| Question |
FAQ answer |
Commentary - UK oriented |
| What is "Choice for Men"? |
Choice for Men is a proposal to
improve the law so it protects men's right to plan their families. |
C4M really addresses the (good) question "how can men have
consensual sex, without the disadvantages of current male contraceptives,
and without the risk of becoming financially responsible for a child
resulting from that sex?"
It doesn't address the other issues arising from being the genetic
parent of a child, such as the child wanting to know its parents,
diagnosis & therapy for genetic disorders, etc. Its primary
focus is on avoiding the child support responsibilities.
|
| Would Choice for Men force women
to have abortions? |
No.
|
The woman's options become:
- have an abortion (which may be hard in the UK), or
- have the child, and become a deserted lone mother.
Obviously this proposal would put pressure on some pregnant women
to have abortions, and would also result in more deserted lone mothers
where they don't have abortions. This would be a dreadful dilemma
for many pregnant women - who may not have realised just how casually
the man considered the relationship to be. Abortion
Act 1967.
|
| What exactly is Choice
for Men? |
Choice for Men would give men a
recourse, remedy or relief from being tricked or trapped into parenthood,
perhaps by allowing them to relinquish their parental rights and responsibilities,
like in an adoption, via financial compensation or by forcing an actual
adoption. |
This reveals the basis of the C4M proposal - the assumption is
that conception has occurred. If men can ensure that conception
doesn't happen, then they can't be "tricked or trapped into
parenthood", except in certain cases (eg. rape, below) that
should be dealt with separately.
"Prevention is better than cure". C4M is in urgent need
of addressing this fundamental principle of how to make things work
better! It would be better to achieve "every
child a wanted child".
|
|
Some proposals would limit the time during which the choice can
be made, make the choice irrevocable,
only apply when men are lied to about birth control or
when boys are statutorially raped.
|
There would have to be a time limit, in case the woman wanted to
have an abortion. In the UK, there isn't legally abortion on demand
(although many doctors tend to be liberal in their interpretation
of the need to identify a health risk), so she may not be able to
have one. Abortion
Act 1967.
The subject of being lied to has typically been rejected by "you
can't expect the state to intervene in what 2 people say in the
bedroom". Some men have suggested some sort of formal contract
to show that there was an agreement outside the bedroom. But the
child would not be a party to the contract, which reduces its credibility.
Statutory rape of boys must be dealt with separately. Where
reproduction is concerned, we don't want to encourage the government
to treat men in the same way they treat under-aged boys!
|
| One proposal even allows women to
relinquish their parental rights and responsibilities. |
OK, but this proposal is unclear.
It appears likely to fall foul of the above issues. |
| Choice for Men isn't a medical procedure. |
Agreed. But it may lead to pressure
for a medical procedure. |
| How many men are tricked or trapped
into parenthood? |
No one knows the exact number, but we can estimate from the following
statistics:
- Preliminary data indicates that 33% of U.S. births may be unintended
according to fathers.
- Paternities are established in U.S. courts at the rate of one
or two per minute.
|
A
survey in the UK (by women's magazine That's Life!) suggested
that: "Nearly one in four British women would try to conceive
without their partner's consent if they wanted a baby".
There is a steady trickle of cases (including statutory rape) where
mothers claim child support from men who never wanted the child
and thought precautions were being taken.
|
| Isn't Choice for Men simply a
way for men to get out of paying child support? |
No, it's more. Choice for Men is about fairness and family planning.
|
"Child support" is behind most proposals on this topic
- else why bother?
A problem is that "fairness" has never been agreed where
human reproduction is concerned. Human reproduction is asymmetrical,
so there is no logical definition of fairness. It is much better
for men to identify what they want than to engage in a futile pursuit
of the undefinable.
If men can ensure that conception doesn't happen, this would solve
the "family planning" requirement. They would have to
plan to use these contraceptives, but that is what
"family planning" for men surely involves.
|
| Can't men avoid paying child
support by just using condoms?
|
Proponents of legalizing choice
for men generally support contraception, but keep in mind that condoms
are unreliable. Condoms have a 16% annual failure rate. After just
four years you can bet on having an accidental pregnancy and after
20 years of using condoms, the chances are that a man will most likely
experience not one, not two, but three accidental pregnancies! |
Current male contraceptives are totally inadequate to achieve the
perfectly reasonable objective of C4M: "how can men have consensual
sex without the risk of becoming financially responsible for a child
resulting from that sex?" This applies to vasectomies as well
as condoms.
The
next generation of male contraceptives should be a lot better
for this purpose. They will enable men to control their own fertility.
|
| Can't men avoid paying child
support by not consenting to sex? |
Many people are surprised to learn
that men can't legally avoid parenthood by not consenting to sex.
It's true! Here's a quote from a court case in Kansas:
"The issue of consent to sexual activity under the criminal
statutes is irrelevant in a civil action to determine paternity
and for support of a minor child born of such activity."
Similar cases have happened in other states.
|
Rape of men, especially statutory rape of boys, must be
dealt with separately. Where reproduction is concerned, we don't
want to encourage the government to treat men in the same way they
treat under-aged boys!
This is true for both men & women - the laws for rape &
for consensual sex must not be mixed up. Statutory rape is typically
easy to separate out, because the dates (of "conception"
and of "coming of age") should be known. They don't need
a general application of C4M to resolve them.
|
| Aren't all children entitled
to support from both parents? |
No. A common exception is single
parent adoptions, which are fully legal and looked upon favorably
by the various social service agencies. |
Unfortunately this is true, but "two wrongs don't make a right".
It would be better to cure the existing problem than to use it
as a precedent for a new problem.
|
| Wouldn't Choice for
Men impoverish children? |
While some people might worry that
children raised by single mothers may be impoverished, keep in mind
that adoption and donating sperm are already legal for single parents
and looked upon favorably by various social service agencies. |
Unfortunately this is true, but "two wrongs don't make a right".
It would be better to cure the existing problem than to use it
as a precedent for a new problem.
|
| Even if the mother can't afford
to keep the child out of poverty, it was her decision to keep the
child and she should be responsible for it. |
Perhaps a billion people in the world live in abject poverty. Should
exactly the same attitude be applied to all of them? A humane world
shouldn't take such an attitude to a billion people. And it shouldn't
take this attitude to people in "the West" either.
This takes a very casual attitude towards the emotional bond that
a mother can feel towards the child. (When the same casual attitude
is taken towards the emotional bond that a father can feel towards
the child, in a family court decision, men's/father's groups rightly
object!)
|
| Furthermore, a fundamental right
such as a man's procreational autonomy may not be infringed upon by
the state to merely save money. |
There is no such fundamental right - it has simply been postulated
for this purpose. See:
Universal Declaration
of Human Rights (United Nations)
Convention
on the Rights of the Child (United Nations)
European Convention
on Human Rights (Council of Europe)
Here
is a discussion of "Rights to Reproduce", which provides
a good analysis of what "rights" are and are not.
Typical rights quoted here are about having families. No sources
identify rights to have sex without risking consequences. There
are no such rights. "Prevention is better than cure".
|