From: dgross@zeus.calpoly.edu (Dave Gross)
Subject: Do Men Have Reproductive Rights?
Organization: Manumission:  The Campus Men's Forum
Date: Mon, 07 Sep 1992 19:19:48 GMT

	DO MEN HAVE REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS?
	by Dave Gross

Politically this is being billed as the Year of the Woman.  At the center of
the storm that's been raining on the parade of more than one politician is one
issue -- abortion.  What the reproductive rights of women are, and who will
decide the limits of these rights, is a defining issue not only of this
political campaign, but of this quarter-century.

But in the midst of this storm, some men are wondering if -they- have any
reproductive rights, and if so what they are, and if not why not.  "I made up
a riddle last night," writes Fred Hayward.  "What would you call it if women
lost not only the right to terminate the pregnancy when they wanted to abort
it, but even lost the right -not- to terminate it when they did not want to
abort it?  If she were forced to have a fetus aborted that she wanted to
raise?  You give up?  It would be called -equality-, because that is the
present status of men."

What men like Fred Hayward are upset about isn't abortion itself -- these men
are pro-choice -- it's the fact that women are currently allowed to make
decisions that have a great impact on men's lives unilaterally and without
their input.  If a pregnant woman wants to abort and the man wants to be a
father, tough luck for him.  If she wants to bear the child, and the man
isn't ready to be a father, well, see you in paternity court when it comes
time for child support, buster.

Among these men who are debating their reproductive rights, a small minority
believe that a woman should have the consent of the father before having an
abortion.  Most believe that because the woman's body is carrying the
pregnancy, the decision is ultimately hers.  The debate centers mostly on two
issues:  How this should affect male sexuality, and whether men should be
forced into parenthood through programs like mandatory child support or
whether instead men, too, have the right to decide when to become a parent.

"Male heterosexual responsibility," according to Richard Newman, "should begin
with the realization that once we fertilize the egg -- unless we have agreed
beforehand with our partner on the consequences -- what happens thereafter is
beyond our control."  Newman believes that men, unlike women, have no rights
whatsoever after pregnancy, and accordingly, they should make decisions about
procreation before sexual activity.

"If a man who believes abortion is murder finds himself involved with a woman
who explicitly says she will have an abortion should she become pregnant,
that man has a responsibility to himself to avoid -completely- the
possibility of her becoming pregnant.  Since he cannot question her right to
an abortion, the moral dilemma if she gets pregnant is his, not hers."

Unfortunately, he acknowledges that this "means that our choice of sexual
partners and the character of our sexual relationships will be determined by
our sexual biology (not a comfortable situation for anyone)."  What he
glosses over is that in real life women don't make hard and fast agreements
before the fact about what they will do if confronted with an unintended
pregnancy, and that even if they do, they are under no legal obligation to
follow through.  Newman's solution, then, if taken to its natural
conclusion, is either vasectomy or homosexuality or abstinence -- none of
which are for everyone.

Author Harlan Ellison came to that conclusion, though, and shared it with his
readers in the introduction to "Croatoan:"  "I wrote this story after an
affair with a woman who led me to believe she was on The Pill, who became
pregnant, and who subsequently had an abortion...  The point, which obsessed
me, was that if people whose lives touched by mine failed to take
responsibility for their own lives, than I had to do it for them...  Two
weeks after writing 'Croatoan' I had my vasectomy."

The other half of the problem Ellison experienced is when the woman decides
to carry an unexpected pregnancy to term despite the father's wishes (or the
father's ignorance of the situation).  One man wrote to Ann Landers to tell
the story of his 21-year-old sister who "despises men, but she wants a
family."  She got pregnant and said, when asked if she knew who the father
was, "I picked him out.  It was no love affair.  He thought I was on the
pill."

Ann's response, without a word deleted:  "It was, indeed, selfish of your
sister to do this, but don't make a bad situation worse by interfering.  Lisa
should get some advice from someone whose head is on straighter than hers.  I
hope she will talk to her doctor, a clergyman, a social worker or a
counselor.  She needs to know that the baby's father is legally responsible
for child support, even though she deceived him and doesn't want his
financial help.  Show her this column and good luck to all of you."

She's right, of course, the baby's father -is- legally responsible, even
though the mother deceived him, and even if she doesn't want his support.
Even if he doesn't know he's a father yet.  The courts will be happy to take a
chunk out of his paycheck every month, and add a little retroactive support in
for those few months he didn't realize he was the family breadwinner.  And if
he loses his job or decides he'd prefer not to work or to work a lower paying
job, well, that's too bad.  He'll pay up or he'll go to jail.

A woman has the absolute right to decide when to become a parent.  A man is
at the mercy of technology, biology, and the woman's decision.  A condom that
breaks (or a woman who falsely claims to be on The Pill) can be translated to
two decades of hard labor, working extra hours to support a child a man may
not even be able to see, or may not even want to know.

Some men are seriously debating whether there ought to be a pro-choice option
for men.  Should a man, they ask, be able to say, when confronted with an
unintended pregnancy -- "I don't want to be a father.  You have the right to
have an abortion, but if you choose not to, it's your choice and it's your
child and you will have to pay your own way."

Men who have been analyzing reproductive rights laws might be pleased by some
of the reasoning in the Supreme Court's latest abortion decision.  The
justices did not touch on child support directly, but while striking down a
Husband Consent measure in an anti-abortion law, they seemed to imply that
reproductive rights is a two-way street.

"The Constitution protects individuals, men and women alike, from unjustified
state interference, even when that interference is enacted into law for the
benefit of their spouses...  The Constitution protects individuals, male or
female, married or unmarried, from the abuse of governmental power, even
where that power is employed for the supposed benefit of a member of the
individual's family."

Is there a way that men can exercise reproductive choice without infringing
on women's reproductive rights?  Hjalmar Gerber thinks so.  "Male choice," he
says, "does -not- force any action on a women -- it merely presents her with
more choices (and dilemmas).  The male -partner- in a pregnancy should have the
-choice- as to whether he is going to support the result of a pregnancy -- this
may influence (but does not invalidate) the female -partner's- choice (abortion
or birth).  The only qualification is that the male partner should exercise his
choice within a reasonable period after being informed of the pregnancy."

Is this an acceptable compromise?  Not to most feminists, who have been
hostile to the idea.  Pro-choice has implicitly meant not only the freedom to
decide whether or not to have an abortion, but the availability of a man to
subsidize the choice to bear a child.  This compromise offers only to take
away a benefit from women in the name of equality, to demand that a woman's
unilateral decision-making power be accompanied by unilateral responsibility.
In language eerily reminiscent of the anti-abortion movement, these women say
"if he didn't want to be financially responsible for a child, he shouldn't
have had sex."  Or, "it's a child; not a choice."

Pro-lifers are universally hostile to the compromise.  Primarily because it
presupposes legal abortion.  But also, many, like the heretical "Feminists
For Life" group, have always suspected that abortion was a male plot to evade
responsibility for their sexuality and to get "free sex" from women.  This talk
of equal rights for men only confirms their suspicions.

And the idea of men being able to "abort" their responsibilities to an unborn
child is a long way from igniting the imagination of the press, the people, or
the politicians.  In fact, this year the term "Deadbeat Dad" is easily as
potent in the political arena as the term "Welfare Mom" was in 1980.

But the fact that these questions are being raised, and are being debated,
promises to expose a new facet of the debate over abortion, over reproductive
rights in general, and over the question of whether biology is destiny.  It is
clear, for instance, that much of the rhetoric of the current pro-choice
movement would support this radical notion of male choice.  If the idea catches
on, the pro choice movement will have to change its philosophical tack, or at
least its bumperstickers, to clarify why they believe women deserve choice and
men deserve to pick up the check.

And men, for their part, may just discover a reason to get more passionate
about the abortion issue -- and may find that they potentially have a big
stake in making sure that abortion remains legal.
-- 
   Hey Guido, it's all so clear to me now -- I'm the keeper of the cheese,
   and you're the lemon merchant, get it?  And he knows that.  That's why
   he's gonna kill us.  Yeah.  Before he lets loose the MARMOSETS on us!
   Don't worry little missy -- I'll save you!
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity