Letters to the Editor
-
I'm biased toward women ...
... because I've been pregnant twice, and neither time the man who caused the pregnancy showed any inclination to support the resulting child. The first time I fought the father (my ex-husband) in court for sixteen years to get court-ordered support; the second time, I made the emotionally and physically painful decision to abort and have my tubes tied to prevent any further pregnancies.
My child was willingly fathered in a marriage -- he pushed me to get pregnant but lost interest when faced with an actual child. I took full financial responsibility for resolving the second pregnancy, as I'd been foolish enough to believe my sexual partner when he claimed to have had a vasectomy (and stuck to that story even when confronted with the results of a pregnancy test).
Even with both partners using birth control, pregnancy is a possibility, and operations don't always work (I know three women who've gotten pregnant after tubal ligations). The only guaranteed method of non-pregnancy is a woman having a hysterectomy, and those are hard to come by nowadays, as doctors are unwilling to perform or insurers pay for them unless mandated by medical necessity -- and unwanted pregnancies don't fall under that category (I asked for one when pregnant the second time and am still fighting to have one 12 years later, but have been told time and again that having difficult periods and not wanting to risk pregnancy isn't sufficient justification for surgical removal of my uterus). And some women, when faced with carrying a child, are just not willing to undergo an abortion, a decision I can truly understand.
So, unless a 100% guaranteed form of male birth control is invented, men should still have to assume financial responsibility for an unwanted pregnancy. It may seem unfair, but then again, is it fair for a woman to have to give up her life to a child she didn't plan to bear? The costs go both ways and far exceed simple dollars.