I remember going on a first date with a woman a few months back who was several years younger than me. I was attracted to her, and things were going OK but not fabulous, when out of the clear blue sky, on the first date less than 2 hours in, "So, what do you think about abortion?" Stunned at the inappropriateness and poor timing of this question, after picking my jaw up off the floorboard of the car, I stammered out that I thought it was horrible for anyone to have to be in the situation where they are seriously considering it as an option. I said that while I didn't think it was right for a man to be able to force a woman to have a baby she does not want, I also didn't think it was right for a woman to have all the say either, making the choice for both parties if there is to be a child or not when both had a role in its creation. It is a tough situation without a clear good answer, and I said if I had a good or easy solution I would take it to Congress, write the bill, solve the issue, and everyone is happy. That was not the right answer for this girl, whose friend had just had an abortion, and as you might guess, that was our first and last date.
It seems now that a man from Michigan has actually taken this idea and filed a lawsuit based on it:
The money quote,
"More than three decades ago Roe vs. Wade gave women control of their reproductive lives but nothing in the law changed for men. Women can now have sexual intimacy without sacrificing reproductive choice. Women now have the freedom and security to enjoy lovemaking without the fear of forced procreation. Women now have control of their lives after an unplanned conception. But men are routinely forced to give up control, forced to be financially responsible for choices only women are permitted to make, forced to relinquish reproductive choice as the price of intimacy. We will ask a United States district court judge to apply the principles of reproductive choice, as articulated in Roe vs. Wade, to men. We will ask that men be granted equal protection of the laws which safeguard the right of women to make family planning decisions after sex. We will argue that, at a time of reproductive freedom for women, fatherhood must be more than a matter of DNA: A man must choose to be a father in the same way that a woman chooses to be a mother."
At first blush, the legal argument based on a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution appears to have some merit, as women are afforded the entire range of options re: becoming a parent while men have no input whatsoever, their decisions entirely dictated by the woman's call. That said, this is enough of a hot potato, especially in today's political arena, that most judges would rather and likely will punt, dismissing the case on technical grounds or something besides the actual merits of the case. Doing so would avoid the heat and political backlash were they to make some kind of decision that would change the status quo of abortion rights in place since Roe and the 70s, leaving the issue to be decided by another district court judge, the appeals courts, or the Supreme Court.
As I said to the young lady, I don't have all the answers, and I am personally morally opposed to abortion, especially given that it has been used entirely too often as birth control rather than for cases of rape, incest, or to save the mother. It is, however, way past time we as a society have this discussion, because it takes two to tango, and if abortion is going to stay around as an issue and an option, men should have some input and say in these kind of very important, personal, and intimate decisions.
