In an episode of the sitcom Friends, a female character summed up what a lot of people think about the proper role of men in contributing to decisions regarding abortion when she said: No uterus, no opinion.
Without getting into whether that’s a reasonable position to take, once you take it there’s another position you’re going to have trouble disputing: No tax bill, no opinion.
That is:
If a woman should be free to control her own body,
then a property owner should be free to control his own property.
By way of illustration, it’s interesting to look at some of the rhetoric that abortion rights activists use to make their point, and tweak them a little. In each case, either both statements make sense, or neither statement makes sense.
Here’s an example:
Women are uniquely situated to talk about this issue, because we have babies.
Taxpayers are uniquely situated to talk about this issue, because we pay taxes¹.
Here’s another (from Jessica Valenti, at The Guardian):
If you think men should help decide if a woman gets an abortion, just shut up. Her body, her choice. Period.
If you think people who don’t pay taxes should help decide if a taxpayer pays taxes, just shut up. His money, his choice. Period.
Or how about this one (from someone named Carol Clark, quoted by the BBC):
Let a woman choose what she’s going to do with her body. It’s not his body. It’s her body.
Let a taxpayer choose what he’s going to do with his money. It’s not their money. It’s his money.
Here’s a catchy one from the Manhasset Press:
Until a baby comes out of a man’s body, an opinion on abortion shouldn’t come out of his mouth.
Until taxes come out of a man’s pocket, an opinion on taxes shouldn’t come out of his mouth.
We could keep going, but I think you get the point.
Now, one might argue that taxes are just about your money, while abortion is about your body. But unless you’re just picking money up off the ground, you are trading your time — which is to say, your life, and the use of your body — for that money. Any argument about ‘control of your body’ applies equally well to ‘control of your money’, even though many people prefer to pretend otherwise.
Again, I’m not evaluating whether either argument (‘No uterus, no opinion’ or ‘No tax bill, no opinion’) is valid. I’m just pointing out that accepting either requires accepting the other.
Of course, it’s not clear how to make either position operational in a representative democracy, where the votes of men and women, and tax payers and tax beneficiaries, are filtered through their representatives.
But it’s still worth thinking about.
For my part, I’m more than happy to take this deal:
I’ll keep my laws off your body
if you keep your laws out of my pocket.
That seems fair, doesn’t it?
¹ I started thinking about this when Reid Henrichs mentioned in passing during one of his videos that people who don’t pay taxes — which is roughly half the country — don’t care if taxes go up.
