A New Right for Women. Preglimony. Good Idea or bad?

A law professor at the University of Richmond in Virginia has floated an interesting idea in a New York Times editorial. Not surprisingly, I think it deserves some discussion. We know that an identified father can be held liable for child support, should we build on that idea?

Since the 1970s it has been possible to genetically link a father and his baby with increasing levels of accuracy. Then, a test using amniotic fluid let us test a baby’s DNA before birth, but the procedure increased the risk of miscarriage. Now a prenatal blood test has made the process far easier. Since a small amount of fetal DNA is present in a pregnant woman’s blood, the pregnancy can be genetically linked to her partner through a simple blood draw from the woman’s arm.

One of the potential ramifications is that men might be called upon to help support their pregnant lovers before birth, even if the pregnancy is ultimately terminated or ends in miscarriage. They might be asked to chip in for medical bills, birthing classes and maternity clothes, to help to cover the loss of income that often comes with pregnancy, or to contribute to the cost of an abortion.

Until and unless the pregnancy produces a child, any costs associated with it are regarded as the woman’s responsibility. The debate around the new technology has, unfortunately, so far adopted this frame, labeling the test a paternity test and the potential obligation as child support.

Both partners had a role in the conception; it’s only fair that they should both take responsibility for its economic consequences.

Former spouses are often required to pay alimony; former cohabiting partners may have to pay palimony; why not ask men who conceive with a woman to whom they are not married to pay “preglimony”?

The most frequent objection I hear to this idea is that it will give men a say over abortion. A woman’s right to choose is sometimes eclipsed by an abusive partner who pressures her into terminating or continuing a pregnancy against her will, and preglimony could exacerbate this dynamic. But the existence of bullies shouldn’t dictate the rules that govern all of society.

It’s also possible that preglimony could deter a different form of abuse by making men who pressure their partners into unprotected sex, on the assumption that the woman will terminate an unwanted pregnancy, financially liable for the potential result.

At the end of the day, preglimony stands to benefit men too, especially those who want to help but are turned away. How many well-intentioned men have been dismissed with “I don’t want your money” or “You’ve done enough damage; now stay away from my daughter”? Preglimony names and in that way honors the man’s role in caring for his pregnant lover. A man and a woman who conceive are intimately connected. They are not spouses, and they may not even continue to be lovers, but they are not strangers either.

I have left out some of the editorial, but that was to attempt to comply with T&C and save space. The entire editorial is here: www.nytimes.com...

She presents an interesting idea, but I have a few questions. How do we force a man to take a DNA test if all there is is the woman's statement that he is the lover who made her pregnant? And if she says it could have been one of three men, are they all forced to give DNA?

Haven't changes to our laws and technology made pregnancy entirely the choice of the woman? Even in rape, terminating the pregnancy can be done with a little medication soon after the event. If pregnancy is her choice, shouldn't pregnancy be her responsibility? Not that the child should be solely her responsibility, but the costs of the pregnancy?

Does this give her an incentive to enter into and continue an unwed pregnancy? Someone else will be paying her costs, and they might even include some indeterminate amount for "pain and suffering."

So, a major change is being proposed which could have wide ramifications. Are you for it?

I wouldn't support it. It would be abused against men like child support is.

But make no mistake, any sensible boyfriend would help his girlfriend out anyway, and wouldn't need to be asked or forced by law to do the right and sensible thing.

This is just another idea of taking things away, something the government does too much of. We don't need to give them any more ideas.

As well as just another idiot trying to force their morality onto a populace through legislation. We also ahve enough of those kinds of people too.

I am for it. Sure it will open a Pandoras box but it is one we as a society need to open. At this point it takes TWO people to make a baby.

I see an upside with men having more rights concerning access to their offspring. Possibly more responsible choices by men and women BEFORE there is a pregnancy. Also I believe for some men it could help them feel more of a connection to their child before it is born. A pregnancy planed or no is something that must be considered as a "what if" when ever anyone has sex protected or not. Accidents happen. Do you really love, care, like, desire this person enough to risk a possible pregnancy? People make bad choices and an innocent child should not suffer because of that by lacking support not just financial but emotional as well. If two adults are grown up enough to have sex they need to be grown up enough to deal with the consequences of their actions. This may force that hand. Except in the case of rape if a woman can't name the father in three tries she needs a shrink, education about STDs and the responsibility of PAYING for the test.

It will cut down drastically the numbers of DUPED DADS! I think every single child should be dna'd as the numbers of paternity fraud victims are astronomical.

Here is a quick paternity fraud story

I can see it now...

Young man, you are NOT the father!

BUT! You are still on the hook for child support like this poor bastard!

reply to post by Ladysophiaofsandoz

Dear Ladysophiaofsandoz,

I see an upside with men having more rights concerning access to their offspring.

I must have missed it. Did you see the article suggesting more access rights for men? I didn't.

People make bad choices and an innocent child should not suffer because of that by lacking support not just financial but emotional as well.

I agree completely, but this idea doesn't have any effect on how children are cared for after birth, it is only concerned with taking money from the man and giving it to the woman for her pregnancy expenses, lost income, maternity clothes, etc.

If two adults are grown up enough to have sex they need to be grown up enough to deal with the consequences of their actions.

Again, I agree. But doesn't this reduce the consequences for women as it increases the consequences for the man? Besides, I think you're talking about an ideal world, not ours. For years women have said, with some justification, that at times like that men don't think with their heads but with some other part. I think a lot of unmarried sex is not performed after a thoughtful analysis of potential costs.

I still don't know what to do with the idea that although it takes two people to have sex, it is entirely the woman's call whether she is pregnant a few days later. If the man has no say in that decision, why should he pay for the costs of that decision?

With respect,
Charles1952

Originally posted by Ladysophiaofsandoz
I see an upside with men having more rights concerning access to their offspring.

I dont see anything in the article that suggests men will get any such rights.

All the article says is that
- men will be forced to open their wallets.
- women keep all rights.

I actually look forward to the day where all parties act responsibly because its the right thing, not because of legal obligation.

Some say I'm a dreamer.

Originally posted by Ladysophiaofsandoz
I am for it. Sure it will open a Pandoras box but it is one we as a society need to open. At this point it takes TWO people to make a baby.

I see an upside with men having more rights concerning access to their offspring. Possibly more responsible choices by men and women BEFORE there is a pregnancy. Also I believe for some men it could help them feel more of a connection to their child before it is born. A pregnancy planed or no is something that must be considered as a "what if" when ever anyone has sex protected or not. Accidents happen. Do you really love, care, like, desire this person enough to risk a possible pregnancy? People make bad choices and an innocent child should not suffer because of that by lacking support not just financial but emotional as well. If two adults are grown up enough to have sex they need to be grown up enough to deal with the consequences of their actions. This may force that hand. Except in the case of rape if a woman can't name the father in three tries she needs a shrink, education about STDs and the responsibility of PAYING for the test.

I have a hard time calling a group of human beings that must be constantly propped up, given social advantages and require the near total enslavement of 50% of the human population for their continued benefit, adults.

We need to call slavery what it is, and call perpetual children what they are. The time has come for women to stop getting drunk off the blood of men, and walk on their own two feet. I have a Pandora's box for you: The end of female privilege and the dawning of human responsibility. But you would be far too terrified to open it.

Ah, yet another thread on ATS behooving men having to be responsible for babies that they don't want to be responsible for, yet still willing to copulate.

But it is EVERYONE's fault but theirs, and they should bear no responsiblity.

THEN

they next thread subject is what is wrong with youth today and why don't they take any responsiblity for anything.

Not only is she a lawyer, she's also a secular feminist.

That's all I need to know right there.

She can go POUND SAND

reply to post by charles1952


You bring up some good and valid points. If a man has to pay the cost he should also have more say/access to his child. Unless a man has been proven to be violent or unfit if he is paying child support he should have access to his child. I don't agree with woman who use a child as a weapon or a meal ticket nor do i support men who say they have children but do nothing to support the child financially or emotionally. Not paying child support is like saying you don't care if your child eats or not. This keeps being about the mother or father but it NEEDS to be about the child. Babies don't ask to be born it's not a trick or scam they are pulling so why make THEM pay for it.

If a woman doesn't feel a man is daddy material (accidents happen) there are lots of methods of birth control DOUBLE UP! If a man didn't take any precautions of his own he took a risk. Maybe I am not being realistic about human behavior but it's time we as a species place a higher value our offspring. As a society it is in everyones best interest. Screwed up kids with emotionally immature parents have a good chance of becoming screwed up adults that we as a society have to deal with. We need a higher set of standards.

I know I am going to get beat up on this but I am happy it's being talked about.

And just so you know where I am coming from, I ended up pregnant at 16 while using protection. We talked about it like adults made a mutual decision to go through with the pregnancy. We lived together at first because we agreed it was the best for our child. We went to the library and got every book we could about babies. Now 23 years latter we are still together and happy. We acted like adults. We understood the ramifications and responsibilities of bringing another thinking feeling human being into the world.

reply to post by korathin


Only privelaged men go around saying that others have more privelages then them.

And it is not a privelage to force a man to do what he should be doing, and provide for his child. No one is enslaved, no one is forcing him to have sex.

What a neanderthal and a mysoginist. I am sorry your mother didn't hug you enough.

And don't forget to take your Lithium.

It is good to be able to remove any doubt when it is quite a serious and life changing event for all involved. As for how it all plays out there will still be good and bad stories. Taking some of the confusion and uncertainty out as soon as possible will at least reduce some of the diversions and distractions that does go on at times.

I have several problems with this.

First of all, compare this to Abortion. Women say it's their body when they support abortion. They don't say it's their body, AND their baby's body. So if it's ONLY the woman's body until the baby is born, then a man shouldn't have to pay any sort of support for a woman's body. For his child, sure, but his child doesn't EXIST until it's born. You can't have it both ways. Either a child is a child before it's born, in which case this makes sense. But that's not how it stands now.

Second, true it takes two people to make a baby, but then if we are trying to be "fair" than shouldn't responsibility AND rights be shared 50/50? Once again, you can't have it both ways. Either the woman assumes ALL the rights (which she does right now) and ALL the responsibility, OR she assumes HALF the rights, and half the responsibility.

It's wholly unfair to men to put 50% (in reality more like 90% of the financial) of the responsibility of a child on a man, but once the woman is pregnant he has ZERO rights involved. You can not assign responsibility without also granting rights, this is a very basic moral concept that applies to a huge number of issues in today's world, and an argument I've used on ATS for subjects other than this.

The only way to morally assign responsibility is to grant rights equal to that responsibility. In other words, the amount of responsibility you have is a direct relation to the amount of rights you have in the situation. No rights? Then no responsibility.

Which means, if a woman wants to retain 100% control over what happens during pregnancy (whether to get an abortion, put the baby up for adoption, keep and raise the baby) then she must retain 100% of the responsibility as well. You cannot make a man responsible when he has zero rights to be involved in the choice of what to do with the baby. Women will most likely say "well he shouldn't have had sex then" True, but the exact same thing can be said for the woman. So how is it more fair for a man to have 50% responsibility, and 0% rights, than it is for a woman to have 100% responsibility and 100% rights? If you hold all the cards, then you deal with all the consequences. Those that don't have a choice in the matter shouldn't be held responsible.

And this same concept applies to the article in the OP. If a man has zero rights in deciding what happens to his child (abortion, carrying full term, etc) then he should have zero responsibility to financially support the mother during pregnancy.

It's a very basic concept, one which I very rarely see mentioned, but I'll repeat it again. Your responsibility should be equal to your rights in the situation. Zero rights, zero responsibility. 100% rights, 100% responsibility. It's the only moral way to go about it. And like I said, it's a concept that applies to a lot more than just abortion issues.

reply to post by James1982

Dear James1982,

There is a lot in what you say, I find your reasoning persuasive.

People seem to be focusing on the issue of "fairness." That always frightens me because the word seems to have lost what meaning it used to have. Now, especially in the political realm, "fairness" means "giving me something somebody else has because I want it."

You've seen the arguments over fairness in this thread. It makes me think that no agreement will be reached, it will simply be a matter of finding enough votes to force one side to give in.

I think the men may have the stronger argument in this case, perhaps because I'm rooting for the home team, so to speak. The argument "What new rights go with these proposed new responsibilities?" doesn't seem to have been answered.

Anyway, I'm really grateful for the ideas so far.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by James1982

As a single mother who does receive one pitiful support payment - from one father - once a month if I'm lucky ..... I actually agree with you.


While I do count on that pittance (mostly because I'm used to it), quite frankly if he stopped paying, I would not pursue it - in fact, he pays about half of what the law says he should be paying but that order was entered forever ago, and I don't care enough to take him back to court to get more. The other father has never paid support and we get along fine without it. Neither of them know their sons.



From the moment I got pregnant I made the choice to be a mother. If the man didn't stick around well..... thats my fault for who I chose to sleep with.


Lets say, for arguments sake, that I chose to abort. Could he fight that? I highly doubt he would win, cause as you say, its "my body" and "my choice". So why is he not afforded the same option?

Why can't a man say: I DO NOT want this child, and I WILL NOT take responsibility for it and if you don't abort, you are solely responsible.

I think thats fair.

Why can't a man say: Thats my child and you have to carry it to term, then I will take it off your hands.

I think thats fair too.



This isn't the 50's. I can have the baby, alone, get a job, and still be able to find a man to marry that is willing to help raise the child. Someone who wants the child. Someone who will wholeheartedly support the child - financially, emotionally, parentally, and every other way you can think of.

Or I can do it alone. And I did.



I think the real issue lies in what happens BEFORE they had sex in the first place.
There's not nearly enough education on the subject. Its still too taboo.... but I don't want to derail the thread... so.... I digress.



At the end of the day when I look back on it - I feel sorry for the men. They're the ones who missed out on their awesome kids.


They did do one thing right though!! They picked me to be the mother