I thought this recent post to the Randian-Feminism list (see http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sciabarra/femstart.htm) might be relevant to this discussion.
Cheers!
Daniel Ust
http://mars.superlink.net/neptune/
> From: Gayle Dean [SMTP:gwdean@dnet.net] <mailto:[SMTP:gwdean@dnet.net]>
> Sent: Monday, September 13, 1999 4:21 PM
> To: randian feminism
> Subject: Re: A father's obligation.
>
> Daniel Ust asked about the rights and responsibilities of the father who
may
> not wish to have or support a child: In David Ross'es article
> "Responsibility," which appeared in the May 1998 issue of "Navigator" Ross
> lays out a cogent position on this matter.
> Ross says that the "virtue of responsibility stands so high in the
> Objectivist morality that the incantation to 'take responsibility' for
one's
> actions has the potential to become a trap," and that "Objectivists should
> not rush to assume responsibility" without first considering if it is
proper to do so.
> He says that in our society, it is generally considered when planning for
> the possibility of pregnancy that if the woman becomes pregnant "the man's
> sperm who fertilized the egg is morally and financially responsible for
the
> care of the child, should the woman decide to give birth." Ross says he
> believes that assumption is wrong.
> He notes that having a "clear concise agreement prior to having sex would
be
> the responsible way to deal with the matter" and says that this is usually
> not the case. He says the "standard argument is that if a man engages in
> sexual intercourse then he has tacitly chosen the obligation and that
before
> safe abortions became routine this argument "may" have had force, but he
is
> not convinced."
> He argues that, " Sexual intercourse no longer brings the risk of having a
> child; it only brings the risk of having an abortion." And "in the absence
> of an explicit agreement, the only reasonable assumption for the man to
make
> is that the woman does not intend to bear a child as a result of their
> sexual involvement, and will look to him to share, at most, the cost of an
> abortion if she becomes pregnant."
> He continues, that considering the complexity involved in rearing a
> child-the great financial and moral burden and the extensive preparation
and
> long-range planning-when balanced against the simplicity of discussing the
> matter explicitly ahead of time-it "makes no sense for a woman to conclude
> that a man has assumed [responsibility] tacitly."
> Ross refers to a woman's rights when he says, "Pregnancy is a condition of
a
> woman's body, and the decision to continue or terminate a pregnancy is the
> woman's alone. That a man has had sexual intercourse with a woman does
not
> give him any jurisdiction over her body, or mitigate her autonomy with
> regard to abortion." And "this means that the child's existence is the
> decision of the woman alone."
> He notes that in 1976 the "US Supreme Court affirmed this principle, when
it
> ruled unconstitutional a Missouri law requiring a woman seeking an
abortion
> to get her husband's written consent." He says, that "unfortunately, that
> decision has not persuaded lower courts to draw the logical conclusion:
that
> a man has no responsibility for the outcome of a decision over which he
has
> no control."
>
> I agree wholeheartedly with David's position.
>
> Gayle Dean