Notes on a summary; or, dragging out the point
Challenger78 said:
You're saying that men have no right to participate in the decision because to put it simply, we cannot understand what women go through. This ties in with VI's point about nature, saying simply that there is no logical way to predict what her choices will be.
Therefore, we have no say in their decision ?
It is an admirable attempt to summarize, but there is, as I see it, a minor but important distinction to be made.
We have whatever right and authority in the decision the woman might grant us. Indeed, I sympathize with Asguard's notion of
should. But the transition from theory to practice is never ideal. And
if, especially in a relationship of such trust as our friend has depicted, his partner should renege on their prior agreement of a joint decision, and elect to carry out the pregnancy despite his wishes, we cannot necessarily call it a betrayal.
In the moment of her decision, we men
cannot conceive of the influences on her perspective. Indeed, from one individual woman to another, there is a necessary gap that separates each from the other. But, in general, this difference is miniscule compared to veritable chasm that separates the outlook of a prospective father from the woman who carries the budding life within her.
We often joke, for instance, about how radically a woman changes during pregnancy. Whatever validity we might find in that stereotype cannot simply be brushed aside in this discussion simply because it is convenient to do so.
The reality is that a mother's perspective may change. What nature infuses into her considerations is, indeed, a mystery to those of us who have not and will never experience such a transformation.
If we follow this notion back to its original point of departure in this discussion (
see posts #
89,
92,
105,
109,
110,
111,
118, and
119), we find that it pertains to ideas of what is or is not fair.
There has been, through this discussion, a functional presupposition that the woman's choice to carry the pregnancy despite having previously said she would have an abortion, is somehow calculated. Indeed, that idea has been reasserted, although I find the "just to spite him" argument rather quite anemic.
In the context of betrayal, the masculinist stroke has painted men as
victims. This is far too simplistic. What this notion of scheming injustice throws out is a fact of nature. When a woman becomes pregnant, her body responds to this reality quickly and dramatically, in some cases severely.
Logic as, say, Asguard's partner might regard it today, manifests under what we might, for our purposes, describe as mundane biochemistry. That is, the sauce of hormones and other chemical influences describes certain priorities by which a person arranges facts and needs, and thus arrives at conclusions or makes decisions. The
very moment fertilization occurs, the woman's body responds, and in this response, that sauce of influence starts changing. As it changes, the effects it brings also begin to change. As a matter of evolution more than stereotype, the inclination toward life—once conception is a reality—asserts itself more strongly. Thus,
the priorities according to which decisions are made change.
This is what the masculinist lament overlooks. We should not be surprised that the omission coincides with self-interest. However, the omission is inappropriate. What I am attempting, then, is to redefine the context of the question. Perhaps I speak in response to experience on this count, although as I noted, there is a prevalent stereotype among men about pregnant women being hormonal, irrational, and utterly confusing if not downright enraging.
Looking back to the
last paragraph of post #89—
Any guy who is willing to blindly climb on as soon as he hears what he wants—"Of course I'll have an abortion"—is simply fooling himself. Now, maybe the woman does go on to have the abortion. But he should not be surprised if nature wins out when the woman faces the choice directly. If he has failed to account for this possibility, instead pretending that nature—of which humanity is a mere component—is wholly subordinate to abstract human will, whose fault is that?
—we find that one of the effects of the omission is to embolden the argument that men, in having sex with a woman, should not have to consider all the possible outcomes. This consideration played heavily in the discussion, for my part, at least since
#34, which was, if I recall correctly, my entry into this discussion. Additionally, Orleander addressed the point in
#20, and One Raven wrestled with the issue in
#5.
What do we consider are the risks? That she forgot her pill? That the condom might break? That we spill a bit in the act of pulling out? That the "Dear Abby" scare-scenario of virgin conception—accidental contact with and transmission of semen to the vagina—might occur? Fine. These are all factors that we might, more or less, consider when calculating the risks of a
pregnancy occurring. But in considering the—and I think I adore the perversity of the phrase—
risk of a birth occurring, neither can we overlook the very power of nature itself.
If one looks at a child as a life sentence, perhaps it is best that they keep their distance and send the checks. To the other, if that's the case, get a vasectomy or a nancy boy and avoid the whole mess altogether. Barring that, however, this whole discussion seems to be about how much cake a man should have while eating—or, such as the case may be, fucking—it at the same time.