Monday, August 26, 2013
Fathers and Mothers: Reproductive Rights (Brief)
I'm going to write this down very quickly, because I've spent far too long discussing it.
I will simplify it as much as possible.
Essentially, women and men serve immensely different reproductive roles, which I will present below:
Men = Fertilizers. They fertilize the eggs of women.
Women = Fertilizees. Their eggs get fertilized by the sperm of men.
Primary Reproductive Roles:
Men = Fertilizers.
Women = Fertilizers, carriers, birthers.
Men have one reproductive role: Fertilizing eggs.
Women have three primary reproductive roles: Fertilizee (their eggs get fertilized by men via sperm), the carriers of babies (the baby develops inside of their body), and the birther (they give birth to the baby).
In almost all cases (or, those which are not rarities and/or exceptions, such as entrapment), women and men have the absolute option of not having sex; or, not fertilizing and/or being fertilized.
Men can choose to fertilize or to not fertilize.
Women can choose to be fertilized or to not be fertilized.
Here, we have an equality of choices (or options), because the roles of women and men do not diverge in the initial conception (sex); women and men do the same thing, essentially... They have sex.
After this, however, the primary biological and/or reproductive roles of women and men diverge (differ greatly). The man's job is over. He has fertilized a woman's eggs, and he has nothing left to do. Women, however, must now carry and then birth the baby.
No one can dictate, in a state which permits bodily autonomy (meaning, the right to the self-governance of one's own body) to the fullest, that someone be forced to abort or to not abort something growing [inside] of [their body]. Period.
Men do not have a similar option for the simple fact that they do not carry or birth children; they merely fertilize eggs. Society in general believes that the quintessential model of care for children is that they have two parents (typically: a father and a mother), who provide in some way for the child's wellbeing.
Normally, this would either be through direct care or financial contribution.
Due to this, if a mother is the primary caregiver of a child, the father, should she request it, cannot legally opt-out of providing some sort of assistance in relation to caring for the child if it is already alive.
Meaning, the father would likely have to pay child support. Fathers can (and do) avoid this by fleeing somewhere (in the case of the U.S., to another state) which will not force them to pay.
There can be no conventional equality in relation to men having fewer reproductive options prenatally, because all they do is fertilize eggs. Where women can abort or "opt-out" of birthing, and thus opt-out of being a parent, men do not have that option, because they do not carry the child.
Any forcing of a woman to abort or to not abort would be a violation of their bodily autonomy. Men do not deal with this, once again, because they do not carry or birth children.
In general, society believes that once a child is born (as it then effects the economy and society as a whole in its own way), two parents should care for the child in some some manner.
That is the reality of nature and the situation.
It may not be "fair", and it may be a "double standard", but it exists due to real (biological / reproductive) distinctions, differing roles, and so forth. Women and men are not the same, and their reproductive roles differ immensely.
The [only] realistic options are:
1) Give single fathers and single mothers the right to legally abandon children (if they are the primary legal caregiver - father or mother).
2) Equalize child support laws fully where they are not equally applied, so that it is certain that abandoning mothers and fathers have to pay the other parent if the other parent has full and/or sole custody.
These are the only realistic options, and would be the only sensible equalities.
Allowing one parent to opt-out once a child is born, while leaving the other parent (the primary caregiver) with no assistance whatsoever from said abandoning parent is not only economically moronic for reasons that should be obvious (single mothers in poverty, single parents in general in poverty, an increase in welfare spending); it is insane and unlikely to ever be accepted by society as a feasible right and/or option.
Society prefers the paradigm of two parents providing in some way for children once they have been born. Women and men play drastically different roles in relation to reproduction, and thus women have more prenatal options, because their role is greater and entails more stages (being fertilized, carrying the baby, birthing the baby), while men's role contains only one stage (fertilizing a woman's eggs).
I am not advocating for or against anyone's "rights" here, I am stating what is reproductively and biologically factual, and what is realistic, and nothing more.
Create artificial wombs.
Create spermless babies.
P.S. The "Safe Haven" laws are intended to (hopefully) curtail abortions.
You can read more about them here:
They are irrelevant to the discussion of prenatal rights.