Many hyperbolic statements are coming from the radical left, relative to SCOTUS nominee Sam Alito’s opinion in a Pennsylvania case involving spousal notification prior to abortion. Glenn Reynolds makes this counterpoint:
I’m not sure about Pennsylvania, but in many states her spouse — even if he’s not the father of the child — would still be on the hook for child support. Likewise, if he didn’t want children, but she disagreed, lied to him about birth control, and got pregnant. And he certainly couldn’t force her to have an abortion if she did so, even if his desire not to have children was powerful, and explicitly expressed at the outset. (The usual response — “he made his choice when he had sex without a condom” — never comes up in discussions of women and abortion.)
So where’s the husband’s procreational autonomy? Did he give it up by getting married? And, if he did, is it unthinkable that when they get married women might give some of their autonomy up, too?
The problem here is that you can say “my body, my choice” — but when you say, “my body, my choice but our responsibility,” well, it loses some of its punch.
Most women in a functioning relationship are going to consult thier husband when considering an abortion. Why should we assume most women are out to get knocked up so they can receive child support? Where are these women who lie about contraceptives to get pregnant? If she is in a bad relationship, why force her to consult with her husband who abuses her? The government should work on minding thier own business.
Comment by outer_space — 20051031 @ 1915
Absent a pre-nup (and who but the rich get pre-nups?), I’d really like to know how a husband is going to prove in court that he had made his no-child wishes explicit. Any judge should rightfully be sceptical of a man who, when he finds out his wife or girlfriend is pregnant, claims that he told her before hand that he didn’t want children so he can get off the hook for what he owes her. In other words, it’s a nice little theoretical exception with little practical application.
If a man really doesn’t want children, there’s a little operation that can be had.
Comment by tom — 20051031 @ 2207
outer: The law in question (the one in the Casey decision) does not require notification if she believes she’ll suffer physical harm if she notifies him, so that’s something of a red herring.
If you wish the law to always mind its own business, then you should thus be against enforced child support. After all, the law doesn’t know the circumstances regarding the child’s conception and any understandings between the parents (or between one parent and the other person being fingered as parent, who may not in fact be the other parent).
One cannot logically have it both ways, demanding the government stay out of things when it’s convenient, and intervene when it’s convenient, at least not if one is going to base the stance on a principle like “mind its own business”.
Comment by Sigivald — 20051101 @ 1403