of the salary that a man would.

This just keeps coming up, don't it.

Even so I don't think the situation is helped by statistics that show what most men do, or by what most woman do.
There are stay-at-home fathers who take on all responsibility while the mother works. Irregardless of how rare - a mother shouldn't get the benefits of what most mothers do.

That a father, on average, spends 15 minutes with their child is again too vague for me to condemn all males. Any parent spending only 15 minutes each day is awful.

Whomever's bringing in money isn't nearly as respected as the one that takes care of the children, though it's entirely necessary for the childs well-being. By nature of working the breadwinner will spend less time than the caregiver.

The breadwinners part isn't at all valued by the courts and is always reduced to money, that's just sick.

In what way do fathers have less obligation than mothers, moz?

A woman's life is fundamentally upheaved by a pregnancy, at best; at worst, pregnancy can be a catastrophic event. A man can't get pregnant, and so he can't know what it's like, so if a man insists on making a decision about a woman's pregnancy and her life, he's speaking from ignorance from the get-go.

Even a doctor?

That a woman has a womb and what scientists now call "naughty bits" has nothing to do with her knowledge of pregnancy or birth. A woman isn't born with an inate knowledge of how her body works. She has to be around pregnancy to learn, just like a male.
posted by holloway at 3:56 PM on May 14, 2001

ok, holloway:

fathers are less likely to retain custody of a child in case of separation.

fathers spend less time with their children on average--and, frankly, your moral condemnation of what is usual is empty. i could morally condemn all smokers for causing cancer to others and themselves, but hell, it doesn't change anything for them or for me.

furthermore, in families where both the man and woman work, women still spend more time on childcare issues than men do. there was no practically significant difference in the time men spent (but there was a statistical significance; men spent .25 hours with their kids per day in households where the wife did not work, and .24 hours with their kids where the wife did work).

women work the same hours as men, and yet still do more work; all of the above did not count housework, which women still do a shiteload of and men do not (5:1 ratio in a household where the women does not work, a 3:1 ratio where she did). and yet men still ought to get equal rights?
posted by moz at 4:09 PM on May 14, 2001

Why is a man held in bondage by the decision of another?

I keep forgetting the difference between irony and sarcasm. What is it again?

rdr, its all too easy to get a dictionary and look the words up. Your point is?


I was being sarcastic. The original quote was unintentionally ironic. The only way to a man's "rights" is to ignore a woman's right to control her own body.
posted by rdr at 4:18 PM on May 14, 2001

holloway said: Even a doctor? That a woman has a womb and what scientists now call "naughty bits" has nothing to do with her knowledge of pregnancy or birth. A woman isn't born with an inate knowledge of how her body works. She has to be around pregnancy to learn, just like a male.

Yup, even a doctor. We're not talking about the physiological effects of pregnancy on the female body. If you want to know what pregnancy is like, the gut-level experience of it, you don't ask a doctor, you ask a pregnant woman. And even a doctor shouldn't make your life decisions for you.
posted by RylandDotNet at 5:20 PM on May 14, 2001

Aye, and there's the rub, isn't it, rdr? If I'm losing the difference between two words, its irony and tragedy. For not the first time, I'm again questioning my pro-choice stance precisely because we're not really talking about a woman or man controling a woman's body. We're talking about a woman or man's right to control a foriegn entity that just happens to be growing in that body. As long as I could look at it like that, then what the woman says goes. But every once in a while, something reminds me that it isn't just that. That foriegn entity has the potential of becoming a "son" or "daughter" or perhaps a "life long burden" to BOTH of its genetic donors. To talk about a woman's rights with her body in that context is overly simplistic. And it absolutely flies in the face of a belief that a woman's right of precidential choice is just a catagorical given.
posted by Wulfgar! at 5:29 PM on May 14, 2001

The only way to a man's "rights" is to ignore a woman's right to control her own body.

I believe that legally a women should have final-say. However this is because it's the only sane law, not because it's so clear-cut.

It's important that the final decision be influenced by doctors who know the health issues, and those that have to deal with the consequences.

These organisations do little to emphasise the male's role in pregnancy. The wording "it makes sense to help men feel as comfortable as possible about the issue" is nothing but to quell the male's emotions. That females don't have to inform males of an abortion really shows their attitude to males however. The male doesn't even have a right to know that they have a cute lil' fetus. This is defended with stories of violent husbands or long-term marriages where she only cheated once. The father has a right to know, and I find the tone of the press-release offensive.
posted by holloway at 5:48 PM on May 14, 2001

holloway said: That females don't have to inform males of an abortion really shows their attitude to males however. The male doesn't even have a right to know that they have a cute lil' fetus.

I don't like it either, but I can understand it. The unfortunate fact is that there are reprisals against some women, and they don't know which men are going to go off without doing in-depth investigation of each man, and such investigation isn't part of their mandate. They just have to play the odds and do the best they can.
posted by RylandDotNet at 5:59 PM on May 14, 2001

The male doesn't even have a right to know that they have a cute lil' fetus. This is defended with stories of violent husbands or long-term marriages where she only cheated once. The father has a right to know, and I find the tone of the press-release offensive.

Is this suggesting that a woman must get permission from a man before getting an abortion?
posted by amanda at 6:35 PM on May 14, 2001

Ok. I'll try to write a non-flip entry here. I'm a man. If I impregnate a woman I might end owing approximately two decades of financial support and a lifetime of emotional support to the child. However, I have no voice in whether the woman has an abortion. I'm very comfortable with that. To be blunt men have no role in pregnancy. They might have have a role in nurturing and supporting a pregnant partner but that's different from having a role in the pregnancy. If I have to go through nine months of increasing discomfort, if I have to risk my life to give birth, if I have to go through labor, then I have a role in pregnancy. Otherwise, I'm at most a pregnant persons partner. I suspect that any cultural or social construct that obscures men's irrelevance is simply a result of uterus envy.
BTW, in the course of writing this I searched for the phrase uterus envy and found this poem as well some references to cultural theory. I admit to complete ignorance of feminist or non-feminist cultural theory.
posted by rdr at 6:39 PM on May 14, 2001

I'm a man. If I impregnate a woman I might end owing approximately two decades of financial support and a lifetime of emotional support to the child.

Is it possible to separate the issues of financial support from the issue on whether a man has a say in the case of abortion?

I think one of the reasons men are in the predicament that they are in regards to financial support is because it is so easy for them to abandon women and family. I think the courts are very clumsy when it comes to this stuff. However, I still don't know if the courts clumsiness gives men the right to control a pregnancy.
posted by amanda at 7:13 PM on May 14, 2001

Is this suggesting that a woman must get permission from a man before getting an abortion?

Holloway has already said that he believes that a woman must have the final say. I can't see where you get this suggestion from his quote.

I have to out myself here as his personal possession and I can assure you he is a very considerate master indeed.
posted by Catch at 7:13 PM on May 14, 2001

If you want to know what pregnancy is like, the gut-level experience of it, you don't ask a doctor, you ask a pregnant woman.

This is a common point of view, but it misses the point.

The only way you can know the gut-level experience of what my life is like is to be me and live my life. Since you are not me, and you don't live my life, you have no idea what it's like.

See where this goes?

Of course I don't know what it's like to be pregnant from direct experience, and I never will. But this doesn't really matter - if direct experience were the only way to learn things, there'd be no point to using language.

And even a doctor shouldn't make your life decisions for you.

With this I wholeheartedly agree.

-Mars
posted by Mars Saxman at 7:59 AM on May 15, 2001

"I'm a man. If I impregnate a woman I might end owing approximately two decades of financial support and a lifetime of emotional support to the child."

See, I think the operative word here is 'might'. Let's go witht he 80-20 rule. Eliminating functional relationships where both partners discuss and agree on things and things were planned, or at least consequences discussed and planned for; we are left with situations where the potential mother may not be in any condition to care for a child, or is not able to bear the burden of 9 months (it's actually 10 months, but whatever) for whatever reason.

In many cases, the woman isn't able to sue for child care from the father, or even if she does, he'll be a deadbeat.

And then you have the absent 'father' who suddenly finds the light, ignoring the needs of the woman, simply enamoured by the fact that he can have some offspring as some kind of trophy.

Of course, you also have all your medical issues, from the mother to the fetus, that unless you pay very close attention to and make an effort to understand, the 'father' just won't get or won't care about.

As for 'cute lil fetus', they aren't really cute. But beyond that, if the man has not been involved in the relationship to a level where they've discussed the whole thing before having sex, and come to agreements in a truly mutually understanding fashion, then, no, he doesn't really have any right to know about 'the cute lil fetus'.

And as for the whole right to choose, I'd like to give a pro-lifer the issue of an amnio coming back at 4 months with Downs and see how they'd like to deal with that one.
posted by rich at 8:17 AM on May 15, 2001

Mars Saxman said: Of course I don't know what it's like to be pregnant from direct experience, and I never will. But this doesn't really matter - if direct experience were the only way to learn things, there'd be no point to using language.

I think you're right, for the most part -- but I also think (and I could be wrong, but I'm certain) that we wouldn't be having this discussion if that were completely so, that if a man could completely understand what it's like to be pregnant just from reading a book or having it described to him, the whole issue would never have arisen. I think that there are some experiences in life that are ineffable, or that can be conveyed only poorly at best, simply because there is a gulf of experience or perception that can't be bridged.

I also think we're getting away from the central issue, which is: does a man have any legal or moral right to compel a woman to carry a pregnancy to term? I think he has a right to have his opinion considered, but in the end, the decision is up to the woman.
posted by RylandDotNet at 8:51 AM on May 15, 2001

Equal rights demand equal responsibility and equal opportunity to remove oneself from responsibilities that we do not wish to undertake. So long as women who find themselves unexpectedly pregnant are free to terminate that pregnancy, thus removing themselves from the responsibility of parenthood, any man who finds that he has made someone pregnant unexpectedly should also have the right to assume no responsibility for the child should the woman choose to give birth.

Does this then put more of a burden upon the woman to have to raise a child on her own and provide for it? Absolutely. But it's the unfortunate consequence of the decision to procreate stupidly. Wiser choices all around would make these arguments moot.
posted by Dreama at 9:13 AM on May 15, 2001

The right of women to 'remove themselves from the responsibility of parenthood' through abortion is in no way relatable to a man being able to abdicate his responsibilities if the woman chooses to give birth. It's apples and oranges.

They are so much two different issues. By characterizing electing to have an abortion as 'removing oneself from the responsibilities of parenting', you try to make the leap between the two, but that description is wrong, and thus a flawed place to base a comparison upon.
posted by rich at 9:57 AM on May 15, 2001

I'd say it was more like 2 different kind of apples.
posted by thirteen at 10:05 AM on May 15, 2001

I would assume that the man would have to leagaly state his intention to abort his parental responsibilities long before the child is born.
posted by thirteen at 10:22 AM on May 15, 2001