This is, essentially, a meta-discussion and I do not want to actually discuss the specifics but rather than analysis behind the specifics.
In another board, a question was brought up as to why, in some places, a husband needs to get his wife's permission in order to have a vasectomy while she does not need his permission in order to have an abortion.
Stop right there. This is not about whether or not abortion should be allowed. Any attempt to derail this thread into a discussion about abortion will, I hope, be swiftly dealt with by moderators. Besides, if you keep reading to the end of the post, I hope you will find why the question of the legitimacy of abortion is irrelevant.
While many people pointed out the seeming unfairness in his needing her permission to never have a child while she is free to abort any that are created without his consent, I claim that the two are unrelated.
A vasectomy is nothing like an abortion and cannot be compared to it. A vasectomy prevents a child from ever coming into being since there will never, ever be a fetus that might develop into a child. An abortion, on the other hand, prevents a fetus from becoming a child. It's one step further down the road.
Instead, a vasectomy is comparable to a tubal ligation and if I am not mistaken, those places that require a wife's permission in order for the husband to get a vasectomy also require a husband's permission in order for a wife to get a tubal ligation. The reason for this has to do with the history and context of what was considered part of the marriage contract.
That is, marriage was about producing an heir. While you don't have to have children in order to be considered married, the case remained that the only "legitimate" children were ones that were produced from a married couple. We have inherited this baggage as to what is expected out of a marriage so that if you marry somebody with the promise that you can have children when you know you can't due to having been sterilized or some biological impediment, it is considered fraud and the marriage can be dissolved. Thus, given this past history, we can see why there are rules that say a spouse needs the other spouse's permission in order to undergo sterilization: A spouse who wants children (and you're "supposed" to have children only with your spouse) will suddenly no longer be able to have children if the other undergoes sterilization. To do so without the consent of the other violates an expectation of the marriage contract: The person may no longer wish to be married to you if he or she knew that you could not produce a child.
The arguments against having a spousal requirement generally fell under the "my body, my decision" justification and that was part of the reason why it seemed to be connected to abortion, but I don't think that is a valid connection. Two reasons:
1) No freedom is absolute. There are those that take "my body, my decision" to the point of saying that a person should be entitled to commit suicide if he wishes. But I think it's safe to say that even those people would agree that it doesn't include the right to choose suicide by running out into oncoming traffic: Your right to kill yourself does not include the right to force somebody else to be the one to kill you. I think we would all agree that you would be held responsible for the five-car pileup that resulted from your actions (paid either by you, should you survive, or your estate, should you not).
Therefore, we cannot just say, "my body, my decision," and expect that to be an answer. It might be, but we have to look at the full consequences of the action and see if anybody else has a stake in your decision to do with your body what you wish. If we agree that having children is connected to marriage, then I can see why we might say that the marital desire of "I want children" trumps this particular instance of "my body, my decision."
And note, abortion is a one-time shot while sterilization is a now-and-forever deal. A woman who has an abortion might still want to have children. Ignoring the issues of just how screwed up a marriage is if the couple cannot discuss the question of whether and when to have children, an abortion is not final in the sense of a person's reproductive lifetime and ability. Yes, sterilization procedures can be reversed, but they are expensive and quite often don't work.
On top of this, a woman who is pregnant has real, albeit low probability, risks to her life and health. In this case, I can see why we might say that her right to say, "I don't want to risk my life," overrides his right to say, "I want children."
2) Suppose abortion were illegal (see...I told you there's a reason not to make this into a debate about abortion.) Suppose it were determined that a fetus is a person and shall not be subjected to any procedure designed to directly and deliberately kill it.
Would that change any argument as to why a spouse should not need the other's permission in order to undergo sterilization? I don't think it would. Again, the reason why we have these laws is due to a societal expectation that children are to be produced from marriage and that taking that option away from your partner without his or her consent is wrong.
So even if we are going to say that that expectation is wrong, what does that have to do with abortion and the fetus being a person?
Therefore, since the reasoning we have for accepting or rejecting the notion that a spouse's approval is needed for sterilization is independent of the status of abortion, I would say that the two are incomparable. Despite the fact that both are related to having children, both are related to a question of who has control over whose body, they are completely separate issues and cannot be compared. Just because two things are blue doesn't mean they have anything in common other than the fact that they are blue.
Again, I say that you cannot compare a vasectomy to an abortion. Instead, you can compare it to a tubal ligation. If it were the case that he needs her permission in order to get sterilized but she doesn't need his permission, then we have a problem. But to say that he is somehow being oppressed because she can have an abortion without telling him and yet he can't get a vasectomy without her consent doesn't make sense.
Instead, the comparable issue regarding abortion is her ability to determine whether or not he has this child and if he does, whether or not he has any connection to it. If the couple is not married, she can choose whether or not he has any parental rights, whether or not he is required to pay child support, etc. (yes, I know this is not the case in all states, but it is the case in many.) She can, if she so chooses, completely remove him from his child's life. Or, she can make him completely responsible. He, on the other hand, has no such power over her.
Note, I am not arguing about whether or not any of these situations are right or wrong and I do not want this discussion to be about that. I simply want to know if others think my analysis is right that you cannot compare sterilization to abortion.
[Moderators...where should this go? Coffee House? Short Subjects?]
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!
)
™ Version 4.2