Posted on 08/17/2009 8:12:50 AM PDT by rhema
America's long war over abortion has classically been defined as a struggle between competing rights -- depicted as the right of a woman to have an abortion versus the right of an unborn child to the protection of life. This long-familiar framing of the issue suggests, at the very least, that the rights of women and their unborn children are, or at least they can be, presented as an irresolvable conflict.
From the very beginning, this has been an unsatisfactory approach to the abortion controversy. Those who contend for the sanctity of human life at every stage of development are, by virtue of moral necessity, also concerned with the health, welfare, and well-being of women. The reduction of the abortion question to a matter of "rights" is itself a symptom of our moral confusion.
One of the most insidious aspects of the abortion controversy has been the success of the feminist movement in presenting abortion on demand as a matter central to the liberation of women. The feminist logic suggests that women can never be seen as equal to men in terms of career so long as the "risk" and reality of pregnancy and motherhood are present. As the feminists argue, abortion becomes a mechanism for leveling the playing field and for liberating women.
As far back as the 1970s, at least some feminists saw through this logic. Catherine MacKinnon, a radical feminist legal scholar, argued that legal abortion would merely facilitate the "heterosexual availability" of women. In other words, abortion would be a benefit to men, who would be liberated to take sexual advantage of women, knowing that the availability of legal abortion would effectively remove their risk of the entanglements that would come with pregnancy and parenthood.
MacKinnon is a radical legal theorist whose arguments on both abortion and pornography have been of considerable interest to conservatives for some time. Even as her ideology puts her on the far left of contemporary feminism, her argument that the availability of abortion and pornography is deeply injurious to women offers something of an awkward common ground with conservatives. At the very least, she is noteworthy for seeing what so many of her fellow feminists simply refuse to see.
Writing in the August/September 2009 issue of First Things, Richard Stith argues that the legalization of abortion "was supposed to grant enormous freedom to women, but it has had the perverse result of freeing men and attracting women."
Over 30 years after Roe v. Wade, we now know that abortion "has increased the expectation and frequency of sexual intercourse (including unprotected intercourse) among young people," Stith observes. As he explains, the post-Roe expectation is that a woman now has less justification for refusing the sexual advances of a male. By and large, abortion has liberated men from the fear of parenthood, if not of pregnancy. Beyond this, if the woman with whom they are having sex becomes pregnant, the availability of abortion serves, in the mind of men, to reduce if not to remove their responsibility for fatherhood.
The availability of abortion means, in the thinking of many men, that the entire responsibility for pregnancy and parenthood now falls to women. If a woman refuses to have an abortion, having the baby is simply her "choice." As Stith realizes, this gives many men even more leverage as they demand an abortion as the cost of continuing the relationship. Stith cites a report from the Medical Science Monitor indicating that 64% of American women who have had abortions felt pressure from others to do so.
As Stith explains:
Prior to the legalization of abortion in the United States, it was commonly understood that a man should offer a woman marriage in case of pregnancy, and many did so. Though with the legalization of abortion, men started to feel that they were not responsible for the birth of children and consequently not under any obligation to marry. In gaining the option of abortion, many women have lost the option of marriage.
The Culture of Death often presents itself in terms of liberation. Yet, at every turn, this liberation is actually an enslavement. The availability of legalized abortion has led to the deaths of over 40 million unborn children in the United States alone. Beyond this, it has produced a social catastrophe evident in patterns of female poverty and the abandonment of both women and children by irresponsible males. Furthermore, it has severely weakened the moral protections and obligations that bound men to women and children, effectively allowing men to demand abortion as a means of escaping their responsibility to marry and to take responsibility for their children.
As Richard Stith rightly summarizes, "Elective abortion changes everything." As he explains, "A woman's choice for or against abortion breaks the causal link between conception and birth. It matters little what or who caused conception or whether the male insisted on having unprotected intercourse. It is she alone who finally decides whether the child comes into the world. She is the responsible one. For the first time in history, the father and the doctor and the health-insurance actuary can point a finger at her as the person who allowed an inconvenient human being to come into the world."
The obvious question is this -- how is it that feminists, the abortion industry, and the advocates of abortion rights get away with their claim that abortion liberates women? In truth, the availability of abortion has served to liberate irresponsible men from duty, morality, and responsibility. Of course, the even greater tragedy is the death of unborn children by the millions. Only the Culture of Death would present the slaughter of the innocents as liberation.
We signed our own death warrant (”Government Health Care”) when we legalized abortion.
Very interesting argument. Thank you for posting.
The availability of abortion means, in the thinking of many men, that the entire responsibility for pregnancy and parenthood now falls to women. If a woman refuses to have an abortion, having the baby is simply her "choice." As Stith realizes, this gives many men even more leverage as they demand an abortion as the cost of continuing the relationship.
I aruged these same points years ago during a college debate. It amazed me that so few women understood this reality.
Yes, I’ve been saying this for years. Not that anyone listens.
I have thought along those lines for years.
There’s a men’s rights movement arguing for financial abortions - i.e. a man can opt out of child support during the pregnancy.
Some of them simply want to play for free; some of them are anti-abortion and want to confront the feminists with the logical consequences of the abortion right.
The entire feminist movement is in response to what women see men “getting away with” that they “can’t”.
Instead of requiring men to NOT act like pigs,
the women want to behave in the same way.
What kind of piece of crap man demands a woman abort in order to continue being with them? Even worse, what kind of woman gives into this emotional extortion?
As usual, Dr. Mohler is spot on.
jw
One quibble — using the word “feminist” to describe women in favor of abortion rights. Only “radical feminists” support abortion.
The founding foremothers of feminism — Susan B. Anthony and every single one of her peers — were against abortion, for the reasons outlined in this article.
There is a place for those who agree with the “traditional feminists” that abortion has done nothing to advance the freedom and equality of women in this country.
Actually there are a few places:
www.feministsforlife.org
www.sba-list.org (The Susan B. Anthony List — an answer to Emily’s List)
www.teamsarah.org (Supporters of Sarah Palin)
These organizations are all really making an impact in the abortion debate. Check them out.
The answers to your questions:
1) Liberal men who are liberal in order to not be responsible for their behaviors.
2) Liberal/feminist women who buy into the lies of leftist feminism.
Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man...
Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie...
Absolutely. These so-called "feminists" are turning over total control of their bodies to any man with whom they choose to keep company. I'm amazed that this hasn't been explored in the sociological literature before.
Obviously, conservatives weren’t the ones who framed it in this manner.
The radical feminists had to come up with *something* in order to switch the debate. The fallacy that it somehow empowers women, that it is a “necessary evil” in order for women to have “control” — all of it is a joke.
But we have to help the masses “un-learn” what they have been brain-washed into believing. That fact that groups like Feminists for Life can point to all the original feminists opposition to abortion, and can debunk the fallacies — that throws their arguments out the window, and we can get back to the proper page.
Namely, that the right to life is pre-eminent.
A lot of them.
Amen and ping.
I don’t know why stupid women don’t see that ost abortions are done at the instigation of a man who wants to shirk responsibility. The fact that abortion is legal and available on demand gives the man a sense of entitlement to ask for (and pressure for) abortion — no stigma no shame. Stupid “liberated” women comply.
Amny, many people. At that moment, when the man is rejecting the child, most women don’t want to walk out on him and deal with having the baby on their own. Especially if they are married.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.