Speaking of choice…

A few days ago I wrote about inequity in discussions about choice.

Now, Meghan Daum writes at the LA Times, “Shouldn’t men have ‘choice’ too?”  Daum writes:

Since we’re throwing around radical ideas about abortion rights, let me raise this question: If abortion is to remain legal and relatively unrestricted — and I believe it should — why shouldn’t men have the right during at least the first trimester of pregnancy to terminate their legal and financial rights and responsibilities to the child?

As Conley laments, the law does not currently allow for men to protect the futures of the fetuses they help create. What he doesn’t mention — indeed, no one ever seems to — is the degree to which men also cannot protect their own futures. The way the law is now, a man who gets a woman pregnant is not only powerless to force her to terminate the pregnancy, he also has a complete legal obligation to support that child for at least 18 years.

In other words, although women are able to take control of their futures by choosing from at least a small range of options — abortion, adoption or keeping the child — a man can be forced to be a father to a child he never wanted and cannot financially support. I even know of cases in which the woman absolves the man of responsibility, only to have the courts demand payment anyway. That takes the notion of “choice” very far from anything resembling equality.

She’s right that nobody ever talks like this out loud – I’ve thought it myself, but lacked the testicular fortitude to write it down. 

Daum recognizes the issues with her ideas, just as Conley recognizes the issues with his, but they’re both right it’s a conversation that needs to occur if fairness and equity are ever to enter the mix.

Interesting and predictable reactions out there in the blogosphere.  A few samples: 

Androblog extends on her point that women may end up pregnant by trickery.

LOTS of women likely ‘trick’ their husbands into impregnating them. It’s kind of easy to do. He assumes she’s on the pill. She simply chooses not to take it. Unless he watches her take the pill every day, it’s all about trust. And a mid-twenties woman in middle America who wants desperately to get married because all of her friends are getting married is not necessarily thinking about all of the consequences. … We don’t hear a lot about this, because the courts would always just side with a woman, right? It’s a he said/she said argument, and he’s basically stuck with whatever she decided to do.

Amptoons points out

When pro-lifers say women’s chance to decide about parenthood is before pregnancy happens, what they really mean is, “I want to deny you one of your medically viable options.” There’s no reason, except for pro-life laws, that women can’t get an abortion after pregnancy begins.

In contrast, when I say men’s chance to decide about parenthood is before pregnancy happens, that’s a statement of biological fact. It’s not an argument in favor of denying men viable medical options; it’s an observation that men physically lack those options.

The Mahablog goes thermonuclear and ad hominem reduces the efficacy of the argument.  But she does have a point:

But trying to balance the facts of biology with a non-biological “equivalent” in the interest of fairness is neither fair nor equitable. It cannot be made equitable. Period. End of story. And don’t come whining to me about what’s fair. Life ain’t fair. Get used to it.

I agree.  Biology being what it is, abortion law is always going to be weighted toward the woman’s interest.  That’s just the way it is.  But the inherent unfairness of life is no justification for using the law as a way to screw people.  And if the sacrifices inherent to parenthood make one a martyr, perhaps one should rethink the decision to have kids in the first place. 

Joint Strike Weasel:

Meghan Daum in the L.A. Times asks a provocative question, and a good one: “If abortion is to remain legal and relatively unrestricted — and I believe it should — why shouldn’t men have the right during at least the first trimester of pregnancy to terminate their legal and financial rights and responsibilities to the child?” (lv: SA) My standard position that a man who engages in sexual activity when he does not want children–which nothing is wrong with–takes the risk and responsibility for ensuing pregnancy (not to mention STDs). But this conflicts with another standard position of mine, that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. As in, if a woman can engage in sexual activity, get pregnant, then choose to terminate that pregnancy, why shouldn’t the man similarly have a choice, not to terinate the pregnancy, but terminate his responsibilities?

Penraker:

Of course, this points out the disingenous nature of the abortion debate. Daum dances around the obvious. Both people had a choice – whether to have sex or not. To treat the resultant baby as a piece of refuse that can be disposed of at the whim of either is the ridiculous stance, and leads to all sorts of weird results and little conondrums. Having started out with the assumption that abortion must remain a right, we end up at all sorts of interestingly weird places. Having wrongly insisted that the earth is the center of the universe, we now need to invent elaborate epicycles.

And Miss Daum admits as much, but is unable to come to the realization that sex requires responsibility. Lots of it. But she cannot bring herself to accept that resonsibility.