A friend of mine once had an idea for the perfect pro-life ad campaign. He wanted to publish in campus magazines all over the country a centerfold ad of some stud smiling into the camera and asking-- a la Alfred E. Neuman-- "What? Me Worry? My girlfriend's pro-choice." Therefore, although it's really sad, I nearly spluttered my coffee laughing when I read this: The National Center for Men has filed a lawsuit as part of a campaign they're calling, "Roe v. Wade for men." They've trademarked the name, they're so proud of it! From the press release:
More than three decades ago Roe v. 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.
Well, I can't fault the logic of their argument; it's Roe, alright. And it's quite funny to see imagine the feminists squirming about all this. Mona Charen elaborates:
The feminists may well be stumped by this argument. After all, they've based their abortion advocacy as a matter of women's reproductive rights. Is it logical to claim women have reproductive rights that men lack? Yes, a woman has to carry an unplanned pregnancy for nine months and give birth. But Mr. Dubay, and many other men, are saddled with 18 years of child support. That's a pretty substantial inhibition of one's "reproductive freedom."
Imagine that John and Jane learn she is pregnant. She has full latitude in decisionmaking. She can decide, over his objections, to abort the child or to raise it alone (he'll be lucky to get generous visitation), or to place the child for adoption (he can object, but only if he wants to raise the baby himself). The National Center for Men could argue that since a man cannot oblige a woman to carry his child to term, neither should she be able to demand 18 years of child support from him. (The NCM has other complaints, too, and it's amusing to see the tables turned. They whine, for example, that men tend to die an average of eight years earlier than women, and that the overwhelming majority of the homeless are men. True. Is it the fault of the matriarchy?)
Kidding aside, however, here's the rub: there's no constitutional right to sex without consequences, which is what Roe really means. And what the men are really asking for is the right to abandon their kids. Which doesn't seem very manly, somehow:
When the only frame of reference is a competition of rights, both sexes strive to outdo one another in selfishness. The point (and it is not one the feminists will find in their quiver) is that sexuality requires responsibility -- and that doesn't just mean using birth control. It means if you engage in sex you have an automatic obligation to any child that may result. Pro-choice women have vociferously rejected this responsibility for decades. It should come as no surprise that men are inclined to do the same.
And then the kicker.
Mr. Dubay and all those similarly situated (including women who use abortion as emergency contraception) should look into the faces of their sons and daughters and explain that it's nothing personal.
