A recent NPR article lamented that "the end of Roe v. Wade has huge economic implications for male partners, too." According to a study quoted in the piece, "men involved with a pregnancy and whose partners had an abortion were nearly four times more likely to graduate college" than those whose partners gave birth. And males under the age of 20 were more likely to earn more money if their partner had an abortion instead of carrying the child to term.

I guess we should thank the reporter for proving that legal abortion has always incentivized the financial well-being of men over the lives of the children they create. Still, presenting this as some kind of hardship for men is reminiscent of British slaveholders arguing against abolition by warning that sugar would cost too much without free labor. The whole moral picture is upside down.

Rather than arguing for legalized abortion on the basis of "disadvantaging men," I'll happily vote for a new idea other abortion advocates have come up with: requiring men to be financially committed to the lives they create... you know, like they are supposed to be.