Barry
Loberfeld’s saucy rant, combining diverse elements of philosophical
argumentation counter seasoned with a tart touch of law and a few
grains of biology is both unconvincing and pointless.
Back to the basics.
Individuals
own their own bodies. Women and men both should be able to control
their bodies and the products of those same bodies. This is not
the world we live in today, however. It is also not the world our
culture claims by tradition. But it is the future and the philosophical
and moral viewpoint that the Freedom Movement is, at least formally,
dedicated to affirm. Arguing about the gross injustice that exists
today, a mixed market of draconian statism and bad social policy
dragged here from history, is a waste of time.
The
real question is, what would Freedom look like enacted in this area?
Let us first consider the easiest case, and the one instance where I agree fully with Mr. Loberfeld.
Men
should not be become fathers against their will any more than women
should become mothers in the same case. But in actual fact very
few men pay support for children conceived in such instances. Few
men help pay the transaction costs of abortion. Virtually no men
pay even a fraction of the costs related to contraception. Note
that this is a pragmatic clarification aimed at the present status
quo.
The
status quo is wrong – but not for the reasons opined by Mr. Loberman.
The fact is that along with the very marginal financial support
mandated in law men who are bioDads get tremendous power. Many women
have been prohibited by courts from relocating if the bioDad objected.
Women in this situation do not infrequently find themselves confronted,
years later, with demands that the bioDad, unknown to the child,
be allowed an active role in the child’s raising. Often these men
have had no contact and paid not a cent of support. This is allowed
by the courts, distorting the lives these women have chosen to lead.
Women have been forced to pay off bioDads to simply get them to
go away. Again, a pragmatic clarification of the status quo.
Men
should not be fathers against their will. Neither should they be
able to force this relationship on a woman and child simply because
of biology.
But
the ranges of cases are much greater than this one posed by Mr.
Loberfeld. Remember the provision that the pregnancy happen with
consent? The unappetizing fact is that many women presently on welfare
became pregnant before the age of consent and were impregnated by
men much older. Therefore there was no informed consent. But still
the courts recognize fatherhood without the consent of the woman.
Rapists have also asserted, and been granted, rights of fatherhood.
If
the individual has the inherent right to bodily sovereignty then
no court should be able to grant to any man fatherhood without the
consent of the woman. Marriage has always been a contractual relationship
that assumed that children would make the husband a father. That
there are grave problems with marriage law is unarguable. But I
will not take up that point here.
In
the case of non-consensual impregnation not only should there be
no fatherhood there should be recognition of liability by the bioDad.
Liability should be not to the child, but to the woman. Unchosen
motherhood is a diminution of choice. It should be an actionable
torte.
In a free, world where responsible individuals acted responsibly and could act upon their inherent rights, women would insist that the costs and potential liabilities related to consensual intercourse and contraception be shared. They would have the power to do so. Relationships are a market open to all of the pressures of any market.
Women
would be able to write any marriage contract they wanted, without
the interference of the State. Men and women could sign, or not
sign, and be held to the contract in the same way we each have to
pay for anything else we want. Most unmarried men are actually subsidized
in this regard. Women bear the costs of gynecological visits, contraceptives,
abortions, and the overwhelming share of the costs of raising children,
both monetary and non-monetary.
The
irrationality of law has disregarded the biological reality that
men and women are very different. It ignores the fact that there
is a market in relationships, assigning a ‘one price standard’ to
marriage that is clearly not in keeping with a free market. And
also egregiously, they have limited women’s rights to negotiate
for a benefit from selling sexual access and the right to parent
a child. Therefore instead of a range of sexual options, a long
gradient from companionate marriage to prostitution, we have only
marriage completely in the ‘white,’ legal, market, and only prostitution
in the, ‘black,’ illegal, market. Payment for sex and other contractual
transactions are unenforceable by State fiat. In adoption we see
women forced to give up babies for just their expenses. By controlling
children the State has effectively made all mothers slaves on a
governmental plantation. All of these are violations of a woman’s
right to control of her body and life.
In
ignoring the biological realities the State and culture has tried
to assign equal values to very unequal things. But the mechanisms
of markets tell us the relative values of these things. Sperm is
so cheap you have to make home deliveries and pay for the privilege
of giving it away. An ovum, ready to be fertilized, costs thousands
of dollars. A newly born and healthy baby can cost a couple adopting
on the free market from $20,000 to $100,000.
Ideas
are the foundation of freedom. Within the context of thought we
see and know and begin to act on the rights that are inherent in
each of us. It is time that women were manumitted from the bondage
that has shackled a thousand generations. And it is time that the
Freedom Movement understood what those rights really are.
The Info below is no longer valid. The Institute folded while I was struggling with the attacks by Fund and his Pop-Tarts, Gail Herriot and Wendy McElroy.
Melinda
Pillsbury-Foster is the president of The Women’s Institute for Individual
and Political Justice, based in Santa Barbara. The Institute promotes
the philosophy of Benevolent Individualism. If you are interested
in further information contact the Institute at: 1324 State St.
Suite J296, Santa Barbara, CA 93101. E-mail: MPF1Free@aol.com; Voice:(805)
569-0421; Fax: (805) 682-4444.
