According to a facinating and at times, deeply troubling article in the Los Angeles Times, there’s a burgeoning movement of what they’re calling “post-abortive men:”
Abortion is usually portrayed as a woman’s issue: her body, her choice, her relief or her regret. This new movement — both political and deeply personal in nature — contends that the pronoun is all wrong.
“We had abortions,” said Mark B. Morrow, a Christian counselor. “I’ve had abortions.”
What has come out of this movement is the first national conference on men and abortion. Lectures included “Medicating the Pain of Lost Fatherhood” and “Forgiveness Therapy With Post-Abortion Men.”
Obviously this kind of rhetoric is problematic because it sets up the very public emotional groundwork for men to intervene legally in a woman’s right to choose. Some critics also see it as having long term political implications that could adversely effect reproductive rights in the US:
“It’s a rule of thumb that if you want to get a law passed, you have to tell anecdotes that grab people,” said Dr. Nada Stotland, president-elect of the American Psychiatric Assn. Antiabortion activists have done that well, she said. “They’ve succeeded in convincing a lot of the American public” that abortion leaves women wounded. Now, those activists see an opportunity to dramatically expand the message…
…Abortion rights supporters watch this latest mobilization warily: If anecdotes from grieving women can move the Supreme Court, what will testimony about men’s pain accomplish?
I would never for a moment imply that a man’s emotional pain during the abortion process is not very real, I just don’t personally believe that it has a place in the political discourse of reproductive rights. While I believe that in a perfect world abortion is a decision made between two consenting adults who care about each other, that is not always the case. What would things be like for women if rapists had the right to legally intervene? What about women who are victims of incest? Beyond the extreme cases, if men have the power to legally decide the reproductive choices of their sexual partners that opens up a whole new set of anti-choice problems.
Jezebel.com points to a case where a Portland man tried to legally prevent a woman from giving birth to his biological child after she was accidentally inseminated with the wrong sperm at an Oregan sperm bank. The woman, even though not inseminated with her husband’s sperm as initially intended, decided to go ahead with the pregnancy because of her personal beliefs and her difficulty getting pregnant - the donor “thought he should be able to order her to have an abortion because it was his sperm.” While “changing abortion’s pronoun” has the intention of preventing women from aborting, when biological fathers have that kind of legal control the next logical action is forcing a woman to get an abortion - a place we should never be.


Digg
three comments
Here's a thought I had when reading this:
So the idea would be that the biological father would have a say (or possibly veto power) when a woman wants to have an abortion. Most abortions happen before the 3 month mark (or so I've heard). I thought it was incredibly difficult and unsafe to do paternity testing this early. I mean, wouldn't the guy have to PROVE that he was the father?
And wouldn't this put some women at risk? Say they had cheated, or were raped etc and didn't tell their partner. It's possible that if he found out it wasn't his, she's be at a very great physical risk.
Posted by Tiana
January 8, 2008, 12:24 PM
SMF - reading this I had similar feelings to you: "I would never for a moment imply that a man’s emotional pain during the abortion process is not very real, I just don’t personally believe that it has a place in the political discourse of reproductive rights."
Men are so rarely encouraged to genuinely express pain (and in that sense be vulnerable), so while I'm happy to see that, I'm sorry to see it coupled with such a problematic topic. While it's totally true that many people have a lot of grief around the choice to have an abortion, I don't see how that pain is relevant to whether or not abortion should be legal. There are plenty of things that cause pain - hey, why not outlaw intimate relationships altogether? They sure cause me a lot of heartbreak!
Hyping men's pain just seems to move closer to saying that, by correlation, women should feel deep emotional anguish when they choose to terminate a pregnancy. Hey, some women do, but also lots of women don't. And that's their business, and they shouldn't have to deal with a media or government that meddles with that.
The fact of the matter is that men do often have says in whether or not their female partners have abortions - how many people know women who've been coerced into having or not having abortions by physically or emotionally manipulative partners? Upsetting.
Posted by Thea
January 8, 2008, 12:51 PM
According to the CCRC (link below), they can now do 'Non-Invasive' Prenatal DNA Paternity Tests at no risk to the baby after 12 weeks. That's about the start of your second trimester, and I don't think it's very common to find a doctor who will do an abortion after the first trimester unless there are medical reasons. It would be especially impossible to find one for women in rural Canada.
I think it would definitely put some women at risk. You wouldn't be able to force a pregnant woman to have a paternity test legally, but her refusal to take one could lead to all kinds of stressful situations with her partner (if they live together, she may have to move, she is in a physically dangerous situation for her and her child).
I can't imagine that a man would have veto power over a woman's right to choose, just because of the danger involved in paternity tests. Not to mention that they're not carrying a child for nine months, giving birth or generally assumed to be the primary caregiver for a new baby.
You know, I think it also just comes down to men and women being very clear about their views on pregnancy before it happens to them (especially in long-term partnerships, where baby making decisions are more likely to be emotional).
http://www.canadiancrc.com/NON-INVASI...
Posted by Lex Gill
January 8, 2008, 1:07 PM
Leave a comment
This blog post is older than 90 days old. All comments submitted regarding this post will be automatically held for review by the editors before posting. Your comment will not appear on the site until it has been approved.
Our comment policy
Shameless prides itself on the diversity of opinions expressed by our writers, and we encourage and appreciate different points of view. Our intention at Shameless is to foster community and to maintain a safe and positive blogging environment; we do not consider it our duty to give a voice to anybody with an opinion.
Discussion on this site is moderated. We will delete comments that:
(We get to decide what's discriminatory, hateful, attacking, or inflammatory).
In some cases, we will cap off comments on a discussion when we feel they are spiralling out of control and fostering an unwelcoming space for bloggers and readers. Comments will be closed by the Web Editor, unless the post is by the Web Editor, in which case the Editor in Chief will close them.
If your comments repeatedly make the same point, they may be deleted. This also applies to comments made by multiple members of the same organization.
Your comments should be about the topic of the post, not its writer—although we certainly encourage praise for our writers, if you want to say something nice.