Day 31, Abortion and fairness
Aug. 31st, 2010 02:29 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sparrWhen it comes time to have a baby, there is a lot of decision making and immediate and future responsibility involved. My views on this issue are controversial, and something that came up in conversation recently so I thought they would be worth putting down in writing.
First, let's assume that the burden of raising the child is going to be shared, either in a household, or via child support. In the real world there are single mothers, and single fathers, and the burden is rarely split evenly in terms of effort or money, but I think that all of those scenarios represent failures of the system beyond the scope of this point (or intentional decisions, also beyond said scope).
Jane and John decide to hook up. They are both involved in the decision to have sex. Both have the option to back out, or even pull out, unusual positions notwithstanding. A child is conceived.
Fast forward 9 months, for the sake of my preferred narrative order here. The child is born, and both parents share the responsibility for the child's welfare. Either parent could opt to run off, leaving the other single. Either or both parents can hire a nanny, or make schooling decisions, or get the kid a crazy haircut, or send him to boarding school, etc. Judicial bias[1] notwithstanding, both parents have equal responsibilities and rights after birth.
So far, by way of this explanation as opposed to chronologically, everything is equitable and fair. Both parties have had the same amount of decision-making power, and the same amount of responsibility. Now, let's go back to those all-important 9 months...
Jane is the first to find out she is pregnant. She has the option to tell John about the baby or not. She has control over whether she takes the morning-after pill (or the new week-after pill). During the next 9 months, Jane shares her body, gives up many sorts of freedoms, and might regret it. John isn't necessarily involved in any of those negative consequences[2]. During the first trimester or two (or none), depending on who you ask, Jane has the option of having an abortion. In a few jurisdictions, she doesn't, and in a few she needs John's permission, but by and large this is Jane's decision.
So, to sum up, Jane's unique consequences are up to 9 months[3] of pregnancy (loss of mobility, freedom, potential medical complications, etc). Her unique benefits are greater access to information, and unilateral control of the abortion decision. John gets to skip the former and has almost no control over the latter.
Do you think this is fair? Does up to 9 months of discomfort earn Jane the right to further commit 18 years worth of John's support/income/etc outside of his control?
I find this to be a very un-equitable situation. By almost any scheme I can come up with[4], the value proposition for the two parties is significantly out of balance. Jane has far more power over the outcome of the situation than John for not nearly as much more investment.
I am not sure what a fair solution would be. My initial thought is that John should have the right to abdicate his financial responsibility by requesting that Jane get an abortion. This resolves the issue of who has control over the outcome, as both parties have the option to back out at all the same times. However, this would leave Jane at a disadvantage, as she is still the only one who has to carry the baby to term.
I look forward to the discussion that I hope to spark with this post. Especially if any particularly insightful ideas come up, as this is a point on which I am unhappy with my own solution and hope to find a better one[5].
[1] Most judges favor the mother. I choose not to argue that point, since at worst it's moot, at best it makes my later point stronger.
[2] I know some harried fathers-to-be who would disagree
[3] "Up to" because she can opt to give up. "9 months" because "40 weeks" is a much less common search term.
[4] There are many ways you could compare 18 years of John's sweat to 9 months use of Jane's body. Normal compensation rates for surrogate mothers come to mind as a plausible basis for such a comparison.
[5] Contrary to the belief of some, my opinions are not set in stone. I consider my value system to be one of the most internally consistent that I have encountered, but it still has gaps in it that I cannot reconcile. If you can rationally validate your position, and it is more consistent than mine, then mine will have to be adjusted.
PS: This is the last day of the August challenge, which I failed miserably. I shall continue writing when I can, and hope you continue reading!
First, let's assume that the burden of raising the child is going to be shared, either in a household, or via child support. In the real world there are single mothers, and single fathers, and the burden is rarely split evenly in terms of effort or money, but I think that all of those scenarios represent failures of the system beyond the scope of this point (or intentional decisions, also beyond said scope).
Jane and John decide to hook up. They are both involved in the decision to have sex. Both have the option to back out, or even pull out, unusual positions notwithstanding. A child is conceived.
Fast forward 9 months, for the sake of my preferred narrative order here. The child is born, and both parents share the responsibility for the child's welfare. Either parent could opt to run off, leaving the other single. Either or both parents can hire a nanny, or make schooling decisions, or get the kid a crazy haircut, or send him to boarding school, etc. Judicial bias[1] notwithstanding, both parents have equal responsibilities and rights after birth.
So far, by way of this explanation as opposed to chronologically, everything is equitable and fair. Both parties have had the same amount of decision-making power, and the same amount of responsibility. Now, let's go back to those all-important 9 months...
Jane is the first to find out she is pregnant. She has the option to tell John about the baby or not. She has control over whether she takes the morning-after pill (or the new week-after pill). During the next 9 months, Jane shares her body, gives up many sorts of freedoms, and might regret it. John isn't necessarily involved in any of those negative consequences[2]. During the first trimester or two (or none), depending on who you ask, Jane has the option of having an abortion. In a few jurisdictions, she doesn't, and in a few she needs John's permission, but by and large this is Jane's decision.
So, to sum up, Jane's unique consequences are up to 9 months[3] of pregnancy (loss of mobility, freedom, potential medical complications, etc). Her unique benefits are greater access to information, and unilateral control of the abortion decision. John gets to skip the former and has almost no control over the latter.
Do you think this is fair? Does up to 9 months of discomfort earn Jane the right to further commit 18 years worth of John's support/income/etc outside of his control?
I find this to be a very un-equitable situation. By almost any scheme I can come up with[4], the value proposition for the two parties is significantly out of balance. Jane has far more power over the outcome of the situation than John for not nearly as much more investment.
I am not sure what a fair solution would be. My initial thought is that John should have the right to abdicate his financial responsibility by requesting that Jane get an abortion. This resolves the issue of who has control over the outcome, as both parties have the option to back out at all the same times. However, this would leave Jane at a disadvantage, as she is still the only one who has to carry the baby to term.
I look forward to the discussion that I hope to spark with this post. Especially if any particularly insightful ideas come up, as this is a point on which I am unhappy with my own solution and hope to find a better one[5].
[1] Most judges favor the mother. I choose not to argue that point, since at worst it's moot, at best it makes my later point stronger.
[2] I know some harried fathers-to-be who would disagree
[3] "Up to" because she can opt to give up. "9 months" because "40 weeks" is a much less common search term.
[4] There are many ways you could compare 18 years of John's sweat to 9 months use of Jane's body. Normal compensation rates for surrogate mothers come to mind as a plausible basis for such a comparison.
[5] Contrary to the belief of some, my opinions are not set in stone. I consider my value system to be one of the most internally consistent that I have encountered, but it still has gaps in it that I cannot reconcile. If you can rationally validate your position, and it is more consistent than mine, then mine will have to be adjusted.
PS: This is the last day of the August challenge, which I failed miserably. I shall continue writing when I can, and hope you continue reading!
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-08-31 07:44 am (UTC)1. It's not 9 months work; the actual period, including recovery period, is 12 to 20 months (it takes 6-8 weeks for the body to return to pre-pregnancy conditions, and up to a year for the hormones and other post-partum levels to normalize, according to the Mayo Clinic.
2. No man has ever actually been at risk of death because he has to provide for a child. 2 women die every day in the US giving birth (it's been steadily rising for the last 10 years; it's at about 14 per 100k deaths. More common pregnancy related issues such as diabetes can go on for years after.
3. The average cost of using a surrogate, nationally, is about $60,000. The average annual income of a woman in the US is $31k. So the cost of getting a surrogate is about 2 years average income (and likely 3 years of the woman's income for most of the young 21-28 year old women who do the job)
4. If one has intercourse, that's your assent to the possibility that it might result in supporting a child. Most people don't *think* about it, so I'm leery of saying 'consent', but simply put: If you stick your dick in it, the other risks come, even if you say to yourself 'I didn't sign up for that.' The sexually active of both genders often seem to forget this, but it *is* a little easier for a guy to walk away from the decision making.
5. Even when you want it (I did), an abortion is an incredibly traumatic event for most women (I had a breakdown after). Your post is pretty callous to the agonizing decision tree and physical effects of the action. A friend of mine who had to abort due to an nonviable fetus over 5 weeks ago (using the 'week after' pill, as you put it), is still passing matter and bleeding.
no subject
Date: 2010-08-31 08:07 am (UTC)2. Accepted, included originally under "medical complications"
3. This goes to my point, Jane is giving up something worth ~$60k in return for control of significantly more of John's money over the course of 18 years.
4. My issue is that at the moment of conception, John is making a greater overall commitment than the woman. How to equitably balance that is where I am stuck.
5. More data is needed, but this definitely weighs in favor of Jane.
no subject
Date: 2010-08-31 08:47 am (UTC)Additionally, a study at Cornell shows that women with children are offered jobs less often, and are hired at lower rates than men and women without children. A study at Harvard showed that men *with* children are offered better wages than men without (neither of these are fair, but they have been proven). So in addition to the risks of pregnancy, the commitment to 2 years of pregnancy issues, and, if she nurses, about 3-4 years of that, a woman who has children actually gives up potential income by doing so over the 18 or so years of child raising (women who do not have children are within 5% of male salaries; so the average income of a childfree woman is likely about $39k; while it's really freaking sloppy statistics, a woman who has a child is on average giving up $8k a year *before* even paying anything for the child's needs, on average).
So a woman has a lot more to think about when making the decision to have a child, as it's going to cost her potential income, actual income, and then the physical issues. On the other hand, since a man *increases* his earning potential by spawning, he gets an extra advantage there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male%E2%80%93female_income_disparity_in_the_United_States
no subject
Date: 2010-08-31 08:57 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-08-31 01:37 pm (UTC)That said: thespian, the statistics you give are questionable (as statistics tend to be), and also seem to be correlational from what I see. One of my nitpicks with statistics in general is that correlation does not prove causation*. In other words, "Fathers have a higher average income than non-fathers" is absolutely not equivalent to "if a non-father becomes a father, he will get more income." Also, according to the Wikipedia article, there have been other studies that have shown fatherhood to have no effect on wages one way or the other.
* The classic example here: body weight is extremely highly correlated with intelligence (the more someone weighs, the more intelligent they are likely to be). This is a for-real, true fact. That does not mean that if you were to over-eat and gain weight that you would become more intelligent though. It's obvious why all of this is, if you think about it for a moment. Babies aren't that smart, and don't weigh that much. Toddlers have a bit more reasoning ability, and weigh more. Teenagers, all the way to adults.
no subject
Date: 2010-08-31 03:38 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-08-31 05:21 pm (UTC)Overall I would say that in the sense you're talking about (which primarily seems to be financial responsibility), it's not equal (i.e. the woman has more control), and I personally don't think that it should be. Before having sex, both partners have equal control over whether or not it results in a child. If the guy makes the wrong decisions* at that point, then he has to live with him. Maybe it's not fair that the woman can later make a decision not to live with the consequences, but then she has different consequences to live with. For couples that want a child, it's not fair that a woman has to bear the burden of childbirth in general, either. Granted, that's a biological thing, and not something that technology and social norms can yet address.
If a woman decides to terminate her pregnancy, it generally has much higher and longer-lasting emotional costs than it does for the man (in this case assuming that neither want the responsibility of a child). How would you put a value on that in this comparison? The woman has to choose between financial responsibility and emotional trauma (combined in many cases with a surgical procedure) -- she pays a cost either way. The man, under your system, pays no cost if he decides, "I don't want to be responsible for this child."
I'm starting to go on a mental exercise on how it might change the landscape of this issue if cheap and effective artificial gestation were the norm in society, just to take the issue of pregnancy out of it. To take it to its core: two people make a decision which results in X. With both of their consent, and only with both of their consent, X will not occur. But if one of the two people wants X, then what is the responsibility of the other person? They still performed the actions resulting in X -- had they not, then X would not have had a possibility of occurring. You know, in the BDSM world, perhaps this somewhat equates to withdrawing consent after the fact. "I gave informed consent at the time, but now I've decided that I don't like the consequences."
* This is talking about the usual case of not using protection, not cases of properly used protection failing.
no subject
Date: 2010-08-31 12:32 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-08-31 02:14 pm (UTC)That sounds great and pro-woman on paper, but that's actually another advantage men have concerning an 'oops' pregnancy... they don't have to actually make the choice.
no subject
Date: 2010-08-31 02:33 pm (UTC)I was raped when I was 21 and my decision then due to religious views, my views on abortion and a number of other things was to give her up for adoption.
She's 24 now and healthy.
The second time I was pregnant and this was years later, I felt the decision should be between me and the father as it was both of ours responsibility and I did'nt feel that I had the right to deprive him of his child if he did want it.
Neither of us was capable of supporting the child at the time and it was a mutual decision to have the abortion and he actually offered to pay for it.
Would I have another abortion?
NO
Would I choose to let someone adopt again?
No I would choose to keep my child at this point due to being more stable.
Is your logic above correct?
It is for you.
Everyone has their reasons for what they do and how they feel on this issue.
My beliefs on this is that it is a choice that an individual and their partner at the time have to make for themselves based on many factors.
I personally don't like abortion, for me it's not a choice I would make again.
That being said it is a choice that anyone should be able to make for themselves.
no subject
Date: 2010-08-31 06:02 pm (UTC)Often the father's wishes are dismissed also. I was in a serious relationship years ago that ended when I found out that she had an abortion without discussing it with me. She felt my opposition to the procedure precluded any discussion.
no subject
Date: 2010-08-31 06:35 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-08-31 08:24 pm (UTC)I think both sides can get the shaft in this situation no matter which way you play it.
no subject
Date: 2010-08-31 09:57 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-10-26 02:13 am (UTC)In reality, the number of fathers who are behind or just not paying child support are pretty high. The number of non custodial mothers paying child support and behind on it is pretty low.
This is the area that's not factored into your analysis. The commitment for a woman isn't just the 9 months. Very few infants are given up for adoption in the U.S.