Is There A Right to Become a Parent?

What do you do when one person’s rights conflict with someone else’s rights? You might see my alleged right as a sense of entitlement.

Your right to free speech conflicts with my right not to be offended. Your religious rights conflict with my right to marry the person I love. Your right to become a parent conflicts with my right to not become a parent without my consent.

I’ve written about boundaries on several occasions. The basic idea is that there is no right to impose yourself on others, even when the situation is heartbreaking. An op-ed piece in the New York Times asserts that a husband who agreed to have children has, upon divorce, an obligation to pay for his ex-wife’s fertility services. Calling it “alimony for your eggs,” the op-ed notes that “Her ex may have many years left to start a new family of his own, but by the time she meets a new partner, it may be too late.”

That a woman has a right to change her mind is accepted (though it took much effort to change society’s mind). Does a man also have a right to change his mind? Does a woman deserve compensation for delaying pregnancy? Or is it her choice for which she is responsible?

These are complex questions that vary for each couple and individual. Sometime a woman puts off pregnancy because she doesn’t want to have kids or doesn’t feel ready yet, because she can’t find a suitable partner, because her partner says he isn’t ready, because of her career ambitions, and so on.

Dr. Mimi C. Lee has no other chance to have children, except by using frozen embryos created with her ex-husband. He agreed to become a father when they were married, but upon divorce he withdrew his consent. But Lee is a cancer survivor in her mid-40s. That he could end her dream of motherhood seems hugely unfair.

But let’s reverse the gender roles. Sofia Vergara (from TV’s Modern Family) found herself in a legal dispute with her ex Nick Loeb, who wants to use embryos they created. Vergara wouldn’t have to be pregnant against her will – Loeb would use a surrogate. Still, a woman possibly becoming a parent against her will, even if she isn’t required to become pregnant, puts the debate in a different light.

But it shouldn’t. The issue comes down to consent. If a woman is already pregnant then it’s her body, and it’s her choice. If she wants to have the baby, but he doesn’t, then it’s an impasse and someone’s will must prevail. No one has the right to force something on her physically that she doesn’t consent to. So the man is out of luck, even if that means paying 18 years of child support.

Embryos, however, are in test tubes. Not implanting them in the woman’s body isn’t about what is being done to her. It’s about what’s not being done to her. And half the genetic material is his. The condition of pregnancy does not yet exist, and she has no right to force him into parenthood against his consent – even if he previously consented but now withdraws his consent.

The tragedy is that this might end any opportunity for some women to become a mothers. But no one, woman or man, is entitled to create a pregnancy (even with a surrogate) when the other potential parent has denied or withdrawn consent.

Advertisements

#MasculinitySoFragile

Bustle says criticizing toxic masculinity isn’t the same as criticizing men. The controversy Jaime Lutz writes about centers around the Twitter hashtag #MasculinitySoFragile.

She begins her Bustle article with a fair minded statement: “Masculinity isn’t inherently ‘bad’; neither, for that matter, is femininity. But there are certain brands of both that are toxic.” She then “reminds us how important it is to remember that criticizing a concept or a construct isn’t the same as criticizing a specific person or group of people.”

The distinction between constructs and the people who belong to groups associated with those constructs is a fine hair to split. My fellow atheists argue that criticizing religious belief isn’t the same as criticizing those who hold those beliefs. But Christians don’t agree. Though we’ve all heard Christians say that it’s not homophobic to criticize the gay and lesbian political agenda because it’s the issues and not specific people that they’re criticizing (“love the sinner, hate the sin”). And using the same logic, some say that criticizing feminism isn’t the same as criticizing feminists or women in general.

I’m neither feminist nor anti-feminist, and I’m not a men’s rights activist either. I don’t think feminism is anti-male in general, but I don’t think feminism always understands men and masculinity. Just as a man could never understand what it’s like to be a woman, a woman could never understand what it’s like to be a man.

Well, I take that back. Never is a strong word. It’s an absolute. Max Wolf Valerio’s autobiography is called The Testosterone Files: My Hormonal and Social Transformation From Female to Male. A radical lesbian feminist prior to coming out as transgender, he writes that his feminist education did a poor job of preparing him for the realities of the male gender role. He states that he lost feminist friends not because he is transgender, but because he spoke openly about the male experience and contradicted some feminist beliefs in the process.

The overreactions of many men, however, only seem to prove the point of #MasculinitySoFragile. Challenging feminists to a fist fight, telling women to go make a sandwich, claiming that feminists are destroying society, and so on show how easily offended some men are.

And as Lutz notes, many of the points made on #MasculinitySoFragile highlight serious problems men and boys face, but which society isn’t adequately addressing. For example, “that boys are taught to hold in all their emotions and that’s why boys are far more likely to die by suicide.”

However, the sentence structure {noun} so {negative adjective} is a classic taunt. While I wouldn’t leap to the conclusion that #MasculinitySoFragile is intended to demean, there’s an obvious insensitivity.

Further, opposition to something believed to cause great harm often assumes a position of moral superiority aimed at people believed to be unenlightened. In other words, moralistic movements are often patronizing. This is true of evangelical Christianity and New Atheism, as well as feminism and the men’s rights movement.

The distinction that feminists are criticizing toxic masculinity and not men is problematic because most people (right or wrong) unconsciously associate certain characteristics with their core identity. I’m a man, men are masculine, you say masculinity is fragile, therefore you’re saying I’m fragile.

And everyone knows that a weak male is not a real man. A man cannot rely on others to protect him – he must sink or swim on his own. A man is expected to protect others, but if he can’t even protect himself then obviously he is of no use to anyone else. In a social experiment posted on Youtube, bystanders intervened when a male actor appeared to physically assault a woman. But in a separate scenario when she appeared to initiate violence against him, no one intervened. Some laughed.

A hashtag perceived as taunting men about being weak is like taunting women about being slutty. I anticipate disagreement on this point. But I doubt the creators of the hashtag meant to hit that hard.

However, I do think they approached their campaign from a moralistic rather than an empathetic position, and that’s the source of the problem.