Readers Write: Birth Control and 'Men's Rights'

In her July 26 AlterNet article "The Difference Between a Womb and a Wallet," writer Kai Ma agreed with the recent court dismissal of the "Roe v. Wade for men" case, in which Matthew Dubay fought for his self-perceived right to not financially support an unplanned pregnancy with a partner who had incorrectly told him that she was infertile.

But in an Aug. 1 counterpoint to Ma's piece, "Respect a Man's Choice, Too,", men's rights advocates Glenn Sacks and Jeffery M. Levin offered an opposing take on men's financial responsibility toward unwanted offspring.

Sacks and Levin attempted to debunk Ma's assertion that a "woman's decision to terminate a pregnancy is not the equivalent of a man's choice to financially opt out of fatherhood." Unpredictably, AlterNet readers of both the Point and Counterpoint op-eds were on the fence, frequently along gender lines.

In response to "Respect a Man's Choice, Too," reader Madam Hatter began the discussion with a reminder that it's not just fathers who are required by law to pay child support:

What these father's rights types fail to recognize is that women can also be held responsible for child support -- just like they can. If they abandon or even lose their children to the kids' dad in a custody fight, women are ordered to pay child support too.

It's pretty obvious to me what this guy's problem is by his not so subtle wording, i.e., "when men are saddled with child support obligations" and "the burden of child support.

Another reader, Sec55, comments that s/he agrees with the judge's decision to throw out the Dubay case but urges abstinence as the easiest way to avoid complications of unwanted pregnancies:

Basically, I agree with the judge's decision in this case. If it had gone the other way, it could have provided an excuse for almost any man to opt out of his parental responsibilities just by claiming she messed up or misrepresented herself ... But if you're asserting that women shouldn't be held accountable in any way for unwanted pregnancies, it's a completely untenable position ... there's another solution to this whole problem, too. It's simple, safe, free and 100 percent effective -- don't engage in any type of sexual activity that can produce children. Better yet, wait until you're married, have a good job and can provide a stable home in which to raise them. (Conservatives aren't wrong about everything.)

And AlterMO presents his controversial opinion that women be required, by law, to inform their partners if they get pregnant -- and to obtain their partners' consent before deciding to have an abortion:

Why shouldn't a woman obtain permission from her partner for an abortion? There are laws in many (if not all) states requiring girls under a certain age to get permission from parents or the court. The same should be standard for adult women with regard to the potential fathers ... As someone who suspects a former partner aborted our child -- I can't determine for certain because I have no right to push the issue, and she simply refused to discuss the matter other than saying "nevermind, everything's OK" -- I was shocked I had no way to even be informed of the abortion, let alone block it ...

I'd actually support a points-like scheme where a woman getting an abortion who doesn't have the consent of the biological father receives a negative point on record. If she later gives birth to a child, and a dispute over custody/support arises, that negative point will be considered when awarding custody ...

But other readers weren't keen on that sort of arrangement. User Ezilla, for one, takes issue:

Men and women DO have equal "ability" to prevent pregnancy. Both sexes are equally capable of not participating, or of selecting a form of birth control. Just because women have MORE options, does not mean that men's ability is hampered ... I don't advocate no sex. But by having sex without taking responsibility for preventing an unwanted pregnancy, you are assuming responsibility for any consequences (i.e., babies) that may result from your actions.

Responding to another comment about why there are still no hormonal birth control options for men -- such as the Pill, the Ring or Depo Provera -- reader HH sarcastically asserts: "Drug companies are driven by PROFIT, not by a bunch of patriarchs who spend their time saying 'Gee, let's dream-up new ways to make life a living hell for women!'"

There ARE individuals who are pressing for what you describe; there are pills of that kind in the testing phase. Just because you've never heard of it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

But a reader called Mizkaye doesn't see it that way, retorting:

Drug companies making the pills ... run by men. Insurance companies covering Viagra but not birth control pills ... run by men. The majority of lawmakers trying to outlaw abortion and other birth control options ... men. The major heads of the religious right funding these politicians ... men. Sex of the shooters that have killed abortion docs and/or bombed their clinics ... men. The heads of drugstores and the majority of pharmacists refusing to fill BC scripts and morning after scripts ... men. As for the male birth control pill in testing right now ... I have heard of it actually. I also have seen the polls that say most men don't want to take a pill, and I find it ironic that the length of time between development of a female pill and a male pill is almost 50 years. Why did it take so long? They developed a pill to help men get it up before they developed one to help them control what was coming out of it ... they put the cart before the horse don'cha think?

Dedicatedfather begs, "Give me a break. Feminists scream for equal rights as long as it doesn't affect their free choice. Why don't we all get FREE choice?" (We're not sure why he chose to capitalize the word "free," but we're all for his personal "choice" to do so.)