Paper Abortions

[Cavemonster]

Inspired by a recent thread in forum community, I wanted to make a place to discuss the idea of paper abortions.

The general argument seems to be that if women have the ability to unilaterally end a pregnancy by getting a medical abortion, then it is unfair that men may be financially responsible for a child given they have no such choice.

I think the background of this is that biological reality is assymetrical and our social history and moral frameworks can compound that assymetry, so no set of laws can be truly "fair" in the sense that men and women have exactly parallel options. The needs and rights of women, men and children are necessarily going to intersect in a way that leaves someone dissatisfied.

So I don't find "Women get X and men don't" to be compelling by itself.

1) The gestation process takes place inside a woman's body. Physically, with no laws in place, that means a heap of responsibility a woman has for a child, none for the man unless outside pressures demand it.

2) Babies can't get jobs. They are financially dependant on others. There are more or less three options. Either the biological parents are held responsible, the state takes responsibility, or some random other folks (adoptive parents, non profits) step in.

3) The options women have to give up a child are all much more fraught than signing a piece of paper. Abortion is still considered murder by a huge chunk of the country. It's also a medical procedure with risks. Many women are raised in cultures which makes it more or less impossible without cutting all ties to their social supports. Giving a child up for adoption is not a light thing for a human you have carried in your body for nine months. Women's bodies release powerful hormones which create strong attachment between mother and child.

4) Introducing a paper abortion wouldn't restore a fair balance because signing a paper saying "Nope, don't want to pay for this kid" while it may elicit a social stigma, would always be FAR easier than an actual abortion. If by fairness you mean symmetry, then this would not be fair.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I feel that if someone choose a not to wear their seatbelt they should have to pay their own medical costs for their face going through the windshield. Likewise if a person doesn't want a child they can avail themselves of a whole array of methods not to. That the available methods vary by sex hardly justifies one sex from failing to use the methods it does have available.

And considering STDs most people should be using condoms regardless of whether they're employing other methods to prevent conception. Protection from pregnancy is not the same as protection from STDs. Again, wear a seatbelt or accept the aftermath. It's not difficult.

 

[casebro]

Inspired by a recent thread in forum community, I wanted to make a place to discuss the idea of paper abortions.

The general argument seems to be that if women have the ability to unilaterally end a pregnancy by getting a medical abortion, then it is unfair that men may be financially responsible for a child given they have no such choice.

I think the background of this is that biological reality is assymetrical and our social history and moral frameworks can compound that assymetry, so no set of laws can be truly "fair" in the sense that men and women have exactly parallel options. The needs and rights of women, men and children are necessarily going to intersect in a way that leaves someone dissatisfied.

So I don't find "Women get X and men don't" to be compelling by itself.

1) The gestation process takes place inside a woman's body. Physically, with no laws in place, that means a heap of responsibility a woman has for a child, none for the man unless outside pressures demand it.

Outside pressure do demand it. So playing field is level so far.

2) Babies can't get jobs. They are financially dependant on others. There are more or less three options. Either the biological parents are held responsible, the state takes responsibility, or some random other folks (adoptive parents, non profits) step in.

Not pertinent.

3) The options women have to give up a child are all much more fraught than signing a piece of paper. Abortions is still considered murder by a huge chunk of the country. It's also a medical procedure with risks.

Abortion risks are proven lower than delivery risks. But that has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

Many women are raised in cultures which makes it more or less impossible without cutting all ties to their social supports. Giving a child up for adoption is not a light thing for a human you have carried in your body for nine months. Women's bodies release powerful hormones which create strong attachment between mother and child.

Also that has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

4) Introducing a paper abortion wouldn't restore a fair balance because signing a paper saying "Nope, don't want to pay for this kid" while it may elicit a social stigma, would always be FAR easier than an actual abortion. If by fairness you mean symmetry, then this would not be fair.

Ease of abortion is not the point. The point is that the woman had all the choices as the man: abstention and prophylaxis, plus one. I'm just asking why she gets one more chance to change her mind but the father does not. Outlawing abortions would level the playing field too, but that is not an option.

 

[casebro]

I feel that if someone choose a not to wear their seatbelt they should have to pay their own medical costs for their face going through the windshield. Likewise if a person doesn't want a child they can avail themselves of a whole array of methods not to. That the available methods vary by sex hardly justifies one sex from failing to use the methods it does have available.

Hey, Mom didn't abstain or prevent either. Why should her decision whether or not to have the baby be such an onerous burden on the guy, with out him also have a last ditch escape?

And considering STDs most people should be using condoms regardless of whether they're employing other methods to prevent conception. Protection from pregnancy is not the same as protection from STDs. Again, wear a seatbelt or accept the aftermath. It's not difficult.

Birth control pills are 10 times as effective at preventing pregnancy as condoms. Geeze, talk about not wearing your seat belt.

 

[rockysmith76]

2) Babies can't get jobs. They are financially dependant on others. There are more or less three options. Either the biological parents are held responsible, the state takes responsibility, or some random other folks (adoptive parents, non profits) step in.

So you're saying that Babies need to start getting jobs.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Hey, Mom didn't abstain or prevent either. Why should her decision whether or not to have the baby be such an onerous burden on the guy, with out him also have a last ditch escape?

Search out the word "reality" in the OP.

 

[Jungle Jim]

I didn't want to have children. I got a vasectomy. One of the best decisions I ever made.

 

[Cavemonster]

Outside pressure do demand it. So playing field is level so far.

There are two kinds of outside pressure, social and legal. If the social were fully effective, we wouldn't need the legal pressure.

To the extent that you could call the playing field level (there's still a lot of room for argument there) it certainly wouldn't be if you removed the legal pressure.

Not pertinent.

How so? The fact that someone has to support a baby is the whole reason for child support and the whole reason the idea of a "paper abortion" exists. How can the need that drives financial responsibility not be pertinent?

Abortion risks are proven lower than delivery risks. But that has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

But much greater than the risks of signing a piece of paper. But again you seem to be insisting that my points are not pertinent without explaining why. That's just a hand wave.

Also that has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

Hand waving again.

Ease of abortion is not the point.

The point is that the woman had all the choices as the man: abstention and prophylaxis, plus one. I'm just asking why she gets one more chance to change her mind but the father does not. Outlawing abortions would level the playing field too, but that is not an option.

Why should number of options be the sole evaluative criteria? Surely the quality of those options matters. If women could get abortions only if they climbed Mt Everest, aced the SATs and ran a 3 minute mile, that wouldn't matter because the choice exists? The quality and risks and consequences of a choice matter, not just the number of choices.

 

[casebro]

A paper abortion would not be telling a woman what she can do with her body. Single women opt to have babies without expecting any financial commitment from the biological father all the time.

Hummm, what about using the medical system for a sperm donor. Isn't that a form of Paper Abortion?

 

[Cavemonster]

So you're saying that Babies need to start getting jobs.

I mean, if they could just pull themselves up by their bootie straps, this whole issue would be moot.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Hey, Mom didn't abstain or prevent either. Why should her decision whether or not to have the baby be such an onerous burden on the guy, with out him also have a last ditch escape?

Because it's inside her body? If the male carried the fetus he'd have the "last ditch escape". Both parties had plenty of prior opportunities to "escape" and chose not to. That indicates to me they weren't very concerned about the risk. And saving foolish people from the consequences of their foolishness is ultimately impossible.

Birth control pills are 10 times as effective at preventing pregnancy as condoms. Geeze, talk about not wearing your seat belt.

That's an argument in favor of using both condoms and the pill, not for using the pill instead of condoms.

You're not confined to using just one method of protection. And, I don't see why this isn't clear, some forms of protection don't protect against both undesirable outcomes.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

3) The options women have to give up a child are all much more fraught than signing a piece of paper. Abortions is still considered murder by a huge chunk of the country. It's also a medical procedure with risks. Many women are raised in cultures which makes it more or less impossible without cutting all ties to their social supports. Giving a child up for adoption is not a light thing for a human you have carried in your body for nine months. Women's bodies release powerful hormones which create strong attachment between mother and child.

I agree with the summary you posted, but wanted to expound of your point here.

Historically, women facing an unwanted pregnancy have often chosen not to terminate, even when abortion is available. Even in cases where it is obvious that continuing the pregnancy will bring tremendous financial and other hardship into their lives. This happens frequently enough to a wide cross section of women that it should be obvious that pragmatic concerns for their own well-being are not the only factor that is being considered when it comes to deciding to abort an unwanted pregnancy. To be more clear, lots of women are choosing not to abort even in cases where that is clearly the best solution for them personally. This happens far too frequently to be explained away as hysterical women, manipulative tactics, welfare queens, or any such disparaging motive. Clearly they feel some moral or other obligation to the unborn child that is at least factored in with their own priorities.

While the stigma around abortion is certainly changing, it seems abundantly clear that this is still the case. Saying that women are "choosing" to remain pregnant of their own free will is not really an honest reflection of their decision making process. Granting men the right to terminate all responsibility, in these cases, would be granting them a right that exceeds that of the mother, because the men can walk away without having to decide to actually terminate the pregnancy and deal with all the ethical and social hurdles inherent in such a decision.

Conversations like these often involve scenarios with conniving parties, sabotaging birth control and acting in bad faith. That is rarely the cause of unwanted and unplanned pregnancies. Usually it is a case of people either using precaution and being unlucky, or being impulsive and not using enough protection. Talking about these edge cases of bad faith actors (sperm jacking women and the like) is not really that instructive for the reality of the situation. Coercive reproduction is largely a tangent worthy of it's own discussion and solutions, such as "stealthing" being categorized into law as a form of criminal sexual behavior.


Realistically, there is no solution that is going to be optimal for everyone involved. There are multiple conflicting parties, the mothers, the fathers, the potential child that will need support if it is born, and the welfare state that isn't eager to provide for needy children unless all other options have been exhausted.

Given these conflicts, the "caveat emptor" for men seems to be the best solution, to my eye. Some will be careless and some will be unlucky and find themselves in situations where another party (a woman) is in a position to unilaterally change their lives (abort or not). Such is the reality of biology.

 

[Cavemonster]

I agree with the summary you posted, but wanted to expound of your point here.

Historically, women facing an unwanted pregnancy have often chosen not to terminate, even when abortion is available. Even in cases where it is obvious that continuing the pregnancy will bring tremendous financial and other hardship into their lives. This happens frequently enough to a wide cross section of women that it should be obvious that pragmatic concerns for their own well-being are not the only factor that is being considered when it comes to deciding to abort an unwanted pregnancy. To be more clear, lots of women are choosing not to abort even in cases where that is clearly the best solution for them personally. This happens far too frequently to be explained away as hysterical women, manipulative tactics, welfare queens, or any such disparaging motive. Clearly they feel some moral or other obligation to the unborn child that is at least factored in with their own priorities.

While the stigma around abortion is certainly changing, it seems abundantly clear that this is still the case. Saying that women are "choosing" to remain pregnant of their own free will is not really an honest reflection of their decision making process. Granting men the right to terminate all responsibility, in these cases, would be granting them a right that exceeds that of the mother, because the men can walk away without having to decide to actually terminate the pregnancy and deal with all the ethical and social hurdles inherent in such a decision.

Conversations like these often involve scenarios with conniving parties, sabotaging birth control and acting in bad faith. That is rarely the cause of unwanted and unplanned pregnancies. Usually it is a case of people either using precaution and being unlucky, or being impulsive and not using enough protection. Talking about these edge cases of bad faith actors (sperm jacking women and the like) is not really that instructive for the reality of the situation. Coercive reproduction is largely a tangent worthy of it's own discussion and solutions, such as "stealthing" being categorized into law as a form of criminal sexual behavior.


Realistically, there is no solution that is going to be optimal for everyone involved. There are multiple conflicting parties, the mothers, the fathers, the potential child that will need support if it is born, and the welfare state that isn't eager to provide for needy children unless all other options have been exhausted.

Given these conflicts, the "caveat emptor" for men seems to be the best solution, to my eye. Some will be careless and some will be unlucky and find themselves in situations where another party (a woman) is in a position to unilaterally change their lives (abort or not). Such is the reality of biology.

The more I think about this, the more it seems to boil down to an "Equality vs Equity" issue. Is it important that everyone gets something we can call the same, or is it important to take into account how different people are specifically effected?

 

[Bob001]

Inspired by a recent thread in forum community, I wanted to make a place to discuss the idea of paper abortions.
.....

Sounds like it would only be valid if the man asked the woman to sign a document before they engage in sex: "If I make you pregnant I'll abandon you and I won't pay a penny. Okay?"

I suspect it would serve as an effective contraceptive.

 

[Cavemonster]

Sounds like it would only be valid if the man asked the woman to sign a document before they engage in sex: "If I make you pregnant I'll abandon you and I won't pay a penny. Okay?"

I suspect it would serve as an effective contraceptive.

I'd have no issues with that setup. But I don't think that's quite what proponents are asking for.

And as you say, it would likely have a strong contraceptive effect.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Sounds like it would only be valid if the man asked the woman to sign a document before they engage in sex: "If I make you pregnant I'll abandon you and I won't pay a penny. Okay?"

I suspect it would serve as an effective contraceptive.

I would argue that it doesn't really matter when the discussion takes place, because the mother can't bargain away the child's right to be supported.

Going without support will not only be a burden for the mother, who might agree to such terms, but also to the child which was not a party to such a bargain.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Sounds like it would only be valid if the man asked the woman to sign a document before they engage in sex: "If I make you pregnant I'll abandon you and I won't pay a penny. Okay?"

I suspect it would serve as an effective contraceptive.

And no court would recognize that as a valid contract.

 

[Cavemonster]

I would argue that it doesn't really matter when the discussion takes place, because the mother can't bargain away the child's right to be supported.

Going without support will not only be a burden for the mother, who might agree to such terms, but also to the child which was not a party to such a bargain.

It would only be a burden to the extent that the mother can't financially support the child on her own income.

Some number of single mothers choose not to seek child support for varying reasons.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

It would only be a burden to the extent that the mother can't financially support the child on her own income.

Some number of single mothers choose not to seek child support for varying reasons.

Sure, and the children grow up less well off than they might have. It's complicated because the wealth of the child is directly tied to the wealth of the parents, so you really can't separate the two. A child who's single parent does not pursue child support or available welfare is disadvantaging their child in many cases.

Even in cases where poverty and neglect aren't at risk, the child would arguably benefit from the single parent receiving support. Money is opportunity, and less is less, even if that falls well above any poverty benchmark.

It's a weird situation for sure, hard to parse through.

 

[Cavemonster]

Sure, and the children grow up less well off than they might have. It's complicated because the wealth of the child is directly tied to the wealth of the parents, so you really can't separate the two. A child who's single parent does not pursue child support or available welfare is disadvantaging their child in many cases.

Even in cases where poverty and neglect aren't at risk, the child would arguably benefit from the single parent receiving support. Money is opportunity, and less is less, even if that falls well above any poverty benchmark.

It's a weird situation for sure, hard to parse through.

While that's all true a child could be better off with more money available, as far as the state making a mandate, it's a little harder to support.

If both parents are raising a child, there's no state mandate for them to spend any particular amount of money on the kid beyond basic needs. So long as a kid is fed, clothed, educated and sheltered, the state doesn't tell families they need to spend more on a kid because they have the resources.

I'd have a hard time supporting that that needs to change when talking about a non-custodial parent. The most important thing is that a child's basic needs are met.

And I'm not arguing that non-custodial parent's SHOULDN'T be on the hook beyond basic necessities. I just can't personally see that as a strong argument if the custodial parent is okay with it and all needs are being met.