Did you know there's a National Center for Men? Well apparently there is, and it's backing the lawsuit (filed in U.S. District Court in Michigan) of Matt Dubay, who doesn't want to pay child support. The NCM even has a website and a press release about this absurdity. In the AP story linked to above, the argument is summarized like this:
If a pregnant woman can choose among abortion, adoption or raising a child, a man involved in an unintended pregnancy should have the choice of declining the financial responsibilities of fatherhood. The activists involved hope to spark discussion even if they lose.
Okay, so women have the right to abdicate responsibility and men don't--even in the actual case where Dubay's girlfriend allegedly repeatedly told him that she was physically unable to become pregnant. Why shouldn't men have the same right? Sounds pretty reasonable, right? Well, no, not if you actually examine the argument.
Abortion as an abdication of child-rearing responsibility is just a non sequitur. Abortion is a means the woman has for maintaining control of her own body; no one is asking men to unwillingly sacrifice their own bodies for nine months for the benefit of a fetus which possesses human potentiality. An actual baby, on the other hand, is a human person which cannot care for itself and therefore must be cared for.
But what about the relevant claim, that if a woman does not want her baby she can offer it up for adoption, but that if a man does not want the baby, he's stuck paying child support? It seems to me that this claim is factually incorrect. If the woman does not want the child, the man would gain custody; if the man also does not want the child, it would go up for adoption. If the custody were transferred to the father, wouldn't the mother be responsible for child support payments? So the only legitimate claim to be made would be about custody battles, and why absent compelling factors one way or the other the mother typically gains custody (or, I guess, split custody, or the father might only be granted visitation rights--I haven't looked up the precise statistics). Unless, of course, you want to make the untenable argument that deadbeat dads shouldn't be forced to support their children because deadbeatedness is a fundamental human right?
What's particularly striking to me is the transparency of motive. The first paragraph in the press release reads:
On March 9, 2006 The National Center For Men will file suit in a United States district court in Michigan on behalf of a man's right to make reproductive choice, to decline fatherhood in the event of an unintended pregnancy. We will call our lawsuit Roe vs. Wade for Men. TM
They're actually calling it Roe for Men! That is, this lawsuit is aimed not at its purported target, but rather Roe--they want it overturned. Why no real effort to mask this? It's just like the South Dakota legislation, which fails to include the popular exceptions for rape, incest, and the life of the mother. I don't get it; why no effort to be "reasonable?" Why alienate the mushy middle? I can see how this might fracture the Republican party, but I fail to see why the dominant political faction (social conservatives) would want to strip themselves of the moderate Republican support which allows them to control the House, the Senate, and the Executive Branch. What would the real consequences of Roe for Men be? Abortion overturned? Not going to happen. Forced adoption if the mother cannot support the child without the father's help? I know it's fashionable in some parts these days to hate women, but I don't see that playing well outside of the psychopathic fringe.
On a tangential note, I think this is kind of sad because there probably needs to be a "men's liberation" movement to echo the women's lib. movement. This Roe for Men nonsense, of course, would not fall under that umbrella, and only serves to delegitimize such a claim. But macho culture certainly dominates American culture today. George Bush's little "mission accomplished" codpiece stunt comes to mind. John Kerry was smeared as an effete liberal. Men aren't supposed to have feelings--like, that's totally gay, man. And for that matter I don't think male homosexuality is as socially acceptable as female homosexuality. Real Men don't read books or go shopping or go to Broadway musicals; Real Men go hunting. Real Men shoot 78-year-old men in the face because those 78-year-old men could be small wingless birds in disguise. Now stop being a pansy and put down that Spenser!
[Update] It's been brought to my attention that Ethan Leib is a proponent of men's rights. After reading some of his thoughts on the matter, my new, modified position can be found at Unreal City. I think a reasonable case can be made for male "choice," or men's reproductive rights; I still don't like or trust the National Center for Men, however.
In discussions about men's reproductive rights, I am yet to hear men demand an effective male contraception like the masculine version of the pill. If men want complete control over not getting a woman pregnant, it is either vasectomy or abstinance now. A male pill will be the perfect solution for reluctant fathers. Pharmaceutical companies are minting millions with Viagra but show little interest in the male pill. Why isn't the NCM pushing for research in this field?
Posted by: Ruchira Paul | March 13, 2006 at 03:06 PM