Man + Woman = Fetus?

When Susan Bordo contends in her piece Are Mothers Persons? that “what is being sought in father’s-rights cases is not equality for fathers but the privileging of paternal interests,” I had to pause (89). Bordo isn’t talking about visitation rights here; she’s refuting the male claim upon the fetus in an abortion scenario. The murky realm of abortion debate is overwhelming enough, but adding a dispute over the unborn child makes things even stickier. If a woman is determined to have the (hers, his, their?) fetus aborted and the man is opposed to such an action, is the man really “claiming that his desires should not merely equal but supersede those of the mother” as Bordo insists?

It is difficult to claim equality when it comes to the creation of human life, for it is true that both the male and female actively participate and rely upon one another. Yet it is also true that the female body supports the fetus within, a task that no male can naturally participate in. “The seemingly incontrovertible fact that only the mother experiences embodiment…is a powerful impediment to the father’s rights position…” (91). Yet I question: does a father’s inability to embody reproduction silence his claim to the child in the first nine months of life? Does a father not gain rights to the mutually conceived offspring until said offspring has sprung? Following this logic has the potential to further lock women into their bodily role as “fetal incubators.” When Bordo mentions the male “true parent” foundations of Western culture I think the culturally ingrained binary of female=body and male=mind/reason must also be acknowledged. Such a binary acts to elevate the mind (man) over the body (female). That begs the question, by insisting upon the important role the body plays in reproduction, is Bordo unwittingly reinforcing the established dichotomy?

It becomes clear that sterilizing the fatherly rights claims of men is both beneficial and problematic for women. In the terms of abortion, a woman choosing to abort is villanized in fathers’ rights cases. As Bordo puts it, “every assertion of male feeling has been accompanied by a corresponding denial of female sensibility; every attempt to prove that men can be nurturers, too, has involved an attempted discreditation of the woman’s nurturing capabilities…” (92). Questioning the true intent of father’s rights cases appears valid enough, but I feel that perhaps Bordo has offered far too generalizing of a statement by assuming every father desires to undercut the mother and that every father’s claim holds no weight when slated next to the mother’s. I see such a generalization as once again dangerously nearing the male-female dichotomy by binding women to the role of main parental figure and child decision maker, as if a potential mother’s choice is the only one that matters simply because she is in the mother role. I worry that Bordo’s rhetoric relies upon cultural assumptions of masculinity and manhood in order to challenge the platform for father’s rights. Such a strategy leaves both sexes bound to convention and stripped of individualism and reality. For example, when Bordo refutes father’s rights pursuer Erin Conn’s statement that “That baby is a part of my body also” I must disagree (91-92). No, Conn does not support the fetus internally, but a part of his body (sperm) is instrumental in the creation of the child. Therefore, I feel that a man’s wishes concerning the life of a fetus cannot be fully declined on the grounds of bodily connection.

The question of a father's right in the decision making process in an abortion scenario seems nearly impossible to answer. If we listen to Bordo and remove the father from the ultimate decision making equation we risk playing into gender binaries that tie women to biology. If we factor a father in as an equal part of the equation are we fostering ideals of men as the true parent and risking a loss in the male-female power dynamic? Finally, is there any way to give both parties an equal voice?