Because most philosophies that frown on reproduction don't survive.

Wednesday, December 02, 2015

Newsflash: Men and Women are Different

There's a group started by (though certainly not entirely populated by) Catholic academic theologians interested in social justice issues that I follow, mostly out of a desire to know how "the other side" thinks. Because yes, while "social justice" should not in and of itself be a bad word, somehow many these folks seem to down the line disagree with the Church on all the usual issues.

In a discussion of abortion today, one of the members posted the following ethical dilemma:
This is an ethical question put forth by Sr. Teresa Forcades, a Spanish nun.

If a man has a child who is in need of a kidney transplant and the child will die without it, should the man be *legally* required to go through surgery without his consent and donate his kidney to his child? Setting aside any moral argument, should there be a law allowing the government to override the man's autonomy and ability to make decisions about his bodily integrity? And if not, what's the difference between this man's right to make medical decisions that affect his bodily integrity and a woman's?

This isn't a particularly novel dilemma to pose. It's a sort of variation on the "famous violinist dilemma" put forward by Judith Jarvis Thompson. For whatever reason, however, the context struck me, and here's the reason: A lot of the ethical dilemmas that people pose in an attempt to morally justify abortion are attempts to reframe abortion as something other than terminating a pregnancy through direct killing of the unborn child. Almost always, the attempt is simultaneously to reframe the question in a way that could apply equally to men and women. And that, I think, is the key.

Thinking about abortion is wrapped very tightly around the idea that it is not fair for men and women to be different. One of the basic realities that modern thinking seems to have a lot of trouble with is the fact that in the course of natural reproduction a mother ends up with a child within her body for nine months, and the only way to end that situation is to actively kill the child. There quite simply is not an analogous male situation. The sexes are equal in human dignity and worth before God, but this is a fundamental difference in the sorts of moral circumstances which can occur to a man or woman. There is never a point at which a man has another human person inside his body who can only be removed through active killing.

If we're to hold that the moral obligation not to kill the innocent applies both to men and women -- and as Christians I think we must -- this means that this obligation will affect women differently from men. It's not as if men are immune to the temptation to kill. By all means other than abortion, men are responsible for far more of the intentional killing that happens in the world than women are. (And when it comes to abortion, men are often responsible for pressuring or forcing women to have abortions.) But no man will ever be faced with the situation: Either I will kill this person, or else I will have to let this person inhabit my body for a number of months, and then give birth to that person through a difficult and painful process.

This is one of the unfairnesses of life -- if by "fairness" one expects equality. Maybe that's why it's been parents who throughout history have told their children: Life isn't fair.

Now there is a flip side to this that bears thinking on. The fact that women can find themselves in a situation (motherhood) which men never will places certain obligations on them. If there is not equality-as-in-sameness between men and women in this regards, it stands to reason that there may be other areas in which there is not equality-as-in-sameness. Society has obligations to women that it does not have to men because women have obligations that men do not have.

The "male rights advocates" sometimes protest the way in which society puts men under obligations to support their children or ex-wives, asking why men and women should not be equal in this regard. One clear explanation of why men and women are not equal in certain regards is: because men don't bear children and take on the obligations which come with that. This is a topic of contention in out current society because traditional notions of family economy are in flux. A century ago, these societal obligations might mostly have been seen along the lines of supporting women who lacked husbands to care for them, making men take care of children they fathered, etc. Today, a portion of society would see the obvious obligations as being paid maternity leave, subsidized childcare, subsidized schooling, etc. And yet in some ways, when society builds those assumptions into its institutions, it makes it even harder on those families which are trying to follow the old model in which the husband works to support the family and the wife stays home to rear the children.

There are good reasons why people debate these policies, because they represent different models of how society should be organized, and I think that most people would agree that society should be flexible enough to support people wanting to follow both approaches to family economy. However, one argument that would not work is: Why should we have these policies which mostly just help women. Because again, when it comes to family and child bearing, equality-as-in-sameness is simply not how reality works.

10 comments:

Agnes said...

I tried to comment on this last night but it somehow didnt't show up.
I think it is very sad that modern people can think this way at all: that they reduce the wonderful, emotionally fulfilling state of pregnancy, being able to give and nurture life, that of your own child, your flesh and blood, your legacy, being able to have an exceptionally intimate connection to the child - to a problem, a "person using your body" an intruder, a parasite that you should want to get rid of, and to consider your "rights to your own body" as one superseding/contrasting the intense drive to cherish and protect a child of yours. So it is a problem that a child inside a woman "can only be removed through killing"??? And those are the people who call themselves moralists.

Nate Winchester said...

Somewhat minor point:

The "male rights advocates" sometimes protest the way in which society puts men under obligations to support their children or ex-wives, asking why men and women should not be equal in this regard. One clear explanation of why men and women are not equal in certain regards is: because men don't bear children and take on the obligations which come with that.

But you've slightly erred here as it's not the obligation in and of itself that MRAs object to, but that women do NOT take on the obligations which come with bearing children except by choice - whereas men have no choice in the matter. As long as abortion is a sacred right, then whether men are enslaved or not is completely up to the whim of a woman. If abortion was illegal, then it would be perfectly in keeping to have society oblige men.

Until that is fixed, we wind up with an arbitrary system of slavery based upon sex instead of race this time.

Darwin said...

If that's the objection, it's a pretty logically incoherent one.

1) While I've run into a few MRA types who identify as Christian, in general anti-abortion views do not seem to be all that pervasive the few times I've run into that set. If anything, the abortion point seems usually to be a matter of trolling: "If you can get out of supporting a child by having an abortion, then I should be able to get out of supporting a child by arbitrarily refusing to support my offspring."

2) While modern society does its best to disguise from itself the fact that sex creates new human beings, a system whereby men who father children are held to be responsible for supporting those children is hardly an "arbitrary system of slavery". It's simply a system in which fathering a child, like any other significant human act, has consequences. Men who don't want to be held responsible for supporting children are always free to not father children. Falsely giving women the legal "right" to kill their children does now allow women to enslave men. If anything, it allows them unjustly to "liberate" men from their fatherly responsibilities to the children they have fathered. (Leave aside the fact that we very often see women basically forced into abortions by men.) But the fact that the murder of his child frees a man from the obligation to support the child further no more makes it unjust for a man with an unmurdered child to have to support his offspring than the fact that some children die of car accidents or illness or any other cause subjects all parents whose children do not die young to arbitrary slavery.

Nate Winchester said...

If that's the objection, it's a pretty logically incoherent one.

Only if you consider women to always be saints and never sinners. Don't buy into that feminist logic.

1) While I've run into a few MRA types who identify as Christian, in general anti-abortion views do not seem to be all that pervasive the few times I've run into that set. If anything, the abortion point seems usually to be a matter of trolling: "If you can get out of supporting a child by having an abortion, then I should be able to get out of supporting a child by arbitrarily refusing to support my offspring."

Yeah, it is a bit of trolling & argumentum ad absurdum (however it's spelled) to get people to realize that currently one side of the arrangement is saddled with all of the responsibility. That's not tenable for a society and - oh look at that - birthrates and intact families are cratering in civilized societies (who won't be civilized for many more generations at this rate).

2) While modern society does its best to disguise from itself the fact that sex creates new human beings, a system whereby men who father children are held to be responsible for supporting those children is hardly an "arbitrary system of slavery".

Yes it is because the "arbitrary" part comes from the woman's choice - it's ENTIRELY up to her and all thanks to abortion.

It's simply a system in which fathering a child, like any other significant human act, has consequences. Men who don't want to be held responsible for supporting children are always free to not father children. Falsely giving women the legal "right" to kill their children does now allow women to enslave men. If anything, it allows them unjustly to "liberate" men from their fatherly responsibilities to the children they have fathered.

...That's conceding my point. Men are either "enslaved" or "liberated" (justly or not) by the choices of women.

(Leave aside the fact that we very often see women basically forced into abortions by men.)

Yes men sometimes pressure women, but sometimes women choose abortion regardless of the man's wishes. And if a man wants his child, he has no legal recourse should the woman involved decides to abort it.

That's not even getting into times where men are ejected from the household by women and forced to pay child support while refused fatherhood even if the men WANT to be fathers (and boy could I start sharing stories of that). I mean at what point does it have to get before we all start admitting the system is incentivizing the worst outcome?

Darwin said...

This attempt at restatement isn't making the argument any less incoherent.

Yes it is because the "arbitrary" part comes from the woman's choice - it's ENTIRELY up to her and all thanks to abortion.

No, it's not entirely up to a woman. Women do not spontaneously become pregnant with men's children without the man ever taking any action. That would be arbitrary.

Also, if it was truly the "arbitrary" release from responsibility that child murder brings which MRAs objected to, they would support men having to pay child support for the next eighteen years even if the mother had killed the child. That would remove the element of women's choice and base paternal support responsibility entirely on whether or not men fathered children. Yet somehow, I suspect that MRA folks would not support such a plan.

Agnes said...

Nate,
I'm not sure what you actually suggest as a solution: that men don't pay child support to contribute to the bringing up of those children they fathered and the mothers decided not to kill but bring up alone?
...That men might decide about the abortion of their children if they don't want to pay child support for them (suggesting they exert financial pressure towards abortion if they don't want the financial obligation for 18 years)?
...That women aren't allowed abortion at all and men unequivocally pay for the upkeep of the children they fathered?

How about thinking ahead (for both men and women) and choose their partners in life responsibly (and at that, choose a partner for life, instead of a partner for casual sexual intimacy), before they unexpectedly "find themselves with an unwanted pregnancy" and can feel "enslaved". It's their own bad decisions that "enslave" them instead of the potential of feeling blessed with a child in a stable family where burdens can be shared and the joy of parenthood enjoyed..

Nate Winchester said...

No, it's not entirely up to a woman. Women do not spontaneously become pregnant with men's children without the man ever taking any action. That would be arbitrary.

So... you're using the "random chance" definition of arbitrary while I'm using the "personal whim" definition.

Also, if it was truly the "arbitrary" release from responsibility that child murder brings which MRAs objected to, they would support men having to pay child support for the next eighteen years even if the mother had killed the child. That would remove the element of women's choice and base paternal support responsibility entirely on whether or not men fathered children. Yet somehow, I suspect that MRA folks would not support such a plan.

DC... I know you're smarter than this... it's like... you have this ideal conception of child support in your head, and have NEVER looked at how it's working out in reality.

Let's put it another way: Should men have to pay child support for children that aren't theirs?

I'm not sure what you actually suggest as a solution: that men don't pay child support to contribute to the bringing up of those children they fathered and the mothers decided not to kill but bring up alone?
...That men might decide about the abortion of their children if they don't want to pay child support for them (suggesting they exert financial pressure towards abortion if they don't want the financial obligation for 18 years)?


More like if it takes 2 to sin, and you load up all the consequences of that sin onto one side while setting the other side completely free, what's going to happen? The side unburdened by consequences is going to sin as much as they can get away with! At the very least something needs to be done to push some consequences back to the other side otherwise things will get worse.

Also leftists have been using alinsky's rules to run circles around social conservatives for years now. It's time we started playing the game back. If liberals want to preach "equality" then let's play that game and hang them on their own gallows.

Until then it's just like the "Bootleggers and Baptists" phenomena (only in this case it's "Catholics and... feminists" I guess)

...That women aren't allowed abortion at all and men unequivocally pay for the upkeep of the children they fathered?

That would be the ideal situation. (assuming child support does not, in fact, compete with and undermine marriage - which it might, Dalrock makes a strong case that it does, I'm still looking at the evidence)

How about thinking ahead (for both men and women) and choose their partners in life responsibly (and at that, choose a partner for life, instead of a partner for casual sexual intimacy), before they unexpectedly "find themselves with an unwanted pregnancy" and can feel "enslaved". It's their own bad decisions that "enslave" them instead of the potential of feeling blessed with a child in a stable family where burdens can be shared and the joy of parenthood enjoyed..

Yeah, and if everybody realized that you could get a lot more wealth out of someone by having them be employed & producing instead of killing them and taking their stuff, we'd have an end to all wars and peace on earth.

But they don't. We still have wars. And right now we don't have much in the way of intact families. Christians should be savvy enough to know that any system designed as, "first assume everyone's a saint" is doomed to failure.

Jenny said...

"More like if it takes 2 to sin, and you load up all the consequences of that sin onto one side while setting the other side completely free, what's going to happen?"

That's the most hilarious description of single motherhood I have ever heard. Consequence-free! A good time! Pregnancy and childbirth all by yourself. Why it's like a vacation! Or if not, just have an abortion. Abortions are fun too! No long-term consequences, there. No sir. Olly-olly-oxen-free!

Just good times for women, while the poor, poor man has to pay for the child his body willingly fathered because that stupid woman wouldn't murder it first. All the consequences. Poor guy.

Darwin said...

Nate,

I wanted to step back and think about this conversation for a day, because although I enjoy shouting and pounding the table, my arguments didn't seem to be making things clear at all so rather than getting louder I figured I should reformulate. Here's what I came to.

I think that in a sense "fairness" is the criteria that is tripping up the argument here. Yes, we often arbitrate questions based on fairness, but fairness is only an appropriate way of dividing up something which is actually a good.

The root issue here, I think, is justice -- and primarily justice of each parent towards the child not of the parents towards each other. It is wrong for a mother to kill her child because if she kills he child she commits an injustice against the child. (Yes, other people too. She takes away the child of her partner, the grandchild of her parents, etc. But the primary and greatest injustice is towards the child.)

If a man refuses to support the child he has fathered, leaving that child in want instead, he commits an injustice towards that child. And if a mother refuses to support her child, she commits an injustice towards the child. Yes, there may be other injustices as well. If a woman leaves her husband and refuses to let her child see his father, then all other things being equal she is committing an injustice towards the child and also towards the husband.

Now, as with all other human things, laws regarding child custody and child support are often administered poorly, and this can result in certain injustices. I'm certainly not here to make an argument that every child custody and support agreement is fair. But on the basic question of principle brought up -- Is it fair to demand that men pay child support when women potentially have an "out" from parental responsibility by aborting a child? -- the answer is: All injustices are wrong, and so that fact that women in our society can currently get away with committing and injustice towards their children does not mean that we should therefore demand that men be allowed to commit an injustice towards their children as well.

Let's put it another way: Should men have to pay child support for children that aren't theirs?

No.

Darwin said...

More like if it takes 2 to sin, and you load up all the consequences of that sin onto one side while setting the other side completely free, what's going to happen? The side unburdened by consequences is going to sin as much as they can get away with! At the very least something needs to be done to push some consequences back to the other side otherwise things will get worse.

This argument seems to be implying that:

a) child support payments cover the entire cost of raising a child and
b) there is not cost or difficulty to raising a child other than the monetary one.

In a sense, this participates in the same fallacy as the lefty Christian argument that if we had a generous enough welfare state, no one would have an abortion because no one would lack the money to raise children. Of course, we see that people in countries with generous welfare state do still have abortions, and the reason is because they don't want to be parents killing the child seems like a way to avoid parenthood.

Parenthood is hard, and it's even harder alone. If I suddenly ceased to exist, but MrsDarwin continued to receive my salary, she'd not only miss my sparkling personality but be financially worse off because she'd then have to hire someone to do some of the things which I do for free as a member of the household. Other things it would be impossible for her to hire out, and she'd simply end up working harder on things like late night trips to pick up medicine for a sick kid that I wouldn't be there to help with.

(And no, I'm no saying that child support can or should equal the entire salary of the husband, I'm merely pointing out the extreme case.)

So no, I don't think that the existence of child support means that there is no cost to either divorce or having children out of wedlock for women.

Now, at the same time, as with anything, if you make something even more unpleasant, you'll probably get less of it. If ISIS came in and made it a law that any single mother would be branded in public with a hot iron, boy, I bet we'd suddenly have a lot less single mothers! But that wouldn't actually be a good way of achieving that end.

As you point out, one can't formulate policy on the assumption that no one will sin, and so family policy has to be built around the idea that some people are going to end up divorcing or having children out of wedlock. The goal of such policy has to be to both:

1) Try to assure that the people in such circumstances (particularly the children) are not treated more unjustly than they already have been by being deprived of having two parents living together -- and that includes assuring that they don't end up living in utter poverty.

2) Not to encourage more people to enter into that state by giving it a false appearance of being "just as good" as marriage.

I don't hold that our current set of laws is a perfect solution to that balance (or even that there is a perfect solution to that balance) but I think that a just solution would include some level of requiring both parents to provide support (monetary and otherwise) for the children they gave life to together.