My reproductive right (singular) as a man is that I have the right not to engender a pregnancy by forgoing sex. That’s the only right I have: no one may legally force me to breed against my will. Equality with that is already the law.
As far as abortions go, I have no rights whatsoever. I have no right to demand one, should I engender a child I don’t want; I have no right to refuse one, should a child whom I desperately want be in danger of abortion from his mother. Women thinking the ERA will grant them a right to abortion surely don’t want equality with me on these points. Equality would mean no rights at all.
Men can’t even terminate their legal duty to financially support an unwanted pregnancy, or the 18 years that follow. (Nor do I wish for them to do so; one ought to care for one’s children.)
Here I finally found Senator Gillibrand making her version of the argument.
“It’s the clearest pathway to challenge Dobbs’ holding that women in their reproductive years have no right to privacy, but arguably, men do,” she told POLITICO, referencing the 2022 Supreme Court decision that overturned Roe v. Wade.
There’s no male right to privacy in a court case alleging paternity. A man can’t tell the court that it’s none of their business if he fathered the child or not. Now in many states, a mother can abandon her child at certain places (often including fire departments) and be freed of all responsibility; every state has some version of this “safe haven” law. This does not apply to fathers who wish to be freed of their children.
It’s a little alarming that the main right this group seems to want is the right to kill unwanted children. However, I would like at least for everyone to understand that there is no parallel right being enjoyed by men. Equality with us means substantially fewer rights than women currently enjoy.
1 comment:
I'd also note that, while women are almost always granted anonymity when making sexual assault or rape accusations, on the (correct) theory that their reputations would be tarnished by raising the matter-- the men accused are NOT given anonymity. What about THEIR reputations, particularly in cases where the accusations are flimsy, or even obviously false?
The most recent of these was the Pete Hegseth kerfuffle, where the woman was just "Jane Doe", but his name was everywhere. This, despite the fact that the police investigated, but declined to prosecute... enough of the investigation details were published to show that there were multiple witnesses saying "Jane Doe" was flirting with him in the bar, walked out with him arm-in-arm and went to his room willingly, and didn't appear to be too drunk to consent. Indeed, she didn't make the complaint until later, after having to explain where she had been to her husband (she and her husband had been staying in the same hotel, and she never returned to her own room until the following morning). So why is Hegseth named-and-shamed, but the woman is "Jane Doe"? And Hegseth is merely the most recent example; this happens REGULARLY.
I don't have a good answer for this-- I want rape victims to be able to come forward without going through an ordeal... but likewise, I don't want men to be infinitely open to this kind of slander.
--Janet
Post a Comment