Glenn Sacks Hates To Interrupt The Ladies

It's leaving home, bye-bye

Men have rights in abortion cases! Hoo-hah!

Reproductive rights for men begin and end with the right to produce sperm. Once that shit achieves escape velocity, dude, your agency to direct its future career expires. It's just a glob in the wind.

UPDATE:
Singersongwriter Chris Clarke, who rehearses at his bathroom mirror with a hairbrush, has this to add:

I close my eyes, only for a moment and the moment's gone
All my genes trickle down my thighs: an irrelevancy
Globs in the wind, all they are is globs in the wind.
Same old song, just a drop of semen in a man-less sea
All I do splatters to the ground, not making progeny
Globs in the wind, all we are is globs in the wind.

Comments

[ms kate]

I get so sick of these whiners who go on and on about "why does she get to choose".

Men do get to choose. They can choose to have a vasectomy if the never want any kids and don't want to risk a disingenous partner or simple failure of latex. They can choose to use a condom. They can choose to make their deposits elsewhere if they don't want to accept the possibility of fertilization despite contraception. After all, unintended pregnancy is the chief occupational hazard of heterosexual activity!

Otherwise, they can choose to shut the fuck up until science permits them all the beauty and glory of throwing up for five to nine months while being patronized like an idiot child incapable of intelligent decisionmaking regarding such basic functions as what to eat and when to pee and culminating in squeezing a watermelon out of a small orifice while some cheerleader twit yells pushpushpushpush and bleeding for several weeks.

[nicky]

Oh Ms Kate, you obviously know whereof you speak.
~~~~~
The Godalmighty Beatles, "She's Leaving Home," from the unapproachable "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band," 1967.

[nicky]

"I hate to interrupt the ladies while they're enjoying a good lynching, but Alito's vote is quite defensible, despite their hysterical claims. He simply acknowledged the principle that husbands and fathers also have a reasonable interest in their unborn children.

"And the truth is that the statute contained numerous, well-enumerated protections for women ... a woman's obligation to inform her husband did not apply if she had reason to believe it was likely to result in the infliction of bodily injury."

Well thank you so ever-fucking much. How kind of you law-passing douchebags to permit a woman a loophole through which she may slip in her own decision about her reproductive future if she might otherwise face a good old-fashioned wife-beating or possible murder.

We "ladies" leave the "lynching" to you good ol' boys, as that's historically been your thing, not ours. And goshamighty, excuse our occasional "hysterical" opinions about what happens to our bodies and lives once your l'il wigglers have managed to penetrate our goodies. Tell it to the Kristian Koalition and while you're at it, fucking bite my fat ass.

[Julia]

Ms Kate:

You missed the obvious choice men have. Deposit your sperm only with a woman who agrees with you about the determination of any pregnancy that may occur.

[Erin]

Although I hate having to have this argument, I have to admit that there's something a wee bit satisfying about being able to recycle all of the "advice" I've been given by antichoicers to these MRAs, particularly the favorite nag of the antichoice: abstain.

Here we have a solution: don't want to be a dad? Don't want to be in the position of having to be financially (if not emotionally and physically) responsible for a child you're not ready/willing/interested in having? Then keep it in your pants or use a condom. Birth control, though, is never 100% effective; only the chaste life of a true-believing monastic will keep that DNA safe from the manipulating, money-grubbing cell that is the fertile human ovum.

The reaction is priceless. Tell men not to have sex?!?! Tell men to alter their sexual behavior and be responsible for birth control?!?! But...but...but...we're men; we come where we please when we please! Which is why we need control of your bodies: so we don't have to do anything too unpleasant or inconvenient with our own!

I blame the fucking patriarchy. Yep, I do.

[CafeSiren]

Don't think of it as a u-terus; it's a we-terus!

Jeebus. I predict that these will become wingnut talking points. Poor, oppressed men: unable to force their will on the woman who actually has to bear and birth the child, even if she doesn't want to. Selfish bitches.

[madwoman in the attic]

haha! A 'we-terus'! Dictionary definition:
The communal foetus housing device - owned by the patriarchy and housed within public property commonly known as 'the female body'.

[ms kate]

I once overheard a colleague of mine complain that a buddy of his was "oopsed".

"I mean, it wasn't like he didn't tell here that he never wanted kids".

I just had to ask ... if he never wanted kids, did he have himself tied off? Did the condom break?

(blank looks all around).

So, birth control is HER responsibility under the patriarchy, but the actual decision to bear or not bear and pay for the child is a "shared" decision or up to whether he ever/never wanted kids?

Puhhleeze

[Christopher]

Okay, who is this law aimed at?

I guess it must be women who are in relationships with stable, supportive men, but don't really know it.

That doesn't seem like a huge segment of the population, to me.

Although if you think about it, the implication is clear; Women are hysterical creatures who can't be trusted to understand or sympathise with the men they're maried to; therefore the government has to make sure they treat their husbands nice.

[Mandos]

Christopher: Well, Glen Sacks *is* an MRA. Of course he believes that women treat men badly on a regular basis on these matters. This is sort of, like, not hidden as an implication or anything.

[Maureen]

Geez.

I fully support the right of a man to have an abortion without the consent of the child's mother. The fact that we do not have the technology for that to be a reality at this time is beside the point.

[Dianne]

There's an easy way for men to make sure that they never cause a pregnancy that they don't want to deal with: Step 1: Make a few deposits in a sperm bank. Or several sperm banks for redundent backup in case one fails. That ensures the possibility of future fertility. Step 2: Get a vasectomy. Vasectomies have a mortality rate of 1 in 1 million, which is 10X safer than legal abortion and more than 100X safer than completing a pregnancy. Step 3: Get a sperm count before assuming that you're safe. Step 4:Go to it.

[Buffalo Gal]

Truly amazing how men want control without responsibility - well, maybe not. Sounds like a nice life strategy if you can get away with it. Anecdotally, I know one of those couples where the man is dead set against having children, but won't get a vasectomy. Imagine if a woman said she didn't want children, but didn't want to use BC. She would be considered irresponsible, no?

[Betsy]

I wonder if any legislators have considered introducing a bill to make wife-al notification mandatory before the husband goes and blows thousands of dollars of the couple's money on, say, a guided quail hunting trip to Mexico. After all, the wife certainly has a joint interest in the couple's money -- that's a legal fact.

Naturally, no legislator has done such a thing, because there's also a presumption -- whether true or not -- that a couple with joint resources has ample opportunity to consult with each other about how those resources will be disposed of. No one would dream of making it mandatory.

It's certainly odd therefore that altho' a husband has less legal interest in the wife's uterus (i.e. none) than a spouse has in a joint bank account, legislators would see fit to impose a notification rule on a pregnant woman but not on disposal of marital resources.

[Auntsnow]

I fail to understand why a sexually active man having ejacualted tends of thousands of sperm from his body, should feel proprietary towards the single sperm that happens to conjoin with a woman's egg. Unless, of course, the man is in a committed relationship with the woman, and they mutually decided to try to conceive.

If that committment isn't there, then fuck it. The conceived fetus is as much to him as the crusty remains of his morning jack-off on the bedsheets.

The government shouldn't be in the business of mandating how a couple should conduct their relationship with trust. Particularly if the government chooses only one aspect of that relationship to bugger with.

[Auntsnow]

Do the proponents of the "spousal notification law" propose that a husband notify his wife if he choose to abort a fetus conceived by another woman?

[Chris Clarke]

I close my eyes, only for a moment and the moment's gone
All my genes trickle down my thighs: an irrelevancy
Globs in the wind, all they are is globs in the wind.
Same old song, just a drop of semen in a man-less sea
All I do splatters to the ground, not making progeny
Globs in the wind, all we are is globs in the wind.

[Glenn]

"Once that shit achieves escape velocity, dude, your agency to direct its future career expires. It's just a glob in the wind."

Incorrect.

[Nancy]

The reaction is priceless. Tell men not to have sex?!?! Tell men to alter their sexual behavior and be responsible for birth control?!?! But...but...but...we're men; we come where we please when we please! Which is why we need control of your bodies: so we don't have to do anything too unpleasant or inconvenient with our own!

I blame the fucking patriarchy. Yep, I do.

Perfectly stated. This is the Patriarchy in its essence.

[Liz]

If they are in trusting relationship, she's gonna tell him. An abortion is at best uncomfortable, and at worst traumatic, especially with all those nutters milling around the front of the clinic, and she'll want some support. So you don't need the legislation, or the loophole.

If they are not in a trusting relationship, he shouldn't have the right to force her to have a baby. So you don't need the legislation, or the loophole.

Catch-22 aside, there are other reasons not to tell him. Like if he's sick or lost his job etc and doesn't need any more worries right now. Or when you are not quite sure which one he is, and you only have a first name and no phone number.

Or what about the phone call to the local jail, where she has to ask the rapist permission ... Or the 12-year old who has to ask the abuser ...

Hey, on the bright side, this could be a whole new opening for Hallmark Cards! Abortion Permission request cards. There can be a section for age group and relationship.

[mythago]

Then keep it in your pants or use a condom.

Or, better: only have sex with other men. I keep saying this to the MRAs over on Hugo's blog, and they keep not getting it. It's the perfect solution.

[Steph]

This would be the best reason ever not to get legally married. No spouse, no notification.

Wouldn't it be funny if this kind of legislation actually killed the holy institution of matrimony?

Except the part where women still don't have control of their reproduction--fucking patriarchy.

[Meribeth]

Aunt Snow had an excellent point. If the purpose of ejaculation in a woman's vagina was for fun or release, then indeed fuck it. Wouldn't it be comparable to farting?

So glob is body waste, if that were the motivation.

After 57 years, over 37 of that enjoying sex, I can assure you that ejaculation on the part of my male partners was for pleasure, not for making a baby. So there was no intent of ownership.

[Kelley]

Is he fucking kidding me? Just because a man shoots a wad of semen into a woman, and ONE miniscule sperm permeates the egg, suddenly men have a right to say what happens to women's bodies? I don't think so!!

Second, if you don't want to pay for 18 years of child support, MAKE SURE you don't impregnate a woman. That may actually (horror of horrors) involve some responsibility and planning on the part of a man!! Fucking patriarchy. They're all fucking insane!

[Buxom Broad]

If a man prevents a woman he impregnated from getting an abortion, can she sue him for damages? Like hold him responsible for episiotomy damage, c-section scarring and morbidity, etc?