Aborting the "Pro's"

Abortion is one of the most divisive issues in American politics. The subjects of an individual's right to choose and an unborn child's right to live are certainly hot-button issues, but by focusing strictly on Roe v. Wade and the bumper-sticker soundbytes our politicians offer, we are forgetting that there is much more to the issue than just "Pro-Life" or "Pro-Choice."

Like so many other issues in American politics, abortion has become a rallying cry for parties and candidates. Alan Keyes has made a career out of his stance on the issue. Religion and loyalty to God are often brought into the discussion. Extremists on both sides have gone too far, with some pro-life fanatics bombing clinics and some pro-choice supporters claiming that late-pregnancy terminations--where the baby could survive outside of the womb--should be legal. The vicious attacks on both sides have turned the issue into an argument.

What if we shifted the conversation to another part of the issue?

Abortion is a women's issue because the actual process concerns women. But it also has a great deal to do with men, because without men, there would be no pregnancy. Furthermore, the issue of the sanctity and value of life concerns all of us. But in the mission of both sides to see abortion rights either eliminated or expanded, the role of men in the issue has been greatly diminished.

The real problem is the growth of unwanted pregnancy in this country. Almost no one would say that abortion, in and of itself, is a good thing. No matter which side of the issue you fall on, putting a woman through that experience is not something to be proud of and taking a life--whether it is considered a fetus or an unborn child--is not something to be taken lightly. Of the several women I know who have had abortions and discussed it with me, none have expressed any joy in the event or its aftermath.

I am going to lay a few things on the table that may seem to upset some people, but it is in the spirit of progress and honest conversation that I do so.

At the root of this issue is a woman's desire to have consequence-free sex--to know that regardless of the outcome of intercourse, she will not have to bear a child. And why shouldn't women want this? Don't men have the privilege of knowing that they will not have to carry a child?

This is the concept I would like to challenge. I believe that if we hold the men in this country responsible for their actions, unwanted pregnancies will decline considerably. As it stands now, men not only have the luxury of knowing they will not have to carry a child, but also that they will not have to deal with having an abortion. For irresponsible men everywhere, abortion is a safety net. If their partner becomes pregnant, they can say they do not want the baby and that she should have an abortion. Even if the woman does not want to terminate the pregnancy, the man has absolved himself (in his mind) from any responsibility by saying that if it were his decision, he would end the pregnancy.

Many women choose to have the baby, even in extreme circumstances. There is an undeniable emotional connection between mother and child, and this exists even before birth. Abortion is not an easy choice. But for men, it is much simpler to say, "I don't want to have anything to do with that baby," and just run from the issue.

A policy that takes a two-pronged approach to resolving this disparity is in order. First, we need a law that makes men financially responsible for the pregnancy. Even if the pregnancy is unwanted, men cannot deny that they had no choice in the matter (unless there is a case of rape or deception). By engaging in sexual intercourse, you are participating in an activity where nature's intended outcome is reproduction. Many men will cry wolf, saying that they used contraception and it is not their fault, but they cannot escape the fact that they chose to have sex and that includes the possibility--no matter what birth control device is used--of pregnancy. For this reason, men can and should be held responsible for their actions, and should be held financially responsible for supporting the pregnancy (yes, that means supporting the woman carrying the child) and the baby.

The second piece of the puzzle is time. Women not only have to sacrifice time during the pregnancy (especially in the final month), but obviously once a child is born there is whole new level of responsibility. Men can never be held to the same standard, but the law can help equalize the situation. Fathers should be held responsible--by law and with the threat of imprisonment--for a certain number of care hours once a child is born.

Men denying responsibility for pregnancies would be submitted to paternity testing. If there is a positive match, then the law becomes effective and the financial and time responsibilities kick-in. Now you have a situation where both parties--men and women--must carefully consider the ramifications of intercourse. Young couples who have not thought things through will be put in tough circumstances where both partners' lives are forever altered by pregnancies.

Men will never be held to the same standard as women on this issue, because they cannot carry children. But the law can demand a more equal commitment. It is time we forced the men in this country to take this issue more seriously.