Two articles have appeared recently on the topic of sperm snatching. The first is a new blog here at Big Think and the second is an article in yesterday’s Daily Mail by writer Liz Jones. In the Daily Mail article Ms. Jones describes how, over the course of two relationships, she snuck into the bathroom in the middle of the night in order to inseminate herself using sperm rescued from condoms. This despite the fact that both men had made their unwillingness to become fathers very, very clear (hence the condom usage).
According to the Daily Mail article, a 2001 survey showed that 42% of women would lie about their contraceptive use if they wanted to get pregnant and their partner did not.
None of Ms. Jones's attempts at self-fertilization worked (not surprisingly since condoms are full of spermicide) but if they had, and she had given birth, the unwilling baby daddy would have found himself paying child support for the next twenty years.
Maybe Ms. Jones would say that is not true, that she planned to raise her baby alone without any support from an unwilling father. But this contention of future independence by sperm snatchers creates a problem that economists call dynamic inconsistency. And, as any good economist will tell you, there is nothing irrational about claiming not to want support during pregnancy and then demanding it after the baby is born.
Before I tell you exactly how dynamic inconsistency works, let me tell you a story that illustrates this concept.
It concerns a friend of mine who had his sperm snatched under circumstances that were very similar to those described in the Daily Mail article. The difference in my friend’s case is that his sperm snatcher got lucky and became pregnant.
This is what happened from his perspective:
So, in theory at least this was a very bad outcome for my friend. I say, “in theory” because once his ex-girlfriend opened the door to making financial demand he reciprocated with demands to spend time with his daughter. Now, a few years later, she may be costing him a small fortune but he does love her dearly.
Now, this is only half the story. Here is what I believe happened from her perspective:
Just for the record, I did tell him while she was pregnant that this is exactly what would happen.
Dynamic (or time) inconsistency is an economic concept that tells that preferences can change over time. What may seem like the optimal choice in period one (here during pregnancy) is not necessarily the optimal choice in period two (here when the baby is born).
It may seem optimal to a woman to claim independence when pregnant, especially since the decision to have the baby was her own, yet once the child has been born child support legislation gives women an incentive to get support for her child.
After all, it is true that the money is not for her – it is for their baby.
Usually the best way to solve a dynamic inconsistency “problem”, where decisions are made today that are no longer optimal tomorrow, is to form unbreakable contracts. However, in most countries women cannot sign away her baby's right to support from his/her father because support from both parents is in the best interest of the child. So, even if a contract was written it would likely be unenforceable leaving us back where we started.
In the article here at Big Think, blogger Pamela Haag tells the story of a woman who is a self described “sperm hunter.” In that piece the young woman claims both that she can’t afford a sperm bank and that when she gets pregnant she won’t contact the father.
As I have already said, not contacting the father and not asking for child support after the baby is born is completely irrational behavior. What dynamic inconsistency tells us though is any man who is rational should be able to foresee this change in preferences for support and behave accordingly.
Both of these articles suggest, to me at least, that now really is the right time for effective male birth control.