As the battles rage across the country over abortion laws, the male contribution to creation is nowhere on the collective political radar. Men create babies too, but aren’t a part of the argument because…well…they don’t have a uterus.
Guys get a free pass on the whole issue. The baby, or fetus depending on your political side of the issue, wouldn’t even be the subject of discussion if it weren’t for the man’s sperm successfully penetrating the woman’s egg.
There is something almost patriarchal about the fact that the entire burden of the right to choice or life falls on women. Abortion provides an easy out for men who don’t want to take any responsibility for impregnating women.
Men have nothing to lose in this fight
For men, abortion provides a surefire way to get out of having to pay child support, or be emotionally invested in fatherhood. Why is it okay for hundreds of thousands of women to be saddled with emotional and physical trauma of choosing between the medical removal of a living being from their body, or face poverty and destitution because the men are not likely to ever step up and do the right thing.
I’ve always hated stories of men who easily get women pregnant, and then cavalierly support her “right to choose.” One strategically lucky tadpole is all it takes to turn a one night stand for a guy into a horrific life decision for a woman.
The right to choose helps men dodge the paternity bullet. Men can ejaculate to their heart’s delight, because the hard decisions about any ‘oops’ are the sole responsibility of women.
The power of the uterus is minimized
The overall narrative minimizes the miraculous creative power that a woman’s uterus holds. I know because I saw the lining of my wife’s uterus multiple times on the ultra-sounds I went to for the 12 embryo transfers we endured on our path to medically assisted parenthood.
I don’t even know how to correlate the loss of something growing inside a uterus to a man’s biology. I suppose you could force him to go without an erection for an extended period of time.
Or force him to make a decision between having a hard on or getting a college education. Only the decision to have or not have an erection doesn’t remotely compare to that of giving birth or having an abortion.
If you don’t want a mini-me, get a vasectomy
It’s not likely the parties on either side of the abortion issue will come to a meeting of the minds. The battle lines are too clearly drawn, and the narratives are firmly entrenched.
Actress Evan Rachel Wood tweeted something that might actually be worth considering: “Mandatory vasectomies until you want to have children. They can be reversed, so. Come on guys, Let’s save lives! What’s that? A hard no? Why? Cause its’ your body and we don’t get to make that choice for you? Ooooooohhhhhh!!!”
Well actually Ms. Wood, maybe there is some merit to this suggestion. Why shouldn’t men be required to have some skin in the sex game?
From what I understand about vasectomies, they are pretty easy-peasy these days. A quick snip-snip and a few hours of recovering from the effects of local sedation and the sperm gate is permanently shut.
According to Policy Genius, most health insurance companies cover full or partial vasectomy costs. What if men who didn’t want to have kids were required to have vasectomies?
Before you scoff at the idea, think about the present alternative. At the core of the present argument about abortion is whether or not it’s solely a woman’s choice.
That’s only because the narrative hasn’t required anything from men except to support a woman’s right to choose. This ignores one very important biological fact: the woman wouldn’t have to make the choice, if the guy had no traveling sperm.
It’s time men stepped up and did the right thing on this issue
Guy’s who “just want to have fun” should at least be required to do so in a way that doesn’t burden women. A vasectomy completely leaves a woman’s body alone.
I’ll be interested to hear the arguments against this.