New Column: If Men Got Pregnant, Would Abortion Be Legal?
June 15th, 2009 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families
My new column, If Men Got Pregnant, Would Abortion Be Legal?, recently appeared in the Huffington Post. It is below.
If Men Got Pregnant, Would Abortion Be Legal?
By Glenn Sacks
In Peggy Drexler's new Huffington Post column "The Supreme Court: Why Women Matter" (6/8/09), she defends Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor and calls for more women on the Court. Drexler explains:
[Abortion is] gender's judicial flashpoint. If men got pregnant, reproductive choice would be in the Bill of Rights - if not a sacrament. Yet, we were are a vote or two shy of limiting or denying that choice. Women will see that threat as no man possibly can.
Drexler's view that society would be more solicitous of men's reproductive rights than women's is common in the pro-choice movement. However, if men could get pregnant, would abortion really be legal? Based on the relevant family law rulings and related legislation, the answer is probably "no."
Though abortion is controversial, few believe that women should be compelled to bear and be responsible for children who were conceived as a result of a criminal act, such as a sexual assault. Yet numerous courts have ruled that boys must be held responsible for the children they involuntarily fathered in their early teens as a result of a criminal act--statutory rape by an adult woman.
For example, in 2004 a Michigan appeals court ruled that a man who had conceived a child with an adult when he was 14 must pay her child support. Though the court acknowledged that the sex act which produced the child would have been a crime under state law, they decided that the case should be resolved "without regard to the fault of either of the parents."
Most people sympathize with women who have decided to terminate their pregnancies because they conceived as a result of being deceived into believing that their partners had vasectomies or were sterile. By contrast, courts have consistently failed to extend any consideration to men who have been deceived.
For example, in 2005 an Illinois appellate court decided a case in which a Chicago physician alleged that his ex-girlfriend had secretly kept his semen after the two had oral sex, and then impregnated herself with it. The court stated that if the doctor's story is true, his ex-girlfriend "deceitfully engaged in sexual acts which no reasonable person would expect could result in pregnancy." Yet it hung the responsibility for the child on the doctor anyway, employing the pretzel logic that "when plaintiff 'delivered' his sperm, it was a gift...There was no agreement that the original deposit would be returned upon request."
Fetal protection laws also demonstrate courts' and lawmakers' concern for women's reproductive rights and disregard for men's; if mom doesn't want to be a parent, the unborn child is a meaningless fetus, yet if it is dad who doesn't want to be a parent, the fetus is considered a living human being. This double-standard was highlighted in 2005 in a case involving a Texas high school couple.
Erica Basoria testified that when she was four months into her twin pregnancy she regretted not getting an abortion, and asked Gerardo Flores, her boyfriend, to help her terminate it. Basoria then punched herself in the stomach while Flores stepped on her stomach, inducing a miscarriage.
Though both Flores and Basoria had committed exactly the same act for exactly the same reasons, Flores is now serving life in prison for murder. Basoria, who stood by Flores and cried when he was sentenced, could not be prosecuted because of her legal right to an abortion.
A million and a half American women legally walk away from motherhood every year by abortion, adoption, or abandonment. In more than 40 states, a mother can terminate all parental responsibility by returning the baby to the hospital within a few days or weeks of birth. Similarly, women can give their babies up for adoption, generally with few legal complications.
By contrast, courts and laws refuse to recognize reproductive prerogatives for men, forbidding them to avoid responsibility for a pregnancy in even the most extreme circumstances. If men got pregnant, would they have abortion rights? There's little reason to think so.
This column first appeared in the Huffington Post (6/11/09).
"));
19 queries. 0.331 seconds.
June 15th, 2009 at 11:14 pm
If men got pregnant pregnancy would be declared a "male privilege".
June 15th, 2009 at 11:23 pm
Excellent job, Glenn! And Danny (above) is exactly right.
June 15th, 2009 at 11:42 pm
Polls have shown that when demographics are broken down that young men are the group that most strongly supports abortion on demand. Women in general are the strongest opponents of abortion on demand.
If men got pregnant abortion would be illegal in all 50 states.
Few would support the culture of hit-and-run caddism that is today encouraged by Hollywood, pop music, marxism believers, the advertising industry (which is in favor of all behavior that involves short attention span and immediate gratification), and people who think "it's all about them."
June 16th, 2009 at 12:20 am
Are you kidding me? If men got pregnant, we would have the baby.
Men live in a society where we are told to not cry, to not show emotion, and to "walk it off".
We are expected to take the hard road, to deal with consequences, and to learn from our failure. We get the hard punishments.
We are the ones that take the life and death jobs. We go to war, fight the fires, hunt the criminals, conquer the wilderness, take on nature's fuery, and then only ask to be remembered when we fall.
We are the providers. We work the factory jobs that built a nation. We man the boats that brave the waters to bring bounty. We plow the fields. We climb the scaffolds, heave the brick, and mortar the future.
It is men that have made the future possible.
If child bearing was added to our burden, then we would embrace it. We would turn it into a trade, an occupation, a competition. We would honor those who do it well. We would look to our elders for direction. We would help those who are struggling. And, we would ask for little or nothing in return.
We would not make the whole experience about "me". We would not complain about our pain. We would not beg for midnight snacks. We would not demand that our wives be there in our "hour of need". We would "suck it up" and try to do it better than it has ever been done before.
Men realize that our future depends on our children. We do ourselves, our brethren, our society, and our world a favor when we father more and more children. It is our children that will care for us in our old age. It is our children that will take care of this great Earth. It is our children that will further society. It is our responsibility to beget many offspring so that our society and our lineage will thrive long into the future. Our way of life depends on it.
June 16th, 2009 at 12:23 am
The idea that abortion rights would be a "sacrament" if men could get pregnant was stated about 40 years ago by Steinem. I didn't read Drecksler's piece, but if she claimed authorship for this "gem" she's even more corrupt intellectually than I had thought.
The comment about the demographics of abortion politics (Richard Stephens above) is very telling. It hasn't changed much over the years, but the "meme" of abortion as a "women's rights" issue remains deminant.
As Glenn says, it's a tough issue, especially in forced pregnancy situations, but we can't get anywhere if the dialogue isn't honest.
June 16th, 2009 at 12:35 am
Very well argued Glenn. Although I doubt anyone is going to seriously consider what a man had to say about reproductive rights, given that this is a democracy (not a republic anymore) and majority votes against men's rights, both politically as well as personally. Politically, because violating men's rights is PC, and personally, because women generally do not care about the rights of male members of their own family (strangers don't stand a chance).
June 16th, 2009 at 1:02 am
Here's what I find so weird: Men DON'T get pregnant, and abortion IS legal. Duh. (Especially in California, which made abortion legal before Roe v. Wade).
Weird part II: Roe v. Wade was written by a MAN, who, according to Peggy, can't possibly have seen the threat perceived by women (or at least, women like Peggy).
Weird part III: Millions of American women disagree with Roe v. Wade.
Wouldn't it be ironic if a female SCOTUS justice voted against abortion? When feminists talk about reproductive choice, it's always the choice NOT to become a parent (contraception, abortion, safe haven, adoption). As noted above, men do not enjoy the spectrum of choices available to women. I would support abortion as legalized murder (~ self defense, defense of others, war, criminal executions) if it were limited to pregnancies resulting from rape and performed within the first trimester, and even that would give more reproductive rights to women than men currently have.
June 16th, 2009 at 1:56 am
Don't forget about the fact that a woman has many months to decide if she wants an abortion and her boyfriend has no say in the life or death of his child.
But a guy is financially responsible for the child with NO WAY OUT for 18 years weather he likes it or not from the second after he has sex.
And even if he is 12 years old he is responsible and if later it is proven that the kid was not even his he does not get any of his money back.
Also the part about allowing abortions only for rape victims. Like the amount of false rape reports isn't high enough!
Can you imagine 100% of all girls wanting an abortion would just say they were raped.
June 16th, 2009 at 2:58 am
The whole argument that 'if men had babies, abortion rights would be sacrosanct' is a perfect illustration of how out of touch with reality feminists are.
If men had babies, I have little doubt that abortion would be criminalised. There is no way that most women, or society in general, would trust men with the right to decide whether or not to have children.
Indeed, pro-choicers often fall back on the argument that women are able to be trusted with these matters, and not take such a decision lightly.
June 16th, 2009 at 3:00 am
"Polls have shown that when demographics are broken down that young men are the group that most strongly supports abortion on demand. Women in general are the strongest opponents of abortion on demand."
So much for the claim often heard from feminists, that women are more likely to vote Democratic because of their support for a woman's right to choose.
June 16th, 2009 at 6:58 am
I can't imagine. There are no special laws for men. Selective service,affirmative action,family courts are for women. Nothing for men..
What would make this any different?
June 16th, 2009 at 8:39 am
Men will be able to carry a fetus in the not so distant future. Sadly, I believe we will actually face this issue.
June 16th, 2009 at 9:12 am
Richard Stephens wrote: Polls have shown that when demographics are broken down that young men are the group that most strongly supports abortion on demand. Women in general are the strongest opponents of abortion on demand.
Richard, can you provide citations or links to these polls you reference? It would be interesting to review the polling data and methodology.
Thanks!
June 16th, 2009 at 9:18 am
Lisa,
Surely enough men will be able to produce children, but don't need to produce it from their own body. Artifical wombs are possible. But even today, a man cannot choose to not have kids (abort/abandon/opt out) - essentially this IS an issue right now and the verdict has already been delivered in the Matt Dubay case. Men do not have the right to choose. The article is just another instance of misandric spirit raging among women in general.
June 16th, 2009 at 10:22 am
The article was well done, Glenn.
I think the abortion issue ("Roe for Men" or RFM) is quite a difficult one for us to tackle with any degree of success. If abortion is a sacrament for anyone, it's the women's groups. It;s the holy of holies, and so claiming that men should have some rights around their own reproduction, and the impact on their own lives, is going to be dead on arrival politically for quite some time. RFM is needed for equality to be achieved in the reproduction area, but equality is not the point of Roe -- the point of Roe is power for women, and the fact that it works one way (women only), gives women an almost God-like power to choose whether to avoid a pregnancy or to foist on on her sex partner, at her whim. And women want it that way, precisely because it gives them power. The talk about control over their own bodies is a sideshow -- they want control over the reproduction of our species, full stop, and they will be damned before they relinquish one iota of "opt out" power to men, to counterbalance a woman's ability to force an "unwanted" pregnancy on her sex partner.
The way out of this will ultimately not be political but technological. Technology will, eventually, break the stranglehold of power that women have over reproduction in our society and largely moot this issue. Once it becomes possible to have children without the participation of women as their incubators, the sexual politics around reproduction will change dramatically, and move towards a more equal footing. I do not think we will see many changes in the direction of RFM before then, however.
June 16th, 2009 at 10:34 am
Men don't have reproductive choices now, and we're compelled to care for children we don't want, and even for children that aren't ours.
So, if women had any say about it, men wouldn't have abortion rights. We'd be responsible for carrying it to term, AND responsible for a lifetime of support, and lose custody at a whim. If we had a baby out of wedlock, we'd either be solely responsible for it's care, or the state would deem us unfit parents. And if it were a girl, we'd have to be monitored, "just in case".
Really, look at how few rights we have now in the areas of our family and reproduction. We have permanent surgical sterilization, unreliable condoms, and trusting our partner to act in good faith. None of the three are very attractive options.
Consider what standard we're held accountable to - once we ejaculate, we've made our decision - we're accountable to everyone else's whim. I doubt that would change if men were suddenly able to become pregnant through intercourse.
June 16th, 2009 at 10:52 am
This article quite logical Glenn.
June 16th, 2009 at 11:01 am
brilliant article!
June 16th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
Great article! It is also worth mentioning this. If a man and women have consensual protected sex, but a baby results anyway (it happens) if the woman wants to abort it, the man has no say, even if he wants to keep the child. Since she wants to abort it, the child no longer matters.
June 16th, 2009 at 2:54 pm
Great job high lighting all the double standards against men... Perhaps people will see things in the mans point of view.
June 16th, 2009 at 7:07 pm
why can't men have a birth control pill......hey i want it....why should i have to pay for a baby from casual sex...there was no intent by either the man or woman....where are the mens choices?????????
June 16th, 2009 at 8:18 pm
@john...
What you do is simply say "no" to them.
Trust me when I say they seriously hate that.
Don't do it in Mexico though.
June 17th, 2009 at 4:27 pm
That was an outstanding and well explained article. It should be on the school curriculum of every high school family life class.
July 14th, 2009 at 10:32 pm
A friend of mine is currently going through one of the most egregious of these scenarios right now, which is outlined in my blog, click on my name.
I'm outraged by this woman's malfeasance in not notifying all potential fathers when she got pregnant.
I'm a 38 year old hard-core old-school feminist and I believe strongly that there way too many people on the planet for folks to be having kids they don't want.Women like the one in this story make me furious. My friend should have the right to decide whether or not to be fiscally responsible for a child he didn't even know he had.
I fully support men's reproductive rights.