The Conversation
E: Maybe the abortion discussion needs to go a new direction. What do you think it would take to get men to take responsibility for their part in unwanted pregnancies? I don’t mean child support. Something more immediate—like pregnancy is for the woman–that would make them actually want to wear condoms. Maybe some kind of tax? Like, as soon as their partner declares the pregnancy unwanted, they would have to pay enough that the impact would be felt–
F: I think we should cleave off their toes.
E: Ha! That’s some Swiftian “eat the poor” stuff—
F: Except I’m serious.
E: No, but seriously…
F: –
E: Hm.
A Moderate Proposal
for preventing abortion without exception and for providing an equitable opportunity for choice.
By E.J. Roller and K.F. Pollock
The Issue
When the idea came to us, it felt so simple and fully-formed that we were astounded we hadn’t thought of it before. Finally, a solution to the vexatious problem that has dominated political discussion for nearly a half century: abortion. Every election cycle in recent history has hinged on an attempt of the electorate to end (or preserve) the barbarous (or necessary) practice of abortion. Prior to this proposal, the issue had seemed unsolvable.
For those who equate this practice with murder, a group that calls itself “Pro-Life,” it is no wonder whatsoever that they are upset about abortion, as it results in an infanticide with annual numbers comparable to the babes slaughtered by King Herod. Our country carries the burden of millions of murdered innocent souls, and what issue could outweigh that in importance? The very discussion of income inequality, immigration, climate change, or other such business seems not only secondary, but wholly damning to those who feel this urgent loan on their soul—and so, naturally, they do not discuss anything else.
On the other hand, there are those—who call themselves “Pro-Choice”—who view pregnancy as a painful, sometimes unwanted condition on the bodies of women (or, rather, in an effort to employ language that is both scientific and equitable, on the bodies of what we will henceforth refer to as Possessors of Wombs [POWs]). These voters believe it is acceptable for POWs to dispatch of this unwanted condition through what they view as a medical procedure. They prioritize the well-being and health of POWs over that of what are scientifically known as “fetuses,” which are rapidly dividing cellular masses that slowly evolve to parasites—until the umbilical cord is cut and they take their first independent breath as human offspring.
Discussion between the two groups has hitherto proven useless. The Pro-Lifers believe that they are in an argument about whether “unborn babes” deserve the rights of humans. The Pro-Choicers believe that they are in an argument about whether the government (which has historically consisted primarily of men who will never encounter the condition of pregnancy) should be allowed to impose a medical dictate upon a POW. It is, therefore, little wonder that, despite decades of arguing, the country has failed to make progress on this issue. On the contrary, beliefs are so codified that one side believes their opponents to be heartless murderers; the other side believes their opponents to be ignorant (or malicious) oppressors.
Any person, heretofore, who has tried to strike a middle ground, has become quickly ostracized. A candidate who suggests that perhaps Pro-Lifers could shift to become anti-abortion and pro-choice—and focus on winning hearts and minds instead of winning the supreme court—are labeled as traitors. It is argued that a true crusader for life would understand that winning hearts and minds takes too long. Since 1973, this issue has been far too urgent to wait for cold hearts to warm to their ideas.
Similarly, a candidate who suggests to Pro-Choice voters that the parasite starts looking an awful lot like a human by the third trimester—and that it might be in the State’s interest to provide some additional protection—are also labeled as traitors. After all, a true ally of POWs would never question any POW. Even other POWs have no right to question a POW’s right to choose under any circumstances. Thus, society has appeared to have reached an impasse.
However, we are not a nation of quitters. And in the great spirit of innovation, we have come up with a new, equitable solution that we believe will address the concerns of both groups: the Toe Tax.
The Solution
Most great solutions are, in fact, quite simple—and the Toe Tax is no different. Rather than continuing the endless argument of when life begins, we will simply state that we will bestow “personhood” upon an embryo as soon as it successfully implants in the uterus. Thereafter, any conscious attempt to abort this “life” will be considered murder. The POWs, doctors, or other involved parties who carry out this crime will be tried and punished to the full extent of the law—without exception.
However, we do not stop there, as the fact remains that POWs have historically borne and will continue to bear (barring major scientific breakthrough) all of the negative physical consequences of an unwanted pregnancy—despite the undeniable truth that there are always two active parties involved in the creation of life. Again, to employ language that is both scientific and equitable, we shall henceforth label the other active party as the Provider of Sperm (POS). The lack of accountability that POSs face for their essential role in unwanted pregnancies is, at its core, what leads to the very accurate sense of POW oppression. And it is this inequitable distribution of consequences for an act committed jointly that we propose to alleviate with the Toe Tax.
The tax we propose is quite simple and will be executed as such: when a woman formally declares that a pregnancy is unwanted, she has the right to choose to invoke the “Toe Tax” on the POS who impregnated her. This tax may be invoked at any time during the gestation period. As the POW endures the trauma of labor, the POS will be required to participate in an act of corporeal solidarity by having a toe (of their choice) forcibly removed.
Currently, various dismemberment procedures are being considered. Prevailing literature favors a dull blade, much like that of a child’s ice skate fixed upon the phalange and struck, thus detaching the toe from the body after a fair number of blows. Alternative methods under consideration include dislocation via medical clamps and chisel, a mechanized paper cutter or (our personal favorite) a tiny toe guillotine.
The research being conducted in this field does not come without necessary cost. Even now, researchers at our top universities are working to calibrate and chart the pain that POWs experience during labor to ensure that POSs receive equitable amounts of pain during toe removal. Should the Toe Tax pass, we would recommend that the government provide grants to qualifying academic institutions to research these pain levels, likely using recent graduates as test subjects, who would thereby receive a one-year deferment on their student loans per toe donated.
Potential Objections to the Toe Tax
It is hard to imagine any serious objections to this proposal. Certainly, some POSs may not enjoy having their toe removed, but if they do not like the proposed consequences, they can simply refrain from engaging in unsafe sexual activity.
We expect little to no partisan pushback against the tax itself, as the tax does not favor persons of any particular race, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, age, creed or level of income. Perhaps those who are born with fewer than ten toes are at some disadvantage, and those born with more than ten toes at a small advantage, but so long as there is at least one phalange that can be removed, we believe that we will be able to appropriately counterbalance pain levels—though, of course, if necessary, further fair accommodations could be provided.
Some POSs may object to their partner’s declaration that the pregnancy is unwanted. However, it was pointed out that even if the pregnancy is initially wanted by the POW and/or the POS, as the POW deals with the physical ailments associated with pregnancy, it is certainly possible and entirely reasonable that the POW may reconsider and find the pregnancy undesirable. The POW would still be legally required to bear the physical ramifications of pregnancy—and is, thus, duly entitled to equitable recourse. The same logic applies to pregnancies that occur involving committed, even married, POSs who contribute to an accidental insemination of their partner. These POSs may claim that their continued support should exempt them from the Toe Tax. And, indeed, the POW will have the choice to forgo the implementation of the Toe Tax if the POS is, indeed, supportive; however, since POWs still bear the inequitable mandate to carry the child, they would, again, have a choice available to balance out their generous contribution available at any time.
For those who feel the punishment may not fit the “crime,” keep in mind that the Toe Tax does not wander into judicial jurisdiction. If a true crime, such as rape, is committed, the perpetrator will also face legal ramifications separately. The tax is merely a way of offsetting pain and counterbalancing oppression enacted against POWs. And the POSs should keep in mind that, like pregnancy body, the results of the Toe Tax are not necessarily permanent. The toe will be returned to the POS, carefully wrapped and on ice, as soon as the POW is released from the hospital. Should the POS desire, the toe could be re-attached. Granted, research has shown that persons can live full and functional lives without a toe or two and therefore any reattachment procedures will be considered aesthetic choices and not covered by most insurances.
Perhaps the most serious objections will not come from the POSs but from the POWs. One very legitimate concern is that the Toe Tax does not take into account the changes to the body and hardship of the pregnancy prior to labor. To address that concern, we will ask lawmakers for funding for research into equitable offsets, such as fat injections, which could be administered to the POSs’ midsections in an amount that corresponds to the amount of weight gained during an average pregnancy. Injections could be delivered every time the POW goes in for a doctor’s appointment. We are also considering various methods of inducing nausea, bloating, acid reflux, swollen joints and fatigue—and are committed to finding an offset that will address each of these additional tribulations prior to finalizing the proposal. We welcome further input from the public.
Another potential concern from POWs is that the POS’s pain in losing a toe may not actually be equivalent to the pain that they suffer during labor. This, too, is a valid concern, but one that can be easily addressed. The average labor lasts 8 hours, which is what initial toe removal pain levels will be calibrated to. Thusly, anything up to eight hours we equate to the removal of one toe. Upon the first minute of the ninth hour, a second toe will be removed. Similarly, with the first minute of the seventeenth hour, and so on—not to exceed ten toes. Should the POS run out of toes, a finger may be substituted—as the equivalent of one toe. If a POS, over the course of a (clearly misguided) lifetime loses all ten fingers and toes, toes may be re-attached (without anesthesia, of course) at no cost to the POS, to allow for them to be immediately removed per protocol.
Of course, should the POW die in labor while carrying to term an unwanted pregnancy (a circumstance which many lawmakers have historically insisted happens only in extremely rare circumstances and should not factor heavily into any policy), the POS would naturally be charged with the POW’s death and would be executed immediately.
Now some may point out that the burden of bringing a child into the world does not end at childbirth. Indeed, the primary responsibility of raising the child for the next eighteen years frequently falls upon the very POW who also had to bear the physical burden of bringing the child into the world. This discussion, though incredibly important, is not necessarily within the scope of the Toe Tax proposal, though we would not be surprised if lawmakers seized upon some of the ideas of the Toe Tax to reform our existing policies concerning the enforcement of child support. We leave it to them to hammer out those details.
Naturally, we must address the question of genetically confirming the identification of the POS. Thankfully, recent advances in the field of genetic testing allow us to be quite certain about questions of paternity—and will, of course, be required of any POS suspected of partnering with the POW carrying the unwanted pregnancy until paternity is conclusively proven. Note, of course that this test is no more painful than the ultrasound required of the POW to conclusively prove (or disprove) pregnancy, and is thereby, quite fair. In a functioning society, we would expect to be able to identify paternity in all unwanted cases; however, in the extremely unlikely event that identification does not occur within the nine-month window of a noncriminal pregnancy (perhaps due to twins who have both had intercourse with the same POW), the POS will be classified as “unidentifiable,” and the POWs with unwanted pregnancies may choose to invoke the Toe Tax on a government representative of their choice, who will serve as a surrogate POS.
Perhaps the most complicated situation that may arise as a result of the Toe Tax would occur during an instance in which the Provider of Sperm is a sperm donor. In these cases, all parties involved will sign a Toe Tax waiver which will provide immunity to the sperm donor by classifying the donor as “unidentifiable.” Thus, the POW would, of course, be allowed to select a government representative to serve as a surrogate POS. Since all of these pregnancies begin as wanted pregnancies, the likelihood that the Toe Tax would be invoked is incredibly low, and most likely would only occur in situations of medical emergency. Lawmakers can take comfort in their own assurances that these instances are exceedingly rare.
Additional Benefits
Having addressed the few feeble objections that may be made to this plan, we will now turn our attention to the numerous benefits the Toe Tax would provide, beyond saving millions of unborn lives and ensuring equity between POSs and POWs.
First, we expect that by ensuring that POSs are as physically invested in the consequences of their sexual activity as POWs are, we would have an immediate decline in unwanted pregnancies to begin with. All citizens, whether through abstinence (the most effective method) or through their more rigorous participation in birth control, will have greater interest in contributing to the effort to minimize unwanted pregnancies. Condoms would likely become more comfortable, and side effects of male birth control would likely become more tolerable.
POSs would also benefit personally and psychologically. Any POS who has felt guilty for not supporting an associated POW, would be able to have said guilt assuaged with the whistling swing of a tiny toe guillotine. Any POS who claims to have it “just as bad” as a POW would have scientific evidence to substantiate the claim with a few blows of an ice skate.
Furthermore, we expect this tax would restore some faith and goodwill toward our hardworking lawmakers. So often, they come across as out of touch with the hardships faced by their constituents, but since they would (albeit rarely) be given the opportunity to fill in as surrogate POSs, they would be able to reconnect with the population in an empathetic way. They would also be able to continually evaluate their policies and directly feel their effects. In the very unlikely case that a POW who has chosen a lawmaker as a surrogate POS dies, that lawmaker would be remembered as a martyr to the unborn.
Finally, in eliminating this highly polarized political discussion, we as a country might finally be able to move beyond this unproductive argument and on to other currently neglected matters of the state. It is our hope that, once we stop viewing one another as heartless murderers or ignorant/malevolent oppressors, we might find other creative compromises to such pressing issues as education, immigration, and climate change. And while we don’t necessarily relish seeing all of the moralizing billboards with ultrasound images and heartbeat monitors replaced by moralizing billboards depicting emaciated polar bears and walruses falling off cliffs, we must all recognize the economic benefit that would be provided through the gainful employment of all of those tasked with their replacement.
Conclusion
Once the idea of the Toe Tax occurred to us, we felt almost surprised that we hadn’t thought of it sooner. For too many years, we have sought to overpower our political opponents, when we should have been listening to legitimate concerns. We have turned our positions into defiant battle cries, when we should have approached the matter with humility and understanding. We have judged our opponents arrogantly, when we should have recognized differences in life circumstances and cultural upbringings. At this point, we understand that our society is far too polarized for its members to talk to one another in a nuanced way, which is why the simple logic of this Toe Tax is the perfect way to re-unite our country—the solution is both biblical and scientific. Equitable and pragmatic.
We profess in the sincerity of our hearts that we have no other motive in the writing of this proposal than to solve a national crisis and to avoid speaking of abortion ever again. We are not in the grasp of any tiny guillotine lobbyists, and we have no personal vested interest in the tax. We, after all, being two women married to each other, are at extremely low risk for unwanted pregnancy and are unlikely to directly benefit from the Toe Tax, as neither of us is capable of being a POS.
We simply share this with you because the Toe Tax is the great, equitable solution to the question of abortion that America deserves.
Note: Feel free to share! In fact, we ask you to share! Often! THIS IS A GRASSROOTS MOVEMENT! What better way to stop the endless arguments you encounter on Facebook than to inform the arguers of the TOE TAX! We just ask that you use the original link, as it will help us organize for the cause. LET’S GO, TOE TAX!
