On July 6, 2012, Shari Motro, a law professor at the University of Richmond wrote an editorial in the New York Times advocating Preglimony. Preglimony is sort of alimony for pregnant woman and would include the loss of income arising from pregnancy, or the cost of an abortion. Professor Motro advocates that “Preglimony names and in that way honors the man’s role in caring for his pregnant lover.” http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/07/opinion/time-for-pregnancy-support-alimony.html#h[StsSas,3]
Pregnancy support? Seriously?
Birth expenses or confinement expenses are already part of the Michigan Child Support formula. The obligation for reimbursement of medical expenses in connection with a mother’s pregnancy and the birth of a child are currently based on each parent’s ability to pay and apportion the expenses in the same manner as health care expenses. Courts can also take into consideration any other relevant factor.
Is Preglimony far behind? Professor Motro notes that a prenatal blood test exists that can genetically link a father with a pregnant woman.
Pregnancy is either a gift from god or nature whichever fits your belief system. Many women strive for full equality with men, a notion I support. However, men obviously cannot get pregnant.
Professor Motro’s support of preglimony attempts to create an accommodation for women by associating the burden of pregnancy without an equal accommodation to men for the “gift” of pregnancy. Consider an equally ridiculous paternal form of preglimony which would honor the female’s role in caring for the father’s inability to get pregnant?
After all, “A mother’s joy begins when new life is stirring inside… when a tiny heartbeat is heard for the very first time, and a playful kick reminds her that she is never alone.” – author unknown
Professor Motro’s proposal for preglimony promotes inequality and her logic flawed. Pregnancy has its burdens, however it also has incredible benefits that can only be experienced by women.