For these reasons, I cringe every time I hear some pro-choice advocate say something like, “I support a woman’s right to choose.” What the heck is the “right to choose” anyway? The right to choose what? What to have for breakfast? Where to work? What?

It’s funny that the pro-choicers will never even say the word “abortion.” And why not? Is there something about the word that makes it hard to pronounce? Is it a term that people do not understand? No, it’s just that “abortion” is an ugly word that describes a brutal and ugly procedure. On the other hand, “a woman’s right to choose” is something with which everyone can agree. Of course people will support a woman’s right to choose.

People do not want to support something as controversial as “abortion.” It is much easier to support “a woman’s right to choose.” Hence, the pro-choicers and feminists avoid the word “abortion” at all costs. They also avoid terms such as baby, child, and person, lest anyone get the idea that “a woman’s right to choose” involves any of these things, opting instead for terms such as “fetus” and “tissue mass.”

The use of language in these ways struck me recently when I again heard the term “deadbeat dad.” Is there anyone in this country who doesn’t hate that awful, low-down scoundrel, the deadbeat dad? Virtually everyone is in agreement that these men should be held accountable for their actions in creating another human life. There is also universal agreement that these men are bad people. Nearly every state has statutes that specifically target these ne’er-do-wells, and the moral outrage is equally as strong. However, with some organization and a slick new image campaign, I am sure that these deadbeat dads can turn the tide of public criticism into support for their position. They should be able to fare at least as well as the pro-choicers have.

To begin with, we need to figure out what a deadbeat dad is. A “deadbeat dad” is merely a biological father who has chosen not to financially support his offspring. What is so horrible about that? So the kid’s father didn’t buy him some food, diapers or the GI Joe with the kung-fu grip—so what? Compared to what the pro-choice feminists are getting away with, the average deadbeat dad’s behavior is commendable, even laudable. For instance, when a pro-choice feminist kills her unwanted baby, she is seen as merely exercising her “right to choose.” However, when a man decides he no longer wants to blow his paycheck supporting his baby, he is labeled a deadbeat dad. It’s just not fair. At least he didn’t kill the child. Which is worse – murder, or withdrawal of financial support? Why aren’t mothers who abort labeled “murderous moms” or some other such moniker?

What these men need to do is manipulate the language to work in their favor. They should not stand idly by and allow themselves to be labeled “deadbeat dads.” What they should do is create the impression that they are simply exercising their God-given, or even—dare I say—constitutional “right to choose.” It need not be more defined than that. (In fact, it is best left vague.) For who can argue with “a man’s right to choose?” If these men play their cards right, they can be seen as heroes rather than villains.

They should argue that since women have nine months in which to make up their minds whether or not to let their babies live, it is only fair that men should have nine months following the child’s birth to determine whether or not he feels up to supporting it. And women should not be heard to complain. At least the male version of the “right to choose,” unlike the female version, doesn’t involve ending a human life. Moreover, because men have no input in a woman’s decision whether to have an abortion, women should have no input into whether a father supports his child. Right now, if a father doesn’t want a mother to kill his unborn child, that’s too bad. He can’t stop her – it is her “right to choose.” In the same way, then, the woman should not be allowed to sue for child support once the father decides that he doesn’t want to support the child – this is his “right to choose.” Who can argue against Equal Opportunity Choice?

In their campaign for equality, these deadbeat dads should avoid the words “children,” “child” and “kid;” and instead speak in terms of “post-partum tissue masses,” and “non-self-sustaining life units.” That will make it easier for people to support their position. After all, nobody wants to support the idea of abandoning children. However, if it is couched in terms of simply withdrawing support from a blob of tissue, people will be much more comfortable with the idea.

This is an issue men can win. Perhaps one day, presidential candidates, when asked the question, “What do you think of the problem of children not having enough – fill in the blank -- food, clothes, shelter or whatever” will respond solemnly, “I support a man’s right to choose.”

I can imagine it now. The candidate may become really animated and wave his arms, shouting, “Why should woman be allowed to choose when men aren’t? In this age of equality, surely we will not deny these men their basic rights?” The candidate will promise that he will always hold to his principles when it involves a “man’s right to choose.” He (or she) will say “The decision of whether or not to financially support a child is an intensely personal decision that should be between a man, his God, and his accountant. I for one will fight to keep it that way.” The candidate will then end his speech promising to appoint to the Supreme Court only judges who share his view that a man’s right to choose is at least as important as oxygen and sliced bread.