The New Republic

I dunno.  This seems like a straw man or straw woman.  I am not sure how many of these supposed feminists and progressives exist as described (or more properly caricatured) with "boyfriends" to boot.  If a man wants to press a pregnant woman not to abort, I think he ought to be willing to care for the baby on his own if need be.  And I say that as the single father, by choice, of two lovely daughters.  Otherwise, he is pressing someone not merely to give birth but to be a mother, which is a very bad idea.  As I read somewhere in an article on surrogacy, parenthood is not about conception and birth, but about the lifetime of devotion and overwhelming concern for the fate of another that comes afterwards.  It is unwise to press someone to be a parent who is not moved to be one, doubly selfish and self-centered in fact as it considers neither the well-being of the mother or of the child.

I also had the experience, while I was in the process of adoption the first time, of conceiving a child with a woman I was quite close to who had zero expectation of getting pregnant.  She already had three grown children.  But I only learned of the pregnancy after the fact because she knew very well that if she had informed me I would have urged her to carry to term and give the baby to me.  After all, I was in the midst of adopting an infant at the time and she knew that.  She didn't want to be a mother again, but she also could not bear the thought of surrendering a child for someone else to raise -- even to the father, even to me with whom she was close, and even with as much participation or as little in the child's life as she wanted.  Although it was a lost opportunity for me, I didn't feel that I had been trampled upon and we remain close friends.  It was her decision to make.  Ironically, my oldest daughter would have been conceived at almost exactly the same time as the fetus she aborted, plus or minus a couple of weeks.  At this point, I would not want change a single moment of my life before I had both of my children as, like the beat of a butterfly's wings, some trivial change might have taken me off the path the led to having the two children I have.  I cannot conceive of my life lived any other way.

What should perhaps be reconsidered in our world is the practice of insisting that men who have conceived children must provide for them financially if they do not want to acknowledge paternity at the outset and are not married to the mother.  I wonder whether a woman's right to carry a child to term ought not be made also based on her own willingness to be a single parent if her erstwhile partner does not want to be.  This compulsion is ostensibly for the benefit of children, yet we do not so insist with respect to sperm donors.  Is an unwilling father a father or a sperm donor?  A man should not decide whether or not a woman carries to term, but should a woman then be able to decide unilaterally that a man must be a father?

- roidubouloi

July 17, 2009 at 1:48am

As alluded to by the previous commenter, it is problematic that fathers are required to pay child support but only mothers decide whether or not to have an abortion.  Also, it doesn't seem to me to be unduly pedantic to note that, contra Linker, women don't carry a "baby" to term or abort a "child."

- dpkotzin

July 17, 2009 at 3:13am

This is classic boob bait for the Bubbas - they dig up this one story, as if it's representative of anything. It's not.  

(If it was me and I acted that way - I wouldn't, but still, it would be out of sheer cussedness. Being boxed in to someone else's whore/Madonna nonsense is eternally insulting. It's satisfying to give that the finger every now and then, throw off that suffocating blanket for one free second. I totally got James Baldwin's analyses of Ralph Ellison as "too angry to live.")

As silly as this approach to this topic was in this anecdote, I have to say, I welcome with open arms the entrance of male responsibility, versus male privledge as usual, in to the abortion discussion.  

It was silly not because men's feelings don't matter, of course they do.  It is hard to come up with a fair approach to this for men who want the child, perhaps impossible.

But the reality of the situation is that far more often - I'd go so far as to say the vast majority of cases, at least in clinics I volunteered in -  women are burdened by unwanted pregnancies by men who adamantly want nothing to do with it.

This is a cross cultural, cross racial truth. These men have no concrete responsibility in this case, nor do they carry any stigma by abandoning a woman he has impregnanted to deal with it on her own.  Frankly, it wouldn't even occur to many women to tell the man, not because she's mean but because too often it goes without saying that she's on her own.  I chalk this up to bad parenting of young men and again - class has nothing to do with it.  If anything, wealthier men are worse. But also, who really can say. Every story is unique.

Be honest. If a woman turns up with an unwanted pregnancy, what is the first thing you all think of?  Where was your birth control honey?  No one even considers, without being asked to, what role the man should have played. Socio-culturally, it's still a woman's burden to be demonized and hectored, to be told she should have closed her damn legs. This is unconscious in all of us.  

I'm rather a dud as a feminist and adore men and maleness (loathe the patriarchy, but it suffocates both men and women), so this is not from a man hater perspective, this is to put the dialouge back to where it realistically should be.

- Wandreycer1

July 17, 2009 at 6:11am

Well said, Wandreycer. Ultimately, a man's role in a woman's decision whether to have an abortion is morally equivalent to a woman's role in a man's decision whether to enlist in the Army. He has a strong moral interest in the fate of the baby, but it's her body, not his, so his legitimate powers do not extend to granting or refusing permission. He may argue, he may cajole, he may leave (and he may do these things in favor of an abortion as well as in opposition), but he may not exercise sovereignty over her body. To do so is to render her his slave.

Likewise, a mother has a strong moral interest in the fate of her child's father. But it's his body, not hers, so her legitimate powers do not extend to granting or refusing permission to enlist. We rightly do not require spousal consent when a man endangers his family by putting his body in jeopardy on the battlefield. His wife may argue, she may cajole, she may leave, but she may not exercise sovereignty over his body.

This gets at the fundamental problem with the right's embrace of "pro-life" rhetoric: It places life, not liberty, at the pinnacle of moral goods. It's implicit, but it's insidious, and it has led over time to a fundamental shift away from regarding liberty as the political and moral first good. It's OK to make a woman the chattel of a man, or the state, or some nonexistent potential future adoptees, if there's a life to be saved. But this is an ordering of values that implicitly, but necessarily, says that life is worth sacrificing liberty to preserve. Better, if one is actually pro-life, to live on one's knees than to die on one's feet. (And this is not hyperbole on my part: Many conservative theologians like Dallas Willard praise, for example, Tsarist Russian serfdom on the grounds that a "culture of life" under slavery is to be preferred to a "culture of death" under liberty.)

We see this attitude extended among conservatives to other realms, such as issues of national defense, which in the age of sacred terror are framed as the protection of the individual's body, not the nation, from attack. As conservatives formulate anti-terror policies, no personal liberty is so fundamental that it cannot be sacrificed to protect a citizen's life. "Rights don't matter if you're dead," the right insists. The danger is that it is not even theoretically possible to sustain democratic self-government among a people who truly believe that life trumps liberty when the two goods are in conflict.

So the case of a man's role in an abortion decision boils down to a conflict between the two goods of his interest in another's life and her interest in her own liberty. Similarly, a woman's role in a man's enlistment boils down to a conflict between the two goods of her interest in another's life and his interest in his own liberty. If one is indifferent between tyranny and freedom, one may choose to favor the interest in another's life. If one has a preference against tyranny, one must choose to favor the interest in one's own liberty.

- rhubarbs

July 17, 2009 at 7:20am

Rhubarbs,

Wow, what an insightful analogy!

- kerFuFFler

July 17, 2009 at 9:12am

Rhubarb - that post made it in to the realm of epic, very beautiful and profound.

- Wandreycer1

July 17, 2009 at 9:53am

BTW - Roi, thank you for your moving personal story.

- Wandreycer1

July 17, 2009 at 10:51am

How Obama Is Missing His Golden Opportunity To Influence The Future Of The Courts , by David Fontana

- Anonymous

July 17, 2009 at 11:05am

Rhubarbs...  I like your analogy.  It's apt, and unexpected.  

However, I think you might be guilty of the same flaw that Wandreycer finds with the author, in that you use isolated extreme examples to speak for the whole of a position.  I know many conservative, pro-life Republicans (though I myself am not one of them), and I don't believe any would accept such praise of Tsarist serfdom, and certainly none who would claim that "no personal liberty is so fundamental that it cannot be sacrificed to protect a citizen's life."  Outside of Rush Limbaugh (et al), thought on the political right is much more nuanced than that.

I think the author of the article is merely pointing to a danger that exists in coflating the legal with the social and the moral.  Perhaps the event he critiques (the "abortion party") is isoalted and extreme, but I don't believe he means for it to speak for the whole of the "pro-choice" political position.

- Unpainted

July 17, 2009 at 11:35am

Rhubes:  Very interesting point, but I'm not sure it quite makes sense of the pro-life position and why it's wrong.  I'll preface this by saying that I am very pro-choice -- so much so that I see absolutely nothing wrong with an "abortion party" -- that is, an occasion to raise money and offer support to a young woman who, upon due consideration, has decided that she wants an abortion but can't afford it. That strikes me as a great idea!  (Can those who can't afford an abortion afford a kid?!)  But, I don't think I'm pro-choice because I prioritize liberty over life.  Rather, I'm pro-choice for the more mundane reason that I don't see "a life" at stake, and, to the extent that there might be a life at stake, or, if not a life then something with important moral status that's short of a life, I see that as a highly ambiguous, subjective judgment that ought to be left up to individuals to sort out on their own.

The rigorously pro-life person, of course, would scoff at your analogy.  That person would say, "A man's role in the woman's 'decision' to have an abortion is equivalent to a man's role in the woman's 'decision' to murder his child."  I sense that you want to transcend that little problem, but I'm not sure that you have.  You quarrel with the contention that "life is worth sacrificing liberty to preserve," and suggest that liberty -- not life -- is the "pinnacle of moral goods."  I don't think that quite makes sense of our common view of political or private morality.  For example, we lock up dangerous killers.  We see nothing wrong with physically restraining someone from committing an imminent murder (or doing far less).  We regard murder as a more serious crime than kidnapping.  I think that you would regard it is a somewhat greater outrage to execute someone without due process than to imprison that person without due process.  The taking of a life strikes me as a big offense against that person's liberty!

Now, you raise the related question about sacrificing liberty to save lives in the abstract.  The issue there is really about how much risk are we willing to tolerate in order to enjoy particular freedoms.  I don't think the question is best put in categorical terms without a discussion of what your principle of liberty requires.  After all, criminal law, tort law, environmental regulation, products regulation, rules of the road, taxes, etc. all sacrifice freedom for safety.  Michelle Cottle recently railed against seatbelt laws.  Some nuts compare taxes to slavery.  Every law sacrifices some measure of freedom for something else.  The question is whether it's worth it and why.

You point out that abortion laws disrupt the woman's control over her body.  True.  Abortion foes say that that's okay to save a life, and you disagree -- not necessarily because you disagree that a life is at stake as I do but because you think that the woman's personal autonomy in this case is more important than a life.  Is it?  I actually don't think so.  It is very difficult to come up with an analogy to abortion -- it is a unique issue.  The closest analogy I can think of on this question -- *if* you grant that the fetus is a life, which I don't but you seem willing to, at least for purposes of argument -- is something like the following:  Suppose you have a conjoined twin whom you would like to get rid of.  He's cramping your style and is a jerk besides.  Suppose that there is no way to separate you without sacrificing one of you because you share various life-sustaining functions.  Suppose you have a friend bash the twin over the head rendering him unconscious, and help the two of you to a clinic where an obliging doctor has agreed to perform the procedure.  Murder?  I'd say so.  I think that if fetuses were unambiguously and universally regarded as people, then the considerable liberty burden that abortion laws impose would be more commonly seen as worth it.  Yes, abortion laws force a woman to bear a child, but -- sorry to be just a little bit of a spoilsport -- women, unlike even the conjoined twin, usually have some control over whether they get pregnant.  The real problem with the pro-life position, I think, isn't that they prioritize life over liberty, which we do routinely in all sorts of ways because we rightly regard life as pretty damn important, but because it is hardly clear that the fetus is "a life."

- jhildner

July 17, 2009 at 2:42pm

Wandrey, exactly right.  If the man is even in the picture, I bet the discussion is more typically along the lines of the following:

Male announcer: The red zone is for immediate loading and unloading of passengers only. There is no stopping in the white zone.

Female announcer: No, the white zone is for loading of passengers and there is no stopping in a *red* zone.

Male announcer: The red zone has always been for loading and unloading of passengers. There's never stopping in a white zone.

Female announcer: Don't you tell me which zone is for loading, and which zone is for stopping.

Male announcer: Listen Betty, don't start up with your white zone shit again.

...

Male announcer: There's just no stopping in a white zone.

Female announcer: Oh really, Vernon? Why pretend, we both know perfectly well what this is about. You want me to have an abortion.

Male announcer: It's really the only sensible thing to do. If it's done safely, therapeutically, there's no danger involved.

- jhildner

July 17, 2009 at 3:42pm

I am going to wade into the ongoing blog talk about what a man's input should be when his lover is

- Anonymous

July 17, 2009 at 5:08pm

I agree with what jhildner said (in response to Rhubs, not Wandrey, although kudos on the Airplane reference).  While it's an interesting analogy, there's a real difference between placing liberty ahead of your own life, as with enlisting in the army, and placing it ahead of somebody else's life, which is what conservatives would argue that pregnant women are doing when they get an abortion. I'm not saying I agree with this, but it sort of dodges the point to talk about life and liberty in the abstract.  For example. there's a substantial moral difference between a prisoner going on a hunger strike and a prisoner killing a guard in order to escape.  The primary objection that pro-lifers have to abortion is not that the mother is endangering herself, but that she's endangering someone else (in their view).

- AlanSP

July 17, 2009 at 5:17pm

Rhubarb, your analysis is excellent. It shows a lot of thought-fullness and experience in this truly difficult topic.

You were speaking the truth in a simple but honest and straight way.  I wish some militant pro-lifers would read this and think about it.

Just remember Levi Johnston before news of Bristol Palins pregnancy broke out. He did not want children yet.

The situation is now what it is and will be confusing to little Tripp as he groves older. I think the tyranny was in the Palin camp, Levi had nothing to say and his liberty is seriously impaired.

- ullariitta

July 17, 2009 at 8:05pm

Conversely, if she wants to keep the baby and the father wants her to abort it, then he should not be held responsible for the kid or pay alimony. Women sometimes trap men that way and courts help them. Well, they should be free to do whatever they want, keep it or abort - but there should be consequences to that. Why be responsible for a kid you didn't want, coz the lady "forgot" to take the pill she said did take?

Much of contemporary feminism can be summarized as: "Men, shut up. Whatever we say is good, you filthy pigs." I still remember the Vagina Monologues played at the university here on Valentine's Day. All heterosexual encounters were rapes. The only good ones were lesbian acts or masturbation. I was surprised they didn't murder some men on the stage to blow some steam.

- sleepyavl

July 17, 2009 at 10:48pm

Who says men can't move this dialouge further than it has ever gone?  

I defy anyone to come up with a series of responses that are more thoughtful and compassionate on this topic.

(Except sleepy, who has repeatedly shown that he's just plain scared of women, but who, in all fairness, doesn't much like anyone. Vagina Monoluges never said anything like you said, not a syllable.  Were you on LSD or in a coma? And how exactly is it that a woman can "trap" a man when all he has to do is put on a damn condom or keep it in his pants in the first place? Is he that helpless? Why? We women: mooooohahahaha!! So inherently wicked we take all sense of personal agency away from you WHILE claiming all heterosexual sex is rape.  We're uncanny that way. We divest you of all responsibility, just for yucks and bucks).

I try to be as honest as possible about what is happening in an abortion, which is one reason why I hail Rhubarb's reponse - he does too. He states, in fine literary form, that personal autonomy and liberty is at stake, which may not be sacrificed.  

I have a couple of friends who do not support abortion rights who convinced me that yes, OK - a life ends. It's a stretch to me, just like jhildner, but I won't hide from it. I do not need to. I can't even say whether this is unfortunate unfortunate, no one can. Survival of the fittest is an amoral, efficient process.   Take it up with your God, ask him/her why that baby doe was just eaten by the wolf while you're at it.  You'll get the same answer: silence.

- Wandreycer1

July 18, 2009 at 7:40am

I hate analogies. Just argue the damn issue itself. Having read the article I have mixed feelings. On the one hand Maggie's girlfriends might be right to advise against her taking the advice of her boyfriend. Friends look out for one another and in a situation like this a lot of guys might not behave admirably. At the same time her boyfriend may have acted admirably. He may have been very supportive and helped her make the best decision should could. I feel like I don't know enough about the circumstances but that I think I side with him.

Conor Friedersdorf asks feminists if their goal of preserving reproductive rights conflicts with their view that rearing children is the province of women. Hers's how it works pregnancy is the exclusive province of women not child rearing is not. See no contradiction.

- CraigMcGil

July 18, 2009 at 9:08pm

WandreyCer1, you're simply a liar. whoever attended the vagina monologues will hear exactly what Isaid. There are no normal heterosexual acts - whenever they appear, they're evil.

As for your speculations of what I am afraid or what not, spare us your habitual stupidity. Last year you were writing repeatedly how Hillary wanted Obama assassinated.

You have repeatedly shown you have garbage in your brain. Thus, your Hillary paranoia has not

stopped - you have posted again about it on another thread. Does the government send you secret messages too? Maybe you should put more foil at your windows, lest Hillary sends you some nefarious words by radio waves.

The point is not that Hillary is good or bad, but that you're an idiot who has yet to make a cogent argument on TNR. Screams? That you can do, every day, of the reasoning quality of New York subway preachers announcing the end of the world.

- sleepyavl

July 19, 2009 at 12:45am

Wandreycer1: "And how exactly is it that a woman can "trap" a man when all he has to do is put on a damn condom or keep it in his pants in the first place?"

An imbecile argument, as yours always are. Incidentally, that's the type of imbecile argument that those who want abortions banned come up with: "she should have known better before having sex".

This is not by chance - both the right-wing nuts and left-wing nuts like yourself have the fine idea of constraining whoever they're against. If that involves lying and paranoia, that's inevitable. We all know here on TNR that you're paranoid and completely demented. You have shown it abundantly last year, when you said Hillary Clinton wanted Obama murdered. Oh yeah, you're some sharp psychologist, eh? As other mitomaniacs, you rely on people not remembering your lies.

And I don't use LSD and other drugs - just because you're on crack, doesn't mean that everybody else is. Nevertheless, it competes your argument style: fantasies involving mitomania, drugs, murder.

- sleepyavl

July 19, 2009 at 12:58am

Much of contemporary feminism welcomes misandry. Misogyny? Bad! Misandry? Oh that's great.

A movement that started with asking for long-due equality of rights and options between women and men now has a sizable component of intense hatred for men and also for heterosexual sex. These are Andrea Dworkin's paranoid and hated filled ideas, her legacy of ignorance, hatred and mitomania.

The goal of equality certainly is worth pursuing. But the anti-men hatred component -just go to an Ivy League university and you'll see it right away- deserves no respect whatsoever: neither the idea, nor its proponents.

- sleepyavl

July 19, 2009 at 1:13am

Wandrey, you are missing Jhildner's point, which is that we do not in our liberal democracy generally prioritize liberty over life, at least where thie issue is one person's liberty and another person's life.  The pro-life position is premised on the assumption that a fetus is not a person, or is an entity that has no moral claim, or a diminutive moral claim, to life.  If a fetus does have a moral claim to life, then the pro-choice position would be highly problematic.  (I think would stop casting the question as whether a fetus is a "life."  Of course it is.  Just as all plants and all non-human animals are "lives."  The question is whether a fetus is a person or an entity otherwise having moral status.)

Jhildner, I think you belief that a fetus is not a "life" raises some interesting issues in relation to our other discussion about faith-based belief.  Perhaps I can elaborate at some later time.

- dhurtado

July 19, 2009 at 3:41am

Some really wonderful commentary here. But let me point out a practical fact that rarely gets mentioned in abortion discussions (theological arguments about when life begins and political arguments about feminism are so much more abstract fun):

The majority of abortions in this country -- by far -- are performed on women 14-23 years old.  That is, those girls and young women most likely to seek abortion are, because of youth, uncompleted education, etc., not yet economically independent (and, too early parenthood would threaten their ability to complete the steps required to become economically independent). In most cases a similar economic situation applies to their partners.

It is economic reality (the long period of preparation needed to be economically viable in a modern society) -- not theology, feminist ideology or political persuasion that most contributes to modern abortion rates. (Which is why religious and ideological affliations have little impact on who does or does not seek abortion.)

I very much agree that abortion is a moral decision. But, it is hard to have an honest discussion of its moral dimensions (as opposed to a narrowly theological argument) without acknowledging these practical, economic realities (that most abortion discussions almost routinely dismiss or fail to acknowledge). For instance, even less likely than the father to be given considertion in these discussions are other family members who are impacted by the pregnancy in a major way. For instance, to a very great extent it is the grandparent generation's ability and willingness to contribute to the support of the child, and its mother, that will have the most impact on the abortion decision.

In my experience working for an Ob/Gyn with a middle class practice in California in the months after Reagan signed legislation legalizing abortion in that state, the family members having the most influence on whether abortion was sought or not was the parents of the young father. Their adamant insistance that their son's education and future should not be interrupted or compromised by any acknowledgement of responsibility was the most commonly cited reason parents cited for seeking abortions for their daughters.

- esmense

July 19, 2009 at 11:52am

OK dhurtado, but I don't think its a cut and dry and I think you're implying.  Whether a non-viable fetus is a life is something that is a perfectly suitable topic for philiosophical debate.  But like I said, I won't shy away from it.  Evolution and survival of the fittest dictates that I have dominion over my body and I say what does or does not happen to it, including growing a life.  Jhildner was brilliant in pointing out that those who support abortion rights aren't asking for that to not be morally problematic.

I agree that we're rarely in a situation where the choice is one person's liberty versus a life, but I think the record shows that in fact, this country generally does values liberty over life given a choice.  Except when it comes to this.

My gut (and a look at the historical and cultural record on women) tells me many people who don't support abortion rights aren't doing it for any other reason than a fear and hatred of women's sexuality. Sorry, taking a victm stance goies against my nature and goes down hard, but truth iws truth.

They wouldn't know or care about philosophy if you paid them.  Sorry.  Being anti-choice can be an honorable position I can respect - and I have friends I do respect who hold this position, but often the motives are anything but pristine.  

All you have to do is look at history on that one too.  

Great post enmense.

- Wandreycer1

July 19, 2009 at 12:45pm

Wandrey -

You already know that this is a topic on which we disagree.  Now I'm going to go a step further - your statement, "many people who don't support abortion rights aren't doing it for any other reason than a fear and hatred of women's sexuality" goes beyond "wrong" and well into "uninformed bullshit".

"Truth is truth", you say, and yes, in the trivial sense, this statement is true, since ten people can be considered "many", depending on the sample size.  But your unspoken implication is that "many" equates to, or at least approaches, "most".  I'm sorry, but unless national demographics are radically different than those that surround me here in northeast Ohio, you're demonstrably talking out of your hat.   The anti-abortion crowd that I know generally talks about respecting life, not the dangers of women's sexuality.  

(More than half of them *are* women, btw, and these (especially the older ones) are often the most hard-nosed ones.  "She should have kept her legs together," isn't something I'd hear from my priest - but it's something I might hear from my Grandma.  This is a woman who had ten kids, mind you; I really doubt she had a fear of her sexuality.  The men, on the other hand, tend to go a little easier, at least in my experience.  Why this is, I'm not sure, but as in so much else, women's greatest enemies are other women.)

We can disagree on the abortion debate.  We can argue for long hours, and call each other blind, or lacking in compassion.  But your statement that many anti-abortion activists fear your sexuality is as foolish as the equally true statement that many pro-abortion activists are man-hating lesbians.  There are those out there who would resort to either statement, but we in this forum should refrain from parroting their nonsense.

- dhauck

July 20, 2009 at 2:02pm

And That's The Way It Was , by Todd Gitlin Why Sotomayor Felt The Need To Make Her ‘Wise Latina'

- Anonymous

July 20, 2009 at 2:16pm

Wandrey, my point is that asking whether a fetus is a "life," or at what point it becomes a "life," obscures what we are really asking.  What we are really asking is whether a fetus has a moral claim to life, or at what point it begins to have a moral claim to life.  Put another way, the question is whether a fetus is a "person," or at what point it becomes a "person."  So I'll pose a challenge, if anyone cares to take it up:  Provide a rationale for concluding that a fetus in the second or third trimester is not a person that would not preclude a newborn infant from being deemed a person.

- dhurtado

July 21, 2009 at 2:15am

Yes, dhurtado, good clarification.  When I referred to "a life," you can substitute "a person's life."  If the fetus is understood to be the moral equivalent of an infant, abortion is highly problematic to say the least -- like the conjoined twin scenario.  My view is that in light of the fact that that proposition is hardly clear -- indeed, with respect to early abortions, it seems pretty fantastic -- and given the significant physical, emotional, legal, and moral burdens that abortion laws can impose, we ought to allow a lot of room for individuals to make their own judgments on that very question.  In my mind, that's what it means to be pro-choice.

Wandrey suggests that the embryo/fetus=person argument and other intellectual abstractions are frequently mere facades, covering up a petty fear of a perceived dismantling of a male-dominated sexual order.  It may be so sometimes, but certainly not always.  I remember sitting in a constitutional law class where the topic was Roe v. Wade.  Although I went to a law school known for its conservatism (University of Chicago), most students in the room who spoke were either pro-choice Roe defenders or merely anti-Roe as a matter of judicial philosophy.  There was one woman, however, who strongly spoke up for the fetus=person view.  When I say "strongly," I don't mean that her argument was very good or that she expressed herself well, but rather that it was heartfelt, insistent, and sincere.  She was on the verge of tears.  I don't think she was thus moved out of misogyny or a fear and loathing of female sexuality.  One would have to do a lot of "false consciousness" work to get her into that camp.  (Tears doesn't mean that her view was right or sympathetic, of course.  A relative of mine told me a story about a student of hers who was in tears because "we're about to elect a black man president."  But they suggest to me, at least, sincerity.)   The professor in the constitutional law class was Barack Obama who, characteristically, treated the woman's views respectfully.  Indeed, his respectful and serious engagement with all manner of conflicting views is what made him, in we students' eyes, such an admirable and compelling guy.  You see echoes of this attitude in some of his speeches and general approach and in his second book where he talks about treating pro-life views he doesn't share as sincere, good faith convictions.

We've heard a lot about empathy lately.  Some Republicans find themselves in the rather absurd position of denigrating the essence of fairness and foundation of morality!  There's a lot to say about the role of empathy in interpreting the Constitution -- something Obama knows a little bit about.  But we'll pass that for now.  Abortion debates generally could use a big dose of the stuff, and a little of the intellectual generosity Obama recommends.  It is also in desperate need of an understanding of the realities of abortion that Wandrey and emense rightly insist upon.  So, it seems to me, we should try to imagine walking a mile in the shoes of those 14-23-year-olds.  Likewise, we should avoid attributing to our intellectual opponents bad faith.  (I know, I know -- it's often very tempting.)  I've had quite a few discussions with women about abortion.  It's not because I'm doing a documentary or something, nor is it because of personal circumstances!  It sometimes just comes up in lively, substance-aided conversation.  Some I've spoken with are somewhat flexible and uncertain.  A few are adamantly pro-life, like the woman in the class.  Most -- perhaps reflecting my milieu -- are adamantly pro-choice and frankly can surprise me with the vehemence with which they instruct me that it's their body.  (Goddamn right! I hear some saying.)  For those in that latter group, it's personal -- and, really, it is.

Because none of us in the class had quite made the argument -- although some came close -- Obama focused in on the the burden that abortion laws impose.  I don't remember his exact words, and, because I didn't realize he would fairly soon become president, I didn't save my notes.  But he wanted to get across, in real everyday terms, the fact that this is serious business for the women involved -- not a mere intellectual abstraction, political point, or legal argument -- and so it is.

- jhildner

July 21, 2009 at 3:05am

I've always commented to my female friends who were interested (not that many of them are) that at events like a Lilith Fair, where you might see a reproductive rights booth, they should have one called a Men's Reproductive Rights Booth, with a guy sitting there looking woebegone and a short counter utterly empty of pamphlets. The joke being, men have NO reproductive rights of any kind. Thus it's an uphill battle right from the word go to even be heard. The anecdote about the abortion party--Dad not invited--whether it can be broadly applied or not, is just business as usual between women and men, at least from my perspective. I generally have dated pretty progressive women in the past. Right now I'm seeing a woman who's about as open minded, passionate and progressive as anybody I've ever known, who works in a field of spiritual growth (sort of), etc etc--and even with her it takes an act of congress to be heard in one of my two-minute pleas to wake up and smell the deeply entrenched social misandry we're all living with now. In my experience, women's ears almost always slam shut at the suggestion that men, in general, are not living the stereotypical life of ease and entitlement women seem to perceive. But this is getting a little off the point--not too far, but a little: The point being, the only simple part of this issue, I think, is that frequently men in the unwanted pregnancy scenarios are often so disenfranchised that they come off as churlish and uncommunicative, which only serves to make it that much easier to dismiss them. Feeding into that alienation is the knowledge that he has a very shakey status in in the debate--probably already demonized as the impregnator--no real power to influence his own fate and that of his partner or his unborn child. And furthermore, may actually be forced by the courts to support a kid he's not interested in having, or ready to deal with.  Ask yourself, you non-men, how you would behave under the same restrictions? The level of your resentment would probably be so palpable as to beg people to disinvite you to the abortion party for your unborn child. And so the cycle goes... disenfranchisement, resentment, further disenfranchisement, resentment, outright defiance="deadbeat dad"

Inclusion of men in every aspect of childbirth, with more evolved legal standing, is the only way forward. Unfortunately, part of the "male code" is silence and anger--articulating hurt, concern, alienation, is not part of the vocabulary of the 21st cent male (never has been) and in my experience, isn't all that well received when it does manage to find a little air time. But who knows, maybe there are voluble, expressive men out there airing their inner lives with receptive females all over the place--I don't know!

- earling

July 21, 2009 at 9:21am

dh / jh -

The problem is not the argument over the point at which a fetus becomes a person with associated rights; it is the fact that for most abortion supporters in my experience, including most I've encountered on this site, such an argument is only acceptable in the abstract.  The thinking, as far as I can tell from their posts, is:  "IT'S 100% A WOMAN'S BODY AND 100% HER CHOICE... but as long as you understand that, we can amiably discuss fetal rights or father's rights or what-have-you all night long."  This is why I have, for the most part, given up arguing basic abortion principles on this site, restricting myself to merely arguing against the part of that previous statement that is all caps.  Before I can expound on my opinions, first I need to convince those I'm arguing with that my opinion should even matter, a difficult task for this topic on this site.

To that end, may I briefly say about a man's rights in an abortion - the responsibility and the rights of procreation *must* go hand-in-hand.  That is, if a father is to have no rights to affect the future of his child, he must therefore be abjured of all responsibilities toward it.  Conversely, if he expects to have a say in the child's destiny, he must be held responsible for it.  The current system, which provides him none of the rights but equal responsibility for the outcome, is completely illogical.  Moreover, the argument that has been forwarded to support the current system, that a woman's pregnancy somehow trumps the raising of a child, is ludicrous on its face.  In what other circumstance would we accept the argument that 0.75 years of (in all but the most extreme cases) moderate discomfort is somehow more difficult or more important to a decision that 18 full years of effort and sacrifice?  How often is the discomfort of pregnancy, rather than the difficulty of raising the child, given as the reason for an abortion?  If the child is allowed to be born, its father will be on the hook for those 18 years of sacrifice - it is only right that he should be given a say in whether that occurs.

- dhauck

July 21, 2009 at 1:28pm

dhurtado, I don't want to take up your challenge just now, but in the Wandrey/emense spirit of keeping things real, it's worth pointing out that the vast majority of abortions -- something like 90 percent I believe -- are performed during the *first* trimester.  I admit that as the fetus more and more resembles a human baby, I get squeamish -- it starts to look more like the conjoined twin scenario -- but, then again, sometimes, I gather, there are curveballs regarding the woman's physical health, a devastating problem with the fetus perhaps, and I don't know what all that can complicate things in those later stages.  As it happens, I've heard of messy situations that involve actual conjoined twins that involve similarly difficult choices.  I freely admit I'm not an expert about any of it, and I also suspect that there's a great deal of room to debate these more uncommon scanrios, but they are most definitely the atypical abortion situation.  There is the view expressed among some pro-life people that the health exceptions in those later stages are abused such that we live in a world in which even late-abortion-on-demand, without a serious extenuating circumstance, is the norm.  I'm just not sure that that's true, but to use the parlance of politicians, I would be "troubled" if that were the case.  In any event, the view that the meeting of sperm and egg signifies the sacred line after which another peron's life is at stake doesn't ring true to me and, in any event, strikes me as a question that the government ought to stay out of.  Some fervently believe it, but it is just not evident to a whole lot of people.  In such an event, where the liberty burden is considerable, best to leave the matter not up to states or elected officials but to individuals.

- jhildner

July 21, 2009 at 10:41pm

dhauck -- Let me see if I've got this straight:  A man who knocks up a woman should have the right to demand that she have an abortion or else be absolved of the legal duties to his child, including the duty to provide support?  That strikes me as a pretty odd view for a pro-life person to have -- a view that would encourage abortions; a view that would have the state tell a pro-life woman who gets pregnant that her objection to abortion could cost her and, by extension, her child.  I guess male resentment of feminism trumps the conviction that abortion is murder!  To the extent "reproductive rights" are asymetrical, it's because the facts of life are asymetrical.

- jhildner

July 22, 2009 at 12:21pm

jh -

Bingo.  You have said yourself that it is about competing versions of "right".  

I would rather there be no abortion, of course, but since that is not something the law allows me (as a third party) to have a say in, I can at least ask that the rights so vociferously demanded for one parent be granted to both.  Your use of the term "asymmetric" in this case is simply a euphemism for "unfair", and while life is certainly unfair, this is perhaps the only instance in which this fact is used *by progressives* as an excuse for gender-based inequality before the law.

Now, while the above explanation is the whole reason for my push for fathers' rights, I will tell you that it nevertheless makes sense from an abortion-prevention standpoint.  To wit - it would require two signatures instead of one for the abortion to proceed.  So, like Mendel's pea plants, I have theoretically increased the child's chances from 50% to 75%.  Obviously, this is not totally realistic, since different people in different situations do not always have a 50/50 chance of wanting an abortion.  Especially, the knowledge that the father will not be required to contribute may push an otherwise reluctant woman toward the abortion (though I would hope such a one would select adoption instead).  But I still think that the child's chances will increase.  Of course, as I said above, whether they do or don't increase, I would still push for this, because decreasing the number of abortions is not, in this case, my primary motivation.

Finally, I don't know about "male resentment of feminism".  Why is it that gender-based ad hominem attacks are so often the underlying theme of pro-abortion arguments?  I don't resent feminism or feminists, except to the extent that they individually resent me.  I'm not sure where you got this from anything I have said, and I suspect it is just a general bias that pervades the pro-abortion camp, like Wandreycer's "fear and hatred of women's sexuality" meme.  Certainly your use of the phrase, "a man who knocks up a woman" - implying that women have no control over their sexual encounters (I assume you are not referring to a forcible rape) - would seem to indicate you yourself have some trouble with the tenets of modern feminism, no?

- dhauck

July 23, 2009 at 1:29pm