Responsibility Goes Both Ways

I was recently talking with someone about abortion, and the conversation brought back a thought I’ve considered before but never really put into words.

We were talking about abortion primarily as a question of morality and personal responsibility.

The argument was essentially this: if a woman chooses to have sex and becomes pregnant, she made a choice. Pregnancy is a possible consequence of that choice, and therefore she has a responsibility to carry the pregnancy to term.

I understand the logic behind that argument, even though I don’t ultimately agree with the conclusion.

But something kept bothering me.

Where is the responsibility of the man?

Pregnancy doesn’t happen because one person made a decision. It takes two people.

A man provides the sperm. A woman provides the egg. The pregnancy that follows is the result of their combined biology and, in most cases, a shared decision to engage in sex.

Yet when the subject turns to responsibility, the burden seems to fall overwhelmingly on the woman.

She’s told that she made a choice.

She’s told that she needs to accept the consequences.

And for some people, those consequences go much further than simply accepting that pregnancy happened. They believe the government should have the authority to prevent her from ending that pregnancy and require her to continue it.

That’s where I start to see a problem.

Let’s Apply the Same Principle to Men

Imagine we took the same argument and applied it to men.

Suppose the government told every eighteen-year-old man:

“You’re now old enough to have sex, and because sex can result in pregnancy, we’re going to freeze some of your sperm and give you a vasectomy. If you decide you want children later, you can have the procedure reversed or use the sperm we’ve stored.”

Most of us would immediately recognize that as an extraordinary intrusion into a man’s bodily autonomy.

We would probably find the idea absurd.

We’d say that his body belongs to him.

We’d say that the government doesn’t get to make reproductive decisions for him.

We’d say that even if his sexual behavior carries consequences, those consequences don’t give the government ownership over his body.

And I agree.

Men should not be forced to undergo medical procedures because the choices they make might result in pregnancy.

But here’s the point:

If we recognize bodily autonomy as an important principle when we’re talking about men, why does that principle suddenly become less important when we’re talking about women?

I’m not arguing that men should be forced to get vasectomies.

I’m using the example to expose what I see as an inconsistency in the responsibility argument.

If the reasoning is “You chose sex, therefore you must accept whatever biological consequences follow,” then we should be willing to apply that principle consistently.

But we don’t.

We recognize that a man’s responsibility for causing a pregnancy does not give the government the right to force him to use his body in a particular way.

And I think we should extend that same principle to women.

Responsibility Isn’t the Same as Surrendering Bodily Autonomy

There is an important distinction here that I think gets lost in the abortion debate.

Taking responsibility for your choices does not necessarily mean surrendering your bodily autonomy.

We accept this principle in countless other areas of life.

If I make a reckless decision and injure myself, I may be responsible for the consequences. I may have to live with those consequences for years.

But responsibility doesn’t mean the government suddenly gets unlimited authority over my body.

If I make a poor financial decision, I may have to pay the price.

If I drink too much, I may have to deal with the consequences the next morning.

If I engage in risky behavior and get injured, I may have to undergo painful treatment.

We don’t generally say that because someone knowingly took a risk, they have forfeited their right to make decisions about their own body.

Pregnancy is obviously different from these examples. It involves another potential human life, which introduces a moral question that can’t simply be brushed aside.

And that’s important.

I don’t think the abortion debate becomes intellectually honest if we pretend the fetus doesn’t matter.

It does matter.

The moral status of a fetus is one of the central questions in the entire debate.

When does developing human life acquire the moral rights we associate with a person?

Is it conception? Implantation? A certain stage of development? Viability? Birth?

Reasonable people can disagree about those questions.

But acknowledging that disagreement is different from pretending that the woman’s bodily autonomy suddenly becomes irrelevant.

Two People Created the Pregnancy

This is the part I think gets overlooked when abortion is framed exclusively as a woman’s responsibility.

Two people created the pregnancy.

The woman is the person who becomes pregnant. Her body undergoes the physical changes. She carries the pregnancy. She experiences the medical risks. She gives birth.

But the pregnancy did not happen because she acted alone.

A man participated in creating it.

So if we’re going to have a serious conversation about responsibility, I think men need to be part of that conversation too.

And I’m not talking about some abstract philosophical responsibility.

I’m talking about practical responsibility.

Men have a responsibility to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

They have a responsibility to understand contraception.

They have a responsibility to communicate with their partners.

They have a responsibility to understand that sex can have consequences.

And they have a responsibility to recognize that pregnancy isn’t something that happens to women in isolation. It is often the biological result of something two people did together.

Yet much of our cultural conversation about preventing abortion seems focused on what women should or shouldn’t be allowed to do after pregnancy occurs.

I’d rather see much more attention paid to preventing unintended pregnancies in the first place.

Because if someone genuinely believes abortion is a tragedy or something that should be avoided whenever possible, then preventing unintended pregnancies should be one of the easiest places to find common ground.

Better sex education.

Access to contraception.

Responsible behavior.

Men taking reproductive responsibility seriously.

Women taking reproductive responsibility seriously.

Those things don’t require us to agree about when a fetus becomes a person.

But What About Consequences?

I know the response I’m likely to get from some people:

“But she knew what could happen.”

Yes.

Sex can result in pregnancy.

That’s not controversial.

But knowing that something is a possible consequence of an action doesn’t automatically mean you have surrendered your right to make decisions afterward.

We recognize this principle in other parts of life.

We don’t tell someone who gets into a car that they have consented to every possible medical consequence of driving.

We don’t tell someone who undergoes surgery that because they consented to the procedure, they must accept whatever happens to their body afterward without the ability to make further medical decisions.

We don’t even apply the principle consistently within reproduction itself.

A man can have consensual sex, know that pregnancy is possible, and still ultimately have no legal authority to force a woman to remain pregnant.

And I don’t think that’s because men deserve more bodily autonomy.

It’s because her body is the body undergoing the pregnancy.

That distinction matters.

A man can have responsibilities to a child.

He can have financial responsibilities.

He can have emotional responsibilities.

He can have moral responsibilities.

But those responsibilities don’t give him ownership of another person’s body.

And if that’s true for a man, I don’t see why it shouldn’t also be true for the government.

The Government Changes the Question

This is where the conversation becomes bigger than abortion.

When someone says, “I personally believe abortion is morally wrong,” I may disagree with them, but I understand the position.

That’s a moral argument.

But when someone says, “Because I believe abortion is morally wrong, the government should force a woman to continue her pregnancy,” we’ve moved into a different conversation.

Now we’re talking about government power.

We’re talking about whether the state should be able to require someone to use their body for the benefit of another.

That’s an enormous power.

And I think we should be extremely cautious about giving the government that kind of authority.

You don’t have to believe abortion is morally neutral to believe that.

You don’t have to believe every abortion is a good decision.

You don’t even have to be comfortable with abortion to believe that the decision should ultimately remain between a woman and her doctor rather than being dictated by politicians.

There is a difference between saying:

“I would never choose abortion.”

and saying:

“Therefore, no one else should be legally permitted to choose it.”

Those are two very different statements.

If Reducing Abortions Is the Goal

Here’s where I think there is an opportunity for people on different sides of this issue to find common ground.

If your goal is to reduce the number of abortions, then let’s actually focus on reducing the number of unintended pregnancies.

Let’s teach young people what sex actually involves.

Let’s make contraception accessible.

Let’s encourage men to take responsibility for preventing pregnancy.

Let’s encourage women to take responsibility for preventing pregnancy.

Let’s make it easier for people to plan when and whether they want children.

And let’s recognize that preventing an unintended pregnancy is fundamentally different from dealing with one after it has already occurred.

You don’t have to believe abortion is morally acceptable in every circumstance to support policies that reduce the number of abortions.

In fact, if someone truly believes abortion ends a human life, I would think preventing unintended pregnancies should be one of their highest priorities.

Because prevention doesn’t require anyone to choose between competing moral obligations after a pregnancy already exists.

Responsibility Should Be Shared

Ultimately, I don’t think the abortion debate is as simple as “She had sex, so she needs to accept the consequences.”

That framing places an enormous amount of responsibility on one person for something that, biologically, involves two.

And it also assumes that accepting responsibility necessarily means surrendering bodily autonomy.

I don’t think that’s true.

We can believe people should make responsible choices while still believing they retain fundamental rights over their own bodies.

We can encourage people to prevent unintended pregnancies without believing the government should control their reproductive decisions.

We can acknowledge the moral significance of a developing fetus without pretending that pregnancy is physically or medically equivalent for the two people who created it.

And we can recognize that abortion is complicated without reducing the entire conversation to whether someone “should have kept their legs closed” or “should have known better.”

If we’re going to talk about responsibility, let’s talk about both people.

If we’re going to talk about preventing abortion, let’s talk about preventing unintended pregnancy.

If we’re going to talk about morality, let’s acknowledge that reasonable people can have profoundly different beliefs about when human life acquires moral status.

And if we’re going to talk about government power, let’s be very careful about the precedent we’re setting when we allow the government to determine what someone must do with their own body.

Because once we’re talking about forcing someone to use their body for nine months, we’re no longer talking only about responsibility.

We’re talking about bodily autonomy.

And I don’t think that principle should depend on whether you’re a man or a woman.