Harry view on “Row vs Wade for Men” and mine.
Dear Ms Grossman
In your article “Row vs Wade for Men” you make a number errors, in my view.
1. You say that, “Before conception, men and women are arguably “similarly situated” with respect to potential procreation.”
This is not true. Before conception - and, indeed, at all times - women have exclusive control of any pregnancies that might ensue.
According to your logic, you could well argue that someone who is holding a gun is “similarly situated” with respect to the future as someone who is not holding a gun - until such time as the trigger is pulled!
Furthermore, as you say, “Unwed fathers do not automatically have parental rights, but instead must follow statutory procedures to earn them.”
Unwed fathers are clearly not, therefore, “similarly situated” even before conception.
2. You say that, “The fact that he does not want to be a father is constitutionally irrelevant. (For all we know, his ex-girlfriend does not want to be a mother - but may have become one because she does not believe in abortion.)”
This again demonstrates that ‘before conception’, the prospective mother and father are not “similarly situated”. She has an escape clause called abortion. He does not.
Furthermore, whether or not she believes in abortion is something of a red-herring when it comes to this particular issue. Nevertheless, whatever is the case about her beliefs, when it comes to abortion, it is only her beliefs that count; whereas the father’s beliefs, decidedly, do not.
You seem to be suggesting that because the woman alone has the choice over whether or not to abort, she is somehow disadvantaged by the very fact that it is she who has the choice!
3. With reference to claiming damages for an ‘injury’, you say, “And what, exactly, is the injury here? It is not clear why the birth of a normal, healthy child is “injurious” in the way that other torts are.”
But this is a sleight of hand, because (unwilling) fathers in cases such as these are not claiming that the birth of a child is an ‘injury’. They are claiming that the financial demands made on them constitute an ‘injury’.
For example, if you had to pay child support for my child then I am sure that you would not claim that it was the birth of my child that was injurious to you. You would claim that the financial burden that I had unjustly imposed upon you would be injurious to you.
4. You say that, “While it is important that women have the right to terminate a pregnancy, unnecessary economic hardship due to the father’s abdication of his obligations should not push them to make that decision.”
But your use of the phrase “father’s abdication of his obligations” begs the very question that you have just been considering.
Besides which, of course, women often - if not mostly - have abortions for financial considerations.
Finally, in the last third of your article you seem to approve of the notion that state officials should not intrude into private behaviours, especially those of a personal and intimate nature. And you suggest that one good reason for this is that it is virtually impossible to discover the truth that lies behind complex intimate entanglements.
I agree with you.
However, I suspect that you would reverse your position entirely on this point were you talking about investigations of, say, domestic violence or sex assault, where state officials clearly do believe that they can sort out the truths from the lies that exist within complex intimate entanglements.
It seems to me that, as is typical of feminists, you will bend your legal arguments always to the disadvantage of men.
The nub of the matter is this.
Western women have 100% control over their pregnancies; whereas men have no control over them.
Best wishes
Harry