Given the profound asymmetries concerning childbirth -- both the obvious biological ones, in that it is the mother's life and health that are on the line, and the more contingent social ones, in that she will very likely be the one doing the larger share of childrearing, with the accompanying loss of career, income, mobility, etc. -- it is appropriate for women to have a more definitive say in whether or not they will bear a child.

However, I'm not familiar with the 'paper abortion' idea, but if executed properly it might be a fair way for men to at least opt out of some, especially unplanned, pregnancies. But I don't see what sort of say men could legitimately have (other than literally saying, i.e., talking, trying to persuade the woman to bear the child; a moral, but not a legal, say) in the other direction.

I'm waiting for some guy to cite Roe v. Wade as precedent to get out of paying child support. "It's her kid, not mine." Stranger things have happened.

The problem here is that there's no easy way to balance things - any right you give men in this situation is a right you take away from women. The "middle ground" is just taking away everyone's rights to one result or the other - and as aborting all babies wouldn't be good policy according to most people (although not all!), then that would mean a full-out abortion ban. (Which no doubt, some people would be happy with.)

If the goal is to equalize (as nearly as possible) male and female "reproductive choice," I think there are two options: implement a "paper abortion" for men, or ban nearly all abortions (rape, incest, and danger to mother's life account for a small percentage of current abortions). Obviously, the former would equalize "choice" on the high end, and the latter on the low end.

Eric,

Paper abortions only work when the pro/anti choice arguments are framed as a "reproductive rights" issue. It further only makes sense once you've concluded that the fetus ought to be morally and legally equivalent to a newly born baby.

In other words, you've already alienated a substantial portion of pro-choicers, so it is unlikely they would sign on from the perspective that you raise. Being pro-choice, to a pro-choicer (I would argue), is more about bodily sovereignty than reproductive rights.

A fair point, Mike. A man is not imposed upon bodily when a woman decides she wants to keep the baby they conceived. Still, being ordered to pay child support for 18 years will have a substantial impact on an unwilling father.

I think you're also right that the abortion debate really isn't about "reproductive rights" for either side. Nevertheless, the pro-choice side often uses that sort of language.

"I think you're also right that the abortion debate really isn't about "reproductive rights" for either side. Nevertheless, the pro-choice side often uses that sort of language."

This is true, but I think of late they've been cornered into it. By and large, the anti-choice camp has had a most incredible ability to dictate the language of the debate/controversy, and my experience is that the mainstream media buys it hook, line, and sinker. So while hat language is used by pro-choice people, I think it's mostly the result of masterful anti-choice framing.

Incidentally, I prefer the term anti-choice because I think it's the most accurate without being inflammatory. Pro-birth is better than pro-life since it better targets the issue, but is inaccurate b/c pro-choicers aren't against women who choose to bring a fetus to term. Anti-woman is inaccurate--though some pro-choicers find it apt--because I honestly don't think most in your camp actually intend to perpetuate gender subjugation through this issue.

"Still, being ordered to pay child support for 18 years will have a substantial impact on an unwilling father."

I would agree with that, but I would also point out that over 4,000 years of western civilization has locked us into our current state (that's not a critque of western civilization, merely an observation). Finding a solution may require more fundamental changes than something like a "paper abortion" may allow.

Putting "paper abortion" on the table at least gets us talking about the issue, and to me that's a good step forward.

Incidentally, I prefer the term anti-choice because I think it's the most accurate without being inflammatory.

I disagree. You may not mean it that way, but I do think the term is typically used to portray my side in the most unfavorable light. I don't think it's the most accurate either--there's only one "choice" that my side opposes: abortion. We wholeheartedly support the choice of adoption, as well as choices which prevent pregnancy in the first place.

It is true that "pro-life" is somewhat euphemistic. After all, who doesn't like life? "Anti-abortion" is perhaps more accurate, but it leaves out the fact that most of us also oppose euthanasia.

Furthermore, "pro-choice" is similarly euphemistic. It avoids mentioning the unpleasant act your camp wishes to keep legal in favor of the much more positive sounding term "choice." (We Americans are all about having choices--in what cars we drive, what food we eat, etc.)

However, there isn't a term as accurate for your side as "anti-abortion" is for my side. "Pro-abortion" comes close, but you would rightly object that you don't *like* abortions, you just don't think they should be illegal. "Pro-keeping-abortion-legal" is way too clunky of a term.

Therefore, my preference is to just refer to each side as they refer to themselves. Pro-life and pro-choice.

"We wholeheartedly support the choice of adoption, as well as choices which prevent pregnancy in the first place."

Well, some choices. There are significant swaths of the pro-life movement that also oppose teaching proper condom use, free and widespread availability of condoms, teaching anything but abstinence only, and seek to prevent the birth control pill from being subsidized by health insurance. Indeed, anti-choice is not altogether unjustified, but I do see how it can be both a loaded term and also not totally accurate.

""Anti-abortion" is perhaps more accurate, but it leaves out the fact that most of us also oppose euthanasia."

Of course, this all gets into framing issues: is is appropriate to include in the label anything beyond what we allow to be done to an embryo or fetus? You're right that pre-natal euthanasia is different from induced miscarriage, but I don't think it's inappropriate to call both abortion.

"Therefore, my preference is to just refer to each side as they refer to themselves. Pro-life and pro-choice."

I think that's fair.

You're right that pre-natal euthanasia is different from induced miscarriage, but I don't think it's inappropriate to call both abortion.

Actually, I was referring to "post-natal" euthanasia (physician-assisted suicide, etc.) It is a separate issue from abortion, but most pro-lifers are opposed to both.

I don't get it, what are kids in the Orient doing that has everyone up in arms? Oh, euthenasia! Sorry, couldn't resist.

"It is a separate issue from abortion, but most pro-lifers are opposed to both."

You may have a point. If the abortion debate is about secular bodily soveriegnty (which is one of the more significant pro-choice positions), then it is difficult to reconcile a pro-choice but anti-euthenasia stance. Not impossible (and I suppose it is a mark of humanity's uniqueness that we are so adept at simultaneously entertaining seemingly contradictory thoughts and opinions), but I can certainly see where you might want to wrap abortion and euthenasia together.

I rather doubt that there's any simple term X such that "pro-X" and "anti-X" would be labels that would be fair to both sides of this debate. What's nice about the way that "pro-choice" and "pro-life" have hardened as labels is that each side gets called in terms of its own preferred frame on the matter.

"Being pro-choice, to a pro-choicer (I would argue), is more about bodily sovereignty than reproductive rights." This claim does not seem to me to match up with a great deal of the actual argumentation that one sees on the pro-choice side. Perhaps it would be better to say that the latter right is in some ways based upon the former right. But you hear a lot of talk in terms of, indeed, getting to decide whether or not to have children when one wants, and only when one wants.

I'm also not seeing why pro-choice people should have an automatic problem with the 'paper abortion'. Your right to have a child is one thing; your right to have someone else help support that child is something else. It's good & right for these things _generally_ to go together, but if your exercise of the first right goes against the considered wishes of the other party, then it does not seem to me to be illegitimate if, under appropriate conditions, you have to waive the second right. (The tricky thing here, of course, would be to spell out what makes for the appropriate conditions.)

"This claim does not seem to me to match up with a great deal of the actual argumentation that one sees on the pro-choice side."

I don't disagree, but I would contend that this is due in large part to, as I have mentioned, the pro-life side's masterful handling of public debate of the issue. When I read pro-choicers on their own terms, I more often hear talk in terms of bodily soveriegnty than family planning.

"I'm also not seeing why pro-choice people should have an automatic problem with the 'paper abortion'. Your right to have a child is one thing; your right to have someone else help support that child is something else."

You've answered your own question, in a way. I never said the pro-choice people would have an automatic problem with the paper abortion.
However, by framing the issue as the ability to preemptively surrender all rights and therefore all responsibilities to a "child", you've alienated the pro-choice crowd, who are suspicious of any endeavor that creates equivalencies between a fetus and a newborn as an attempt to eliminate the right to an abortion.

On the other hand, if we called it a natural extension of the abortion right, in that we define birth as both the emergence of a bundle of rights and responsibilities as well as a bundle of joy, then the idea is less objectionable. In this scenario, we recognize that mere potential of a thing utterly fails to have priority over the reality of a thing itself, and thus the time is right to make decisions about how to deal with this potential.

What concerns me, personally, about 'paper abortion' is that it gives men the power to bully women into a decision, particularly to have an abortion where they would not otherwise have one. 'Paper abortions' don't just pull financial support, they would certainly also be a death sentence for a relationship, meaning the pregnant woman would lose the physical and emotional support from her partner through the pregnancy and beyond (in addition, of course, to any financial support).

Oh, euthenasia! Sorry, couldn't resist.

I appreciate the pun, but at the risk of being pedantic, "euthanasia" is the correct spelling.

"by framing the issue as the ability to preemptively surrender all rights and therefore all responsibilities to a "child", you've alienated the pro-choice crowd, who are suspicious of any endeavor that creates equivalencies between a fetus and a newborn as an attempt to eliminate the right to an abortion." Huh? There's no even implicit equivalency between the _fetus_ and a child. Rather, there's the (boringly obvious) equivalency between the _future child_ and... itself, I suppose. If a woman chooses not to abort, then (Deo volente) she _will_ become a mother. Acknowledging that fact is just, well, acknowledging a fact: fetuses that don't get aborted do, more often than not, turn into babies. To say that in no way entails, or even comes close to entailing, that the fetus is _already_ a child.

"What concerns me, personally, about 'paper abortion' is that it gives men the power to bully women into a decision...." But why is it a form of 'bullying'? If the man didn't at any point want a child, then it seems legitimate for him to be able to say: it is absolutely your choice to bear this child, but do so with the understanding that I am not interested in supporting it. (And a guy willing to do that was already probably going to be pulling out his "physical and emotional support", anyway. There are a _lot_ of deadbeat dads out there, sad as it is to say it. Better to be clear on the front end that that's the situation that the woman might be heading into.)