Pregnancy Veto

Matt Arnold

July 13, 2005

Tags:

← Previous: A Japanese Toy Next: Maternal Instinct →

It's hearing horror stories like this that make me want to get a vasectomy quick. Can someone explain to me why, in this day when women get veto power over whether or not to become mothers, men don't get veto power over whether or not to become fathers? This is something I need to think about some more.

A confused little girl has the chance to prevent a pre-human fertilized cell, an undifferentiated bloblet of mindless tissue, from awakening into a conscious human with the right to life and the right to child support, which she is not ready for. But she wants it now. Never mind that she could wait for the day when she's with a man who wants her baby. Sure, it's her choice, just like it would be her choice to commit suicide and I don't think we would stand by without trying to talk her out of that. Why is it that when a couple make a life-ruining mutual mistake, if she has a fit of hormonal insanity destructive to herself and everyone she loves there's nothing a guy can do to avoid becoming a father? What a nightmare.

One thing is for sure: men need to take reproductive responsibility into their own hands. It's too bad that sex is supposed to be an act of trust, but one's whole life is just too much to put in trust. I'm not at any risk of this happening to me, but I need to practice what I preach. Up until today I intended to ask my doctor just on the principle of the thing, for the male contraceptive shot, which I thought had been invented years ago. I just researched it on Google and Wikipedia and every reference only hints at the possibility of future development of male contraceptives. That's crazy! Why is it so difficult?

What kind of sexual equality does our society have if it isn't a research priority to allow men to shoulder the burden of reproductive control and choice that they are so often accused of abandoning?

Comments

netmouse on Jul. 13, 2005 2:29 PM

I don't think a man should have the right to stop a pregnancy that's already begun if the mother wants to keep it - her right to control her body and what's within it and all that. But I do think there should be a way to legally note the father's objection and sign away his legal culpability, at least if the procedure is done during the first or second trimester.

And even better, you're right, would be some sort of reliable temporary male contraceptive. condoms have a 3 to 7 percent failure rate, in practice, which is a lot. That and sex is better without, imho and ignoring the (really big) std risk factor. I think there's a version of surgery for men that's reversible but that's pretty invasive.

I will be interested to see what you find out, if you keep looking into that research question.

aiela on Jul. 13, 2005 2:36 PM

I think men should be able to sign away their rights during the time period an abortion is legal/safe, and then the mother can decide whether or not to keep the baby based on that decision.

matt-arnold on Jul. 13, 2005 2:44 PM

Is a man only liable for child support if they have parental rights? I've been very unsure on the laws about this. However, fatherhood could come back to bite a man in any case, whether through the paternal grandparents wanting involvement, or through the adult child.

aiela on Jul. 13, 2005 2:51 PM

When I found myself pregnant at 18 I told the father that I was keeping the baby, but if he didn't want to be a father that young, I would tell the doctors and medicaid and everyone else that I got drunk at a frat party and passed out and had no way of finding the father, and he could go on with his life, because I didn't think it was fair that I could abort, but he was stuck with my decision.

We were engaged at that point, and got married, and stayed that way for 8 years, but even then I felt it was very unfair that we had an accident, and he was stuck with whatever decision I made.

When it comes down to forcing a woman to abort or keep a child, I don't think either of those options are any good - in the first case you're putting a woman through emotional stress she may not be capable of handling, and in the other case, you'll get women trying to induce an abortion or throwing themselves down stairs or any other number of dangerous things. However, if I found myself in a position where I was pregnant by someone who did want the baby and I didn't, I would seriously look into whether or not there was a way I could give them the child and abdicate responsibility for it, or allow their future spouse to adopt it if that ever came up, etc.

matt-arnold on Jul. 13, 2005 2:54 PM

In the current system, a parent cannot "sign away their parental rights" unless both parents are doing it in the case of an adoption. If a man's parental rights are terminated, under the current system, then no, they are not responsible for child support.
I'm confused by this apparent contradiction. A man cannot terminate his parental rights; a man can terminate his parental rights. Can you clarify?

ericthemage on Jul. 13, 2005 2:56 PM

I don't think it's a man can terminate his parental rights, more like a man can have his parental rights taken away.

matt-arnold on Jul. 13, 2005 2:59 PM

Oh my god. What bad things does he have to do if he wants that to happen? What is the law giving him an incentive to do to avoid paying approximately $160,140.00?

aiela on Jul. 13, 2005 3:03 PM

Well, in the case of my niece's ex boyfriend, he pulled a gun on both she and the 2 year old, and threatened to kill them both. The gun misfired, she managed to get out of the house and drive to the police station, and he's currently serving year 6 (and has been denied parole twice because he still claims he didn't do anything.)

She's currently in the process of having his parental rights terminated because he's a danger to the child, and because he's never held down an over-the-table job anyway, and she knows she's never going to see a dime of child support from him even when he *does* finish serving his jailtime.

ericthemage on Jul. 13, 2005 3:04 PM

Well, you have to disappear for a while, and the woman has to take him to court to get his rights terminated. I believe the child support stops accruing after rights are terminated, but I think any arrearages are still owed.

matt-arnold on Jul. 13, 2005 3:06 PM

This is almost Kafka-esque in its insanity.

"Your honor, the state is paying me approximately $160,440.00 to abuse and mistreat Billy. So I got right to work. Can you terminate my rights now please?"

ericthemage on Jul. 13, 2005 3:12 PM

He'd probably still owe the back child support.

aiela on Jul. 13, 2005 2:58 PM

I mean if they are terminated -by the court-. A man can't sign them away, but they can be terminated if he's found to be abusive, a danger to the child, etc.

dawnwolf on Jul. 13, 2005 4:11 PM

A man cannot terminate his parental reponsibility for financial support. His rights can be terminated, which act then terminates his legal responsibility. That's my understanding, at any rate.

netmouse on Jul. 13, 2005 3:10 PM

yeah, really to make that effectively protect the men there should be a corrolary requirement that the pregnant woman inform the man before the legal abortion period is over. You then run into issue of men running away if they suspect what's going on, so they can't be reached. Every rule will have repurcussions.

And sometimes through no fault of anyone's, notice just isn't possible. Once a child is born, I think people have to share responsibility for it.

matt-arnold on Jul. 13, 2005 3:32 PM

There is potential in this system for evil behavior. Women in these cases would have men terrifyingly by the balls. It's her freedom of choice to cost him $160,140.00 for a broken condom? This is where his trust in her, based on all their conversations about plans in the relationship, would either be kept, or foully betrayed. She can claim with all the good intentions in the world that she'll never ask him for child support, but she'll think twice after the fruits of short-sightedly indulging her maternal instinct arrive, and she finds herself destitute. In order to not be a father he has to be exiled into hiding like a criminal (the crime of failed birth control) for who knows how long, until the woman decides to seek termination of his rights and responsibilities, which she has no incentive to do since she knows he has no desire to take the child away from her.

So, I agree the law should change. Should he have no right to what she's doing with his DNA? What do we have to do, patent it? Yes, the issue is complex, but reproductive equality should be reproductive equality.

dawnwolf on Jul. 13, 2005 8:09 PM

I've known two women in my life - one from high school and one recently - who left themselves open to pregnancy intentionally just to get the men involved to marry them. It worked both times.

*shrug* It's still not the resultant child's fault, though - the helpless have rights, imo. Those who have the power to make choices have responsibilities.

twoofdtm on Jul. 13, 2005 8:31 PM

That, above all things, makes me angry. How can trapping somebody into marriage because your pregnant show any good character about you?!?!?

*pet peeve button has been pushed*

MEH!!

dawnwolf on Jul. 13, 2005 8:35 PM

It pissed me off, too - I don't associate with either of them. And I told my friend, who married the second one, what a huge mistake he was making. The thought of either of those women teaching relationship ethics to a child...*shudders*

But what's the answer? I feel my friend ought to have just taken the child away from the bitch. But should the child him/herself suffer deprivation, just because one or both of his/her genetic donors is either devoid of all sense of morality/ethics and/or unwilling to be a parent?

twoofdtm on Jul. 13, 2005 8:38 PM

Isn't life grand when it throws all these curve balls at you like that?

I remember somebody telling me that life was cut and dry. Little did he know. :|

matt-arnold on Jul. 13, 2005 2:36 PM

I would like very much to take that position, and I'm not sure where to fall on this topic. The only thing that gives me pause is that I don't want to say "the choice to have sex is the choice to become a parent." I hardly need to explain why it is a dangerous position to say that the choice to become a parent is a choice that's excercised in bed. That's an anti-abortion position about choice.

drkelso on Jul. 13, 2005 2:33 PM

Most hormonal birth control that women use can have some fairly serious long term side effects. Sometimes they have some unpleasent short term effects as well. I won't bother posting about what they are here cause the internet is full of information about them but I would imagine that scientists are having difficulty with overcoming similar problems for men.

As for a new baby being a life-ruining mutual mistake, I guess that depends on the couple's perspective on their lives and what they wanted to do next in their lives. It definitely qualifies as a life-changing mutual event, to put it lightly. Even when it is intended.

But at the core of it, it usually is eventually a good thing for the parents because it forces them to grow up and learn responsibility in the face of major change (hopefully). When they fail to learn that lesson is when it turns into a nightmare. Ideally they would have exercised that responsibility before having a baby but I think a lot of people learn more from experience than from others.

sarahmichigan on Jul. 13, 2005 4:12 PM

How unfortunate for the child, though, to be an "opportunity for growth" for reluctant parents. I wouldn't want to be that child.

drkelso on Jul. 13, 2005 4:30 PM

I have to wonder if a majority of first borns are that child? Reluctant or not, the parents make a lot of mistakes on their first kid. Its not like babies come with instruction manuals and if there isn't support from family or friends, or the parents aren't willing or knowledgable enough to look for that help, its gonna be some rough going. Its rough anyway.

sarahmichigan on Jul. 13, 2005 4:51 PM

All of my three older siblings were planned (I was the result of a broken condom). My husband and his two siblings were planned. I like to think that a good portion of first children are planned and hoped for, but more than likely, a significant portion are not.

Just because things turn out OK for some parents who weren't expecting a child doesn't mean that two people who adamantly do NOT want a child will grow and mature and become better people for the experience. They might just be miserable and resentful and make life hell for their child.

drkelso on Jul. 13, 2005 7:14 PM

I agree with you. However, there are plenty of parents who planned for a baby and end up making life hell for their child. It works both ways in both cases. It totally depends on whether the parents choose to put some effort into loving their children regardless of how they got into the world. It goes back to what I said that if the parents don't mature and learn some responsibility that it turns into the nightmare Matt was referring to.

sarahmichigan on Jul. 13, 2005 7:50 PM

I guess I'm reacting to a tone or some assumptions I saw in your initial comment. I may be reading something into it that you didn't intend.

While I don't think that people have to be 100 percent prepared and mature to have a child and become good parents, I don't like the idea that some people express that either

a) those who choose not to have children (and adamantly do NOT want them) are immature or selfish.

b) That even if you think you don't want children and think that it will ruin your life plans, you'll change your mind once the little darling is born.

I think I'm plenty mature and selfless for not inflicting myself on a child I don't want. I think I'm mature and repsonsible for doubling and tripling up on birth control methods so that I will NOT have to "put some effort into" loving an unwanted child.

I think there are plenty of other ways, better ways, and ways less damaging to a child, to learn responsibility, maturity, etc. than by sucking it up and raising a child you never wanted and never will.

ericthemage on Jul. 13, 2005 2:53 PM

That's crazy! Why is it so difficult?

My guess is because while women have times when they are not fertile, most men are always fertile. Birth control pills fool women's bodies into thinking they're already pregnant, thus preventing pregnancy. How would you do that for men? I have no idea.

phecda on Jul. 13, 2005 3:23 PM

The reason why there isn't a male contraceptive and that there is a female one is multi-fold. The original research was funded by Margeret Sanger as a way of women to gain control of reproduction. Amazing woman -- if you're not familiar with who she was, do some research. This research started back in the 30's and it took until the 60's for it to pay off. Hormone-based birth control for females works by confusing the endrocrine system into thinking that the body is pregnant. Ovulation shuts down during pregnancy. IUDs are a mechanical method that worked by having a foreign object placed in the uterus that would scrape the uterine wall to prevent a fertalised egg from attaching. There were issues with some of the devices and as a result all of the devices were withdrawn from the market. Some women still have these implanted with no issues.

There's no such natural process that can be exploited in males, either chemically or mechanically, so this is what makes creating a male contraceptive so challenging. Vasectomy seems to be the only reliable surgical method, and yes it's invasive, yes it can be reversed -- at great expense. And gee, we still end up using condoms because of STDs.

As for the philosophical issues of accidental parenthood -- a ten foot pole ain't long enough for me.

sarahmichigan on Jul. 13, 2005 4:16 PM

an IUD does not "scrape" the uterine lining. New IUD's are quite different and quite a bit safer than in the old Dalkon Shield scare days.

http://www.pamf.org/teen/sex/birthcontrol/iud.html

There are a lot of options for male birth control that are reversible, but there's no public outcry for them to be readily available. For instance, there's promising research on a gel that can be inserted in the man's tubes to block sperm from getting out. Another injection dissolves the gel. There are others, but they're still in the experimental stage.

http://www.emedicinehealth.com/articles/35411-10.asp

phecda on Jul. 13, 2005 6:04 PM

Mea Culpa on the IUDs -- going off old information. Pretty much everyone I know well enough to discuss birth control with uses a chemical method or a barrier method. Personally, I would get a vasectomy, but there a couple female friends of mine who want a child, and have discussed using me as a sperm donor. I have to think that one through much further, because if I am a parent, then I will want some level of interaction with the child. And I would expect that interaction to come at a cost, and I'm completely in favor of that.

Now gel in the vas tubes sounds like a good idea. I'd want to see what the stability over time, leakage, etc. would look like. I'll have to take a closer look at that. Thanks for the link!

flutterby68 on Jul. 13, 2005 3:31 PM — tried an LJ cut due to size... I'm long winded on this topic

Birth control, abortion, and all that goes along with it are hot button topics to most people, myself included.

Each state’s laws vary with regard to the termination of parental rights. In addition, paying child support and parental rights often have absolutely NOTHING to do with each other. That’s one reason that a man who has never paid a cent in child support is still legally allowed to have visitation if he desires it – because the two are not connected in any way.

In an ideal world, both the man and woman would have equal responsibility for birth control measures. However, we all know that birth control fails and sometimes stupidity prevails. Accidents happen. However, until such time as medical science can find a way to remove an embryo from a woman and implant it in the man through viability, women are going to have more of a responsibility for birth control measures. Even surgical sterility is STILL no guarantee. Tubals and vasectomies DO fail – it’s not common, but it does happen.

What’s always bothered me is the fact that if a woman gets pregnant and she wants to have the baby, she can continue the pregnancy and it does not matter what the father wants. By the same token, if she does NOT want to continue the pregnancy, she can terminate it no matter what the father wants (although vasectomies/tubals require spousal consent – go figure). The fact remains, the onus is on the woman when it comes to pregnancy related issues.

It may seem extreme, but in my opinion I believe that if a pregnancy occurs and BOTH parties do not want the pregnancy to continue to term – the pregnancy should be terminated. But I’m not one of those who immediately start screaming that abortion is murder, or any such emotional claptrap. It’s a bundle of cells with the POTENTIAL to become a human, but it isn’t one yet.

If the automatic abortion isn’t an idea that appeals, then it SHOULD be allowed for the man to sign off his parental rights/responsibilities if he chooses, within a period of time allotted by statute. Of course, the court system will not allow that at this time simply because the rights of the child trump those of the parents. The “best interests of the child” is often the standard used, and the law does not want to see children without support from absentee parents.

Unfair in the extreme, I know. I don’t think ANY person should be forced into parenthood against their will. I am a single parent, and it is NOT easy. I don’t receive any child support on my 14 year old son and I never have – nor will I ever ask for it. I knew that the chances were high that I would be a single parent and I accepted that responsibility ON MY OWN from the very beginning. Perhaps if young women were to think of things from that perspective, they would be more diligent about birth control to begin with – but who knows?

Honestly, I’ve always thought life would make much more sense if people were simply born sterile. Then, when people reached a certain age, stage of maturity, income level, and certain other criteria, they could then obtain a LICENSE to have children. I believe that would cut down the number of unwanted children, not to mention the child abuse/neglect rates. We’d have no need for infant surrender laws, teen pregnancy education or the morning after pill. But this idea is also fraught with its own difficulties because where is the line drawn, and who decides which people qualify for a parenting license?

Until we live in a perfect world, ALL adults must take responsibility for their own reproductive system. Problem is, the failure rates for condoms are pretty high (particularly if not used correctly) and there just isn’t another viable option for men. Vasectomy is permanent (the reversals aren’t always successful) so a young man who wants to have children later really has no options.

But with our current system, everyone loses – the mother, the father, AND the children.

aiela on Jul. 13, 2005 3:34 PM — Re: tried an LJ cut due to size... I'm long winded on this topic

See, the income level thing scares the willies out of me. You can raise a child just fine on 25k, as well as 50k. Who gets to arbitrailiy decide what standard of living is 'enough' for a child? I don't even want to go down that road.

drkelso on Jul. 13, 2005 4:13 PM — Re: tried an LJ cut due to size... I'm long winded on this topic

Yeah, babies aren't necessarily that expensive at first if you breastfeed instead of formula feed, use cloth diapers, etc. Manby things in life can be less expensive if you are willing to give up some convenience.

Kind of like buying a $1,000 used car on the side of the road. It will be ugly and probably need more frequent repairs but odds are good it will cost less than the monthly payments on a brand new car. You just have to put more work into it.

matt-arnold on Jul. 13, 2005 3:45 PM — Re: tried an LJ cut due to size... I'm long winded on this topic

I think it would be the perfect system, if everyone were temporarily sterilized before puberty and had a switch they could throw to become fertile. To answer your question of who would qualify for a parenting license, a good first step would be to give it to whoever asked for one. Yes, there would still be unfit parents, but we would eliminate unwanted pregnancies.

flutterby68 on Jul. 13, 2005 4:02 PM — Re: tried an LJ cut due to size... I'm long winded on this topic

That's true. And since BOTH parties would have to "throw the switch" nobody could be trapping someone else into an unwanted pregnancy. That alone would be a nice change.

brendand on Jul. 13, 2005 7:23 PM — Re: tried an LJ cut due to size... I'm long winded on this topic

I have to disagree. This would simply allow teenagers to have all the sex they want, without fear of contracting STDs. And STDs would run rampant throughout the land, even more than they already do.

matt-arnold on Jul. 13, 2005 8:22 PM — Re: tried an LJ cut due to size... I'm long winded on this topic

You're joking around right? That's ridiculous. Infertility does not have anything to do with viruses. Everybody knows that.

brendand on Jul. 13, 2005 8:25 PM — Re: tried an LJ cut due to size... I'm long winded on this topic

I mis-thought or something. Clearly, what I meant was:

I have to disagree. This would simply allow teenagers to have all the sex they want, without fear of getting pregnant. And STDs would run rampant throughout the land, even more than they already do.

drkelso on Jul. 13, 2005 4:19 PM — Re: tried an LJ cut due to size... I'm long winded on this topic

Not crazy about forced abortion if the father doesn't want the baby. Regardless of the moral issues surrounding abortion, it is still a fairly major surgical procedure that carries risks for the female involved. Like anything with pregnancy and birth, the more medical interventions you undergo, the higher your risks are for a complication.

With forced abortion, the father does not shoulder a similar health risk just for saying no. Its not equal that way.

As for signing off parental rights, that would be more preferrable. However, I would be in favor of a policy that if either parent voluntarily signs off their rights in any way, they should be required to undergo sterilization so they won't repeat their mistake on someone else.

There should be a cost for shirking a responsibility.

lorrraine on Jul. 13, 2005 4:06 PM

Hi,

The pregnant person gets veto power because they do not lose the right to control their own body just because they got pregnant. The impregnator does not get veto power because they do not gain the right to control someone else's body just because they impregnated them.

Thanks,
Lorrraine

dawnwolf on Jul. 13, 2005 4:08 PM

Yes, but does the impregnator then have the right to refuse to support the resulting child? That is the ultimate question.

shatteredglobe on Jul. 13, 2005 4:44 PM

Thank you, Lorraine.

And Dawn, yes he does.

dawnwolf on Jul. 13, 2005 5:50 PM

I strenuously disagree. The resultant child's needs come first. That child didn't ask to be created, nor should s/he have to live on welfare or otherwise go without because the man involved didn't want to have a child. Sorry, but until our society creates a *real* safety net to take care of the needs of our young and therefore helpless, there is no other ethically or morally sound answer.

And yes. It sucks for the man. No disagreement there. And I hate the argument that says that, if he never wanted to take a risk on being a father, he should have just masturbated, or stuck to oral or anal sex. But, again, until we have that safety net - the child has rights. The people who create the child have responsibilities.

brendand on Jul. 13, 2005 7:30 PM

Bring on homosexuality! :)

You do sound a lot like your husband now... all concerned for the possibility of future life...

dawnwolf on Jul. 13, 2005 8:06 PM

"Bring on homosexuality!"

Hey! That's homosexist! Anal sex ain't just for gay folks anymore...*grin*

At a very core level, Steve and I have the same priorities and want to see the same results. We frequently differ on how to achieve those results, though - and the extent to which the results we'd like to see are possible.

dawnwolf on Jul. 13, 2005 4:07 PM — Good points, Matt

And other than developing a safe male contraceptive, which hopefully doesn't inhibit pleasure the way that condoms do, I don't have any good answers. I think part of the reason the choice is, and should be, left up to the woman is that both pregnancy/birth and abortion are invasions, in a sense, of her person, with medical ramifications that she alone would have to deal with.
But/and - while I am virulently pro-choice, especially now that I'm pregnant the last thing I can think of a baby as, no matter how young is "an undifferentiated mass of mindless tissue." Scientifically accurate? - certainly. Accurate according to my perception of what's happening in my body - no fucking way.

"What kind of sexual equality does our society have if it isn't a research priority to allow men to shoulder the burden of reproductive control and choice"

None. Absolutely none. The right-wingers would much rather take the choice/power/responsibility away from women than expand that choice/power/responsibility to men.

twoofdtm on Jul. 13, 2005 4:35 PM — Re: Good points, Matt

*blink*

*Squeeeee!!!!!* Congrats Dawn!!

*ends completely offtopic comment*

dawnwolf on Jul. 13, 2005 5:46 PM — Re: Good points, Matt

*HUG* Thank you! I now return you to your regularly scheduled Serious Discussion...

brendand on Jul. 13, 2005 7:35 PM — Re: Good points, Matt

Are you behind again?! I'm still not talking to you! :P~

twoofdtm on Jul. 13, 2005 7:38 PM — Re: Good points, Matt

I am!!! You gotta remember I don't usually talk to Dawn nor her lovely husband except through events, nor do I have them as friends on my lj. :P

You're just mad cause I'm right!! :P :D

brendand on Jul. 13, 2005 7:41 PM

What exactly are you right about?!

twoofdtm on Jul. 13, 2005 7:55 PM

Cookies. *nodnod*

brendand on Jul. 13, 2005 7:57 PM

Well, I ate some of 's cookies more recently than you did! Although you still owe me some cookies.

twoofdtm on Jul. 13, 2005 8:00 PM

For you to get cookies, that requires you to speak to me now doesn't it? :P

Otherwise you couldn't find out when we're both available to give you the cookies huh?

brendand on Jul. 13, 2005 8:01 PM

Doesn't mean I'd have to like it.

delosd on Jul. 13, 2005 10:42 PM — Re: Good points, Matt

Lovely husband? She called me "lovely husband"?

Swoon.....

(Even if she hasn't friended me. :)

twoofdtm on Jul. 14, 2005 3:06 PM — Re: Good points, Matt

You are lovely!!! So's the wifey. *nodnod*

*friends you and the wifey*

delosd on Jul. 14, 2005 10:46 PM — Re: Good points, Matt

Such a charmer! Nice to have new "friends", though. Hope to see your comments soon. (Especially if you keep calling me 'lovely'.) :)

shatteredglobe on Jul. 13, 2005 5:12 PM — Re: Good points, Matt

But/and - while I am virulently pro-choice, especially now that I'm pregnant the last thing I can think of a baby as, no matter how young is "an undifferentiated mass of mindless tissue." Scientifically accurate? - certainly. Accurate according to my perception of what's happening in my body - no fucking way.

I'm pro-choice too. I didn't become that way during my pregnancy; I have held that view for almost a year now. If it isn't my uterus, I don't have the right to tell the woman it's inside what to do with it. I'm three months pregnant now, and have felt the baby kick, I've heard the heartbeat, and I have seen it moving around in my uterus during an ultrasound. An undifferentiated mass of tissue it is not. It already looked like a baby (with a huuuuuge head!) in my first ultrasound at 7 weeks.

dawnwolf on Jul. 13, 2005 5:54 PM — Re: Good points, Matt

I've been pro-choice for others, while personally strongly against abortion, all my life. I've always thought that if we created a structure where birth control (including the morning after pill) was free, birth control education was universal and started before puberty, prenatal care was free, and adoption into good homes for all unwanted children an acuality...then, and only then, could I ban abortion. Because I absolutely hate the wasted potential that, at mimimum, is what an abortion is.

And - congratulations on your pregnancy! I'm certainly looking forward to my next ultrasound - in the past two, she's been nothing more than a round speck.

matt-arnold on Jul. 13, 2005 8:36 PM — Re: Good points, Matt

I usually spend about ten minutes trying to unravel any statement that something is simultaneously both accurate and inaccurate. "It's not just a mass of undifferentiated tissue because it's the myriad branchings of your hopes and fears, fraught with emotional potential." Is that what you're saying? Because I get that.

dawnwolf on Jul. 13, 2005 8:53 PM — Re: Good points, Matt

To me she is a human being, who may well have a soul by now. You can language that any way you want to - it's a matter of my faith, not my emotions.

treebones on Jul. 13, 2005 4:07 PM

So many possible things to say, many of them said.

It's never seemed fair to me that the other person could be financially screwed for a choice I might make about something like this. It used to be more feasible to just claim you have no idea who the father is, but some aid agencies ask you to make your best three guesses, and draw blood from them. And if you don't, I believe they don't help you.

That being said, one way to decrease the odds of this is to make sure you've asked anyone you sleep with what they'd do in case of an accident. Don't assume you know; some people are liberal about laws, and other people's choices, and conservative about their own choices.

dawnwolf on Jul. 13, 2005 8:15 PM

"some people are liberal about laws, and other people's choices, and conservative about their own choices."

Excellent point - and you just desribed me better than I could have done.

wormquartet on (None)

wormquartet on Jul. 13, 2005 4:28 PM

It's not a matter of society...it's a matter of biology. Women are the ones who will either have to endure a painful, mentally draining, and potentially-harmful medical procedure or carry a fetus around for nine months, with all the associated horomonal weirdnesses that entails, and ultimately becoming a mother. That's why they get the friggin' choice, obviously. And yes, this choice DOES put the father in a position where they have little say, but do you honestly have a problem with the idea that if you impregnate someone, you're partially responsible for the fact that they're pregnant, regardless of the choices they make?

Beyond that, as far as male contraceptives, there's these things called "condoms."

My god, Matt, you're too smart to think that this is really something you can hang on "society." Shake your fist at the sky and curse the fact that you don't have a uterus.

-=ShoEboX=-

twoofdtm on Jul. 13, 2005 4:37 PM

Hear fucking Hear Shoe!

aiela on Jul. 13, 2005 4:37 PM

Condoms break. Trust me. She's 10.5 now.

drkelso on Jul. 13, 2005 4:42 PM

You have to wear them two and three at a time. Women should demand that of their men so he can't feel anything and it lasts longer than three minutes. And that way, if you still end up pregnant, you enjoyed getting there.

sarahmichigan on Jul. 13, 2005 4:54 PM

Wearing more than one condom at a time is a really BAD idea. I hope you're joking about that.

twoofdtm on Jul. 13, 2005 5:12 PM

They are lovely. :D

Funny though!! :D

matt-arnold on Jul. 13, 2005 5:12 PM

OK, I can't hang it on society. I guess I expect too much of modern science and think that if only there were the political will, the problem would be solved by the lab coats.

I fully concede that reproductive issues are complex, don't have simple answers, and there is room for legitimate disagreement. However, don't forget that conceiving and birthing children is one thing and raising them is quite another. Yes, a woman pays an enormous cost at the start and a man doesn't. But they share the problem for life. It's true a man is partially responsible for causing the problem, but the solution is so obvious and the problem is so preventable. Since I want to be in control, I'll do what I need to take control: vasectomy.

twoofdtm on Jul. 13, 2005 5:19 PM

Vasectomy isn't a 100% garuntee either Matt.

My uncle had a kid after getting his tubes snipped.

And as an aside... one of my coworkers, incidentally also named Matt, is pretty religious, but kinda loose in the rules, whereas his wife is staunchly Christian.

They have agreed together, and with their pastor, to *let* Matt get a vasectomy because it is not 100% proof against pregnancy and God can still bestow children upon them if he desires.

How bullshit whacked is that? But then again you already know my views on pastors and religion having a say on making or not making children. :D

shatteredglobe on Jul. 13, 2005 5:54 PM

My mom ended up concieving all four of her children on forms of birth control.

My oldest sister was concieved while Mom was on the pill.
My second-oldest sister was concieved using a condom.
My third sister was concieved using a diaphragm AND a condom.
And Me?
I was concieved eleven months after my mom had her tubes cut. Turned out she had a third falopian tube, and the doctors only cut two.

sarahmichigan on Jul. 13, 2005 5:19 PM

No, don't back down so quickly. I think it IS lack of political will that makes the options for male-controlled birth control methods so limited. What, women get two types of IUDs, several types of pills, cervical caps, sponges, female condoms, the patch, the ring, and on and on, but a man gets:

-condoms
-abstinence

NOT fair, in my opinion.

sarahmichigan on Jul. 13, 2005 5:21 PM

oops, sorry, 3 if you include vasectomy. There is a chance of vasectomies not working or reversing themselves, but it's pretty rare. My husband got a vasectomy at age 31 and is now 38, and we've been having baby-free fucking for 7 years now.

The only problem is that many, perhaps a majority, of doctors will try to discourage young men with no children from getting a vasectomy on the grounds that he is too likely to "change his mind." We had to fight with J.'s urologist to get him fixed.

cosette-valjean on Jul. 13, 2005 6:23 PM — ?

You plan on getting a vasectomy even though I can't get pregnant? Do you think that you insurance would pay for it? Is it really worth it to you for some vague peace of mind to have an invasive and permanant procedure just in case one day you have sex with a woman who could get pregnant? I know this will sound annoying to you since you swear up and down that you will NEVER want ANY children under any circumstance, but you are young and could likely change your mind, especially since you have changed so much in the past four years or so. Life is change and you may kick yourself in the booty later for taking such a step. But heh, if you really are that upset about it, do what you gotta do. It's not like it will affect me in any way since I can't have kids. Anyway, I love you bunches whatever choices you feel you have to make.

matt-arnold on Jul. 13, 2005 8:19 PM — Re: ?

Same old conversation we've had offline. Look how much of a hypocritical idiot I'd be after a rant like this if by a .00001% chance you got pregnant. Look what a bad outcome happens to the relationships of people who differ on this topic. It curls my toes with abject terror. If there's anything I can do to make that chance into .000000001% I think I'm obligated-- to you, me, and the child-- to do it.

cosette-valjean on Jul. 13, 2005 8:29 PM — Re: ?

Ok, my darling. Like I said it would be affecting your life more than mine anyway. I hope the procedure is not too difficult for you to go through...I wonder if they put you under. You are soooo sensitive about that part of your body as all men tend to be. Did you research if your insurance will pay and if not how much will it cost? I bet Dr. Korkigian will pass out... Hee-hee. He'll probably suggest welbrutrin again.

twoofdtm on Jul. 13, 2005 8:34 PM — Re: ?

Not usually they don't. It's generally a local shot, a cut, a snip, a stitch, and then out the door you go. :D

Real invasive huh? Whereas we as women are left in the hospital for a day or two. Have I ever mentioned how much being a woman sucks? :D

treebones on Jul. 14, 2005 4:16 AM — Re: ?

Sorry, I feel a need to say two words: multiple orgasms.

Maybe the female gender is not entirely made of badness.

twoofdtm on Jul. 14, 2005 2:04 PM — Re: ?

*laughs* I never said being a woman didn't have it's good points either. :D

I'd still rather be a woman over a man, but sometimes men have it easier. *nodnod* ;)

treebones on Jul. 14, 2005 2:20 PM — Re: ?

Nope, I'll grant you, they've got a few things easier. But on the whole, in this place and time, I'd take being a woman over being a man in a heartbeat. (:

The whole peeing standing up thing *does* look useful, though. (:

twoofdtm on Jul. 14, 2005 2:26 PM — Re: ?

*giglz* They make "cups" that women can use to pee standing up now! Have you heard of them? Very ingenius if you ask me. ;D

treebones on Jul. 14, 2005 10:28 PM — Re: ?

*boggles* No, no I'd not heard of that...

twoofdtm on Jul. 14, 2005 10:30 PM — Re: ?

I'll have to find the link again someday and pass it on to you somehow. :D Try googling it and you might be able to find it? It's quite fascinating though, really. :D

matt-arnold on Jul. 13, 2005 8:38 PM — Re: ?

OK, that's enough about my medical history thanks.

cosette-valjean on Jul. 13, 2005 9:46 PM — Re: ?

Sorry, since this was a private posting and we were talking of sex and contraceptives, I thought it wouldn't really matter. I didn't realize that you would be emarrased about my statements but not about announcying a vesectomy.

brendand on Jul. 13, 2005 7:49 PM

Don't not blame it on society just because someone thinks you shouldn't. You are right in that it absolutely would be easier if there were political will. When you have (mostly) old men in office, do you really think they're worried about getting vasectomies? These are the same people who want to take away women's choices.

This is why we have to stand up to these people and tell them they're wrong. And elect different people.

flutterby68 on Jul. 20, 2005 3:04 PM

Vasectomies are generally a very simple, outpatient procedure. When you go home, sit on a bag of frozen peas for a day or so and it's all good. Vasectomies also have the added bonus that a reversal procedure is successful over 90% of the time - so if you DID change your mind, there are options.

I had an abortion when I was 17, which was the right decision for me at that time. I've since given birth to four children, three of whom are still alive. I've made the conscious decision to NOT ask for child support at all, and I am 100% financially responsible BY MYSELF. Even though all the children were planned, I don't believe that I have the right to force another person to be a parent if he doesn't want to be one.

At age 25, I had my tubes tied in the delivery room after my last child was born. I knew I did not want more children, the doctors told me to do so was risking my life, and it seemed to be the prudent option. It's now been over a decade, and I don't worry about it at all.

There are no perfect solutions, and definitely no one-size-fits-all answers. I wish there were, because there are many people who would be much happier. But I still think that forcing someone to be a parent when he doesn't want to be is patently unfair.

cosette-valjean on Jul. 13, 2005 4:42 PM

I bet you are grateful that you are in a relationship with someone who can't get pregnant anyway (well, the doctor's say they could get me pregnant with those really expensive treatments but they probably tell everyone with a problem that) especially since male reproduction control is practically non-existent at this point. Maybe it will be better in the future. I hope so for all humanity's sake.

tammylc on Jul. 13, 2005 4:47 PM

In most societies, and for tens of thousands of years, women have had no say in any of these matters, being just chattel after all. At last we have something of a say (although still not the level of control men have over their bodies), and if men have to have a turn of suffering the consequences of becoming parents against their will, well, payback's a bitch, isn't it?

Agreed that there should be more research on better contraceptives for men, but I expect there's a much bigger market share in developing a bigger better Viagra.

The sexual revolution only takes us so far. STDs, unwanted pregnancy, abortion - in this time and this place there are potential consequences to having sex, and call me medieval, but I believe that if you're going to do the deed, you should be willing to live with those potential consequences.

matt-arnold on Jul. 13, 2005 5:23 PM

If Bush et al have their way there won't be any legal, safe way to terminate a pregnancy even if neither parent wants the baby. I'm far more concerned about that than the small number of men who will suffer from the scenario you describe.
True.
if men have to have a turn of suffering the consequences of becoming parents against their will, well, payback's a bitch, isn't it?
This could be my favorite comment of the entire thread. :)
Thanks for the perspective.

tammylc on Jul. 13, 2005 5:24 PM

And thanks for taking it in the spirit in which it was given. :-)

I can always count on your LJ for thought-provoking posts.

treebones on Jul. 14, 2005 4:18 AM

I must admit, that *was* well-put. (:

twoofdtm on Jul. 13, 2005 5:11 PM

This might sound worse than it's coming out and it might take a few comments to get it all out because people might bring up other points and I can expound there. Just don't think this is my only saying on the matter. :D

"Why is it that when a couple make a life-ruining mutual mistake"

Not all instances of pregnancy is life-ruining. I know of *many* single parents, men and women, that have not considered it a life-ruining mistake. Yes, I know you're being broad in your statement and just stating a point, but not everybody thinks it's a mistake. There is sometimes a great potential in both people who have become unwittingly placed in this situation. There are of course those times where it's really not a great potential. It's all a matter of how you look at it though. And to really have any say, you would have to be the only two personally involved. I think it's a mistake that one of my friends got pregnant and kept her child when she had no highschool diploma, no job, and no way to support herself. Yes, for a good 2 years she was barely scraping by. For 2 months she was on the street, making due living in bus stations and the like. But now, she's flourished and become one of the best mothers that could possibly be around. I also know of a gentleman, who had a planned pregnancy, made all the lists, checked them twice, and was ready for a child. His wife died in labor. He's now in almost the same situation my gf used to be in. He tries his damndest to get by and always makes sure his kid is taken care of though.

"if she has a fit of hormonal insanity destructive to herself and everyone she loves there's nothing a guy can do to avoid becoming a father?"

Why are you considering it a "fit of hormonal insanity"? I wouldn't consider it hormones, nor insanity. I'd consider it her personal choice. I would assume that the woman has weighed her options and picked the one she thought would be best for HER. Yes, the father might have said, "Whoa, back up, I don't want to be a Daddy", But the only way he could have prevented that was to have abstained from coupling with her. Period. There are no second chances when it comes to that kind of situation. He made his bed, and now he needs to sleep in it basically. As does she in making her decision.

"What a nightmare."

I agree. *nodnod*

"One thing is for sure: men need to take reproductive responsibility into their own hands."

I agree whole heartedly. I think men DO need to take more responsibility into their own hands. Women have been doing it for years. It's really not that hard to do.

tammylc on Jul. 13, 2005 5:30 PM

I had a knee-jerk reactions to those specific phrasings that Matt used, but couldn't formulate a response to them. You've done a good job of saying what I was feeling - thanks!

twoofdtm on Jul. 13, 2005 7:08 PM

You're welcome!! And thank you! :D

shatteredglobe on (None)

matt-arnold on Jul. 13, 2005 5:57 PM

I would prefer not to identify the situation in my livejournal if you don't mind. Various people could get into an unhelpful back-and-forth. I've e-mailed a cut-and-paste of the deleted post so you could use it elsewhere. Big hugs to you. and best of luck to you no matter which path you take.

brendand on Jul. 13, 2005 8:02 PM

To whom is this directed? This is confusing...

matt-arnold on Jul. 13, 2005 8:41 PM

I deleted someone's post. It is directed at him or her. I am afraid you must remain confused.

brendand on Jul. 13, 2005 8:10 PM

I do have to say it's interesting to see how you consistently refer to pregnancy as a "problem". It really demonstrates how much you don't want to have kids...

matt-arnold on Jul. 13, 2005 8:42 PM

I intend to post about that at great length, but I must go home and make the charts and graphs.

tlatoani on Jul. 13, 2005 9:40 PM

An unwanted pregnancy IS a problem, full stop.

There may be resolutions to the problem that lead to it becoming a positive thing, depending on the people involved, but it's definitely a problem.

brendand on Jul. 14, 2005 10:41 AM

The key word is unwanted. I was intentionally overlooking that word to give Matt a hard time. :)

Pregnancy Veto

Comments

Leave a Comment