Article on Men's Reproductive Rights in Elle

Submitted by el cid on Fri, 2010-10-01 13:51

I accidentally came across this article in Elle magazine about men's reproductive rights. It actually does a fairly good job of presenting both sides of the issue. It includes quotations from Mel Feit and Kim Gandy (ex-president of NOW). Excerpt:

"Feit’s list of grievances range from sexist social standards—why should men still be expected to foot the bill on dates? Why is crying or showing weakness verboten for them?—to what he considers discrimination enforced by the state: men’s lack of reproductive rights combined with unfair child support laws. “Reproductive choice isn’t a fundamental right if it’s only limited to people who have internal reproductive systems,” Feit says. “If it only applies to women, it’s a limited right and that weakens it.” In his view, Planned Parenthood’s motto—“Every child a wanted child”—should apply to both people who make the baby."
...
"Still, it seems dicey for women to argue that our distinct biology gives us special rights, considering our long history of being discriminated against based on that same biology. And I wonder about the practical costs of excluding men. The assertion that women have unquestioned dominion over reproductive decisions seems to help cement the notion that fathers are minor players in the life of a family. Yet women are crying out for men to assume a larger share of the burdens (and joys, hopefully) of parenthood."'

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

Wow, wait, what... The ex president of now actually talked about real discrimination to men... I'm needing more (explanation?!?)

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by fondueguy on Mon, 2010-10-04 06:05

I think one of the more compelling arguments is that women can hire another woman to be a "surrogate mother" for them. This woman gives up all of her reproductive rights just because she has a contract that she is going to have this baby for the woman whose child it is.

Why shouldn't there be a similar contract between men and women who have children together that since it is half his child he is entitled to half the reproductive rights?

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by rlaspari on Mon, 2010-10-04 09:12

I'm not a supporter of surrogacy, but I just want to point out that in surrogacy the contract is agreed to before conception, and like adoption it involves signing your rights and financial responsibility away to someone else to ensure the child is cared for. So I am not so sure it makes a good compelling argument.

Also surrogacy has run into legal problems as birth moms have changed their minds to keep the baby and courts are siding with them. Also I recently read where a father who donated sperm for artificial insemination was requesting rights to his child.

I don't like surrogacy and sperm donation for many reasons, but one is because it has many components that make for a legal mess. A little detail that many like to leave out is that most couples who use a surrogate to conceive, do not use the wife's egg or the surrogate's egg, but rather a anonymous donor egg. So you have 3 potential mothers involved. Even in the cases I read about where the birth mothers kept the babies, it was acknowledged that they were not the genetic mothers.

Surragacy is like adoption, the contract is not enforceable until after the child's birth and all parties still agree.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Kris on Mon, 2010-10-04 18:11

The second quote is actually from the author of the article, not Kim Gandy. She does make comments elsewhere in the article.

I see the source of your confusion, however. That's my bad, as I posted the original.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by el cid on Mon, 2010-10-04 21:13

Thanks, you didn't mess up though. I was tired and didn't pay enough attention.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by fondueguy on Mon, 2010-10-04 22:20