Day 31, Abortion and fairness
When it comes time to have a baby, there is a lot of decision making and immediate and future responsibility involved. My views on this issue are controversial, and something that came up in conversation recently so I thought they would be worth putting down in writing.
First, let's assume that the burden of raising the child is going to be shared, either in a household, or via child support. In the real world there are single mothers, and single fathers, and the burden is rarely split evenly in terms of effort or money, but I think that all of those scenarios represent failures of the system beyond the scope of this point (or intentional decisions, also beyond said scope).
Jane and John decide to hook up. They are both involved in the decision to have sex. Both have the option to back out, or even pull out, unusual positions notwithstanding. A child is conceived.
Fast forward 9 months, for the sake of my preferred narrative order here. The child is born, and both parents share the responsibility for the child's welfare. Either parent could opt to run off, leaving the other single. Either or both parents can hire a nanny, or make schooling decisions, or get the kid a crazy haircut, or send him to boarding school, etc. Judicial bias[1] notwithstanding, both parents have equal responsibilities and rights after birth.
So far, by way of this explanation as opposed to chronologically, everything is equitable and fair. Both parties have had the same amount of decision-making power, and the same amount of responsibility. Now, let's go back to those all-important 9 months...
Jane is the first to find out she is pregnant. She has the option to tell John about the baby or not. She has control over whether she takes the morning-after pill (or the new week-after pill). During the next 9 months, Jane shares her body, gives up many sorts of freedoms, and might regret it. John isn't necessarily involved in any of those negative consequences[2]. During the first trimester or two (or none), depending on who you ask, Jane has the option of having an abortion. In a few jurisdictions, she doesn't, and in a few she needs John's permission, but by and large this is Jane's decision.
So, to sum up, Jane's unique consequences are up to 9 months[3] of pregnancy (loss of mobility, freedom, potential medical complications, etc). Her unique benefits are greater access to information, and unilateral control of the abortion decision. John gets to skip the former and has almost no control over the latter.
Do you think this is fair? Does up to 9 months of discomfort earn Jane the right to further commit 18 years worth of John's support/income/etc outside of his control?
I find this to be a very un-equitable situation. By almost any scheme I can come up with[4], the value proposition for the two parties is significantly out of balance. Jane has far more power over the outcome of the situation than John for not nearly as much more investment.
I am not sure what a fair solution would be. My initial thought is that John should have the right to abdicate his financial responsibility by requesting that Jane get an abortion. This resolves the issue of who has control over the outcome, as both parties have the option to back out at all the same times. However, this would leave Jane at a disadvantage, as she is still the only one who has to carry the baby to term.
I look forward to the discussion that I hope to spark with this post. Especially if any particularly insightful ideas come up, as this is a point on which I am unhappy with my own solution and hope to find a better one[5].
[1] Most judges favor the mother. I choose not to argue that point, since at worst it's moot, at best it makes my later point stronger.
[2] I know some harried fathers-to-be who would disagree
[3] "Up to" because she can opt to give up. "9 months" because "40 weeks" is a much less common search term.
[4] There are many ways you could compare 18 years of John's sweat to 9 months use of Jane's body. Normal compensation rates for surrogate mothers come to mind as a plausible basis for such a comparison.
[5] Contrary to the belief of some, my opinions are not set in stone. I consider my value system to be one of the most internally consistent that I have encountered, but it still has gaps in it that I cannot reconcile. If you can rationally validate your position, and it is more consistent than mine, then mine will have to be adjusted.
PS: This is the last day of the August challenge, which I failed miserably. I shall continue writing when I can, and hope you continue reading!
First, let's assume that the burden of raising the child is going to be shared, either in a household, or via child support. In the real world there are single mothers, and single fathers, and the burden is rarely split evenly in terms of effort or money, but I think that all of those scenarios represent failures of the system beyond the scope of this point (or intentional decisions, also beyond said scope).
Jane and John decide to hook up. They are both involved in the decision to have sex. Both have the option to back out, or even pull out, unusual positions notwithstanding. A child is conceived.
Fast forward 9 months, for the sake of my preferred narrative order here. The child is born, and both parents share the responsibility for the child's welfare. Either parent could opt to run off, leaving the other single. Either or both parents can hire a nanny, or make schooling decisions, or get the kid a crazy haircut, or send him to boarding school, etc. Judicial bias[1] notwithstanding, both parents have equal responsibilities and rights after birth.
So far, by way of this explanation as opposed to chronologically, everything is equitable and fair. Both parties have had the same amount of decision-making power, and the same amount of responsibility. Now, let's go back to those all-important 9 months...
Jane is the first to find out she is pregnant. She has the option to tell John about the baby or not. She has control over whether she takes the morning-after pill (or the new week-after pill). During the next 9 months, Jane shares her body, gives up many sorts of freedoms, and might regret it. John isn't necessarily involved in any of those negative consequences[2]. During the first trimester or two (or none), depending on who you ask, Jane has the option of having an abortion. In a few jurisdictions, she doesn't, and in a few she needs John's permission, but by and large this is Jane's decision.
So, to sum up, Jane's unique consequences are up to 9 months[3] of pregnancy (loss of mobility, freedom, potential medical complications, etc). Her unique benefits are greater access to information, and unilateral control of the abortion decision. John gets to skip the former and has almost no control over the latter.
Do you think this is fair? Does up to 9 months of discomfort earn Jane the right to further commit 18 years worth of John's support/income/etc outside of his control?
I find this to be a very un-equitable situation. By almost any scheme I can come up with[4], the value proposition for the two parties is significantly out of balance. Jane has far more power over the outcome of the situation than John for not nearly as much more investment.
I am not sure what a fair solution would be. My initial thought is that John should have the right to abdicate his financial responsibility by requesting that Jane get an abortion. This resolves the issue of who has control over the outcome, as both parties have the option to back out at all the same times. However, this would leave Jane at a disadvantage, as she is still the only one who has to carry the baby to term.
I look forward to the discussion that I hope to spark with this post. Especially if any particularly insightful ideas come up, as this is a point on which I am unhappy with my own solution and hope to find a better one[5].
[1] Most judges favor the mother. I choose not to argue that point, since at worst it's moot, at best it makes my later point stronger.
[2] I know some harried fathers-to-be who would disagree
[3] "Up to" because she can opt to give up. "9 months" because "40 weeks" is a much less common search term.
[4] There are many ways you could compare 18 years of John's sweat to 9 months use of Jane's body. Normal compensation rates for surrogate mothers come to mind as a plausible basis for such a comparison.
[5] Contrary to the belief of some, my opinions are not set in stone. I consider my value system to be one of the most internally consistent that I have encountered, but it still has gaps in it that I cannot reconcile. If you can rationally validate your position, and it is more consistent than mine, then mine will have to be adjusted.
PS: This is the last day of the August challenge, which I failed miserably. I shall continue writing when I can, and hope you continue reading!