ABSOLUTE POWER: What "Pro-Choice" Is Really All About: Answers, Abortion, Fatherhood

For a long time it baffled me. To be specific, it baffled me from the first time I heard what exactly an abortion is - I must have been 10 or 11 years old - till last week. I could never ever, for the life of me, no matter how hard I stretched my imagination or suspended my moral judgment, understand why anyone would want to be pro-choice.

I could get the "pro-life-for-me-but-not-anyone-else" point of view, I could conceive (ha!) of the "government-shouldn't-legislate-morality" perspective, I could even sympathize with the "our-country-isn't-there-yet" argument.

But I just couldn't figure out why anyone in her right mind would say that abortion is a right that all women should, must, and ought to have in order to be truly free in a just and democratic society, and thus all other rights should bow before it.

What does the dismembering of fetuses (if you insist on calling them that) have to do with justice and democracy?

And so it was that I spent lo these many years of my life assuming that pro-choice activists either have some sort of inexplicable blood lust, or live in perpetual denial of reality.

But this past week I finally got it. I don't know how they managed to communicate their message so poorly all along that it took me nearly a decade and a half. This is it: when it comes right down to it, pro-choice activists are not talking about fetuses at all.

They're talking about fear. They fear a future in which men control the bodies, lives and futures of women. And that's why we've been talking past each other all this time.

I first began to see the light (so to speak) about two months ago, talking to my old friend Catherine. Catherine does not hesitate to express her opinions or launch the conversation into dangerous topics. We started with capital punishment, and from there it was a short leap to her fears for women during the new presidential regime.

Choice will be taken away, she said, and you know what follows from that. Men impregnating women, keeping them home, beating them up, destroying their career chances, abandoning the infants, children starving on the streets, and the final re-institution of the 1950s.

I was, needless to say, somewhat stunned by the course of her logic. You think we'll get a better world by killing the children? I said.

You think anyone will care to look for solutions to economic and domestic problems when they can just knock off the main players in the drama?

Around and around the debate went. It expanded and contracted and went nowhere. At least we trusted each other to say what we really thought, no small accomplishment in the discussion of this particular issue, but by the end we had to admit that we'd reached a standstill and we might as well quit. (Ironically enough, afterwards Catherine went on to say that she thought our society was hostile to rounded female bodies because it fears fertility in women, and isn't that atrocious?)

The conversation percolated quietly in my brain until this past Thursday, when I went to a public debate on abortion policy over at Princeton University. The main draw: Peter Singer, notorious Australian "bioethicist" who is famous for advocating such things as bestiality and infanticide (the former only if it is mutually pleasurable, the latter presumably not).

His arguments were surprisingly unpersuasive, for they relied upon vegetarianism (?!). The really interesting speaker, in fact, was a student at the university, joining her illustrious colleague on the pro-choice panel.

She spoke very fast and very passionately, and as far as I could tell she only contradicted herself once. But there was this phrase that she kept repeating: "an incubator of the state."

It was her tag line, her emotional hot button, and every time she said it you couldn't help but have a little thrill of 1984-ish horror run up and down your spine. Bearing babies for Uncle Sam? Kitchen, children and church, like Hitler used to say? My uterus a public utility?

What could be more grotesquely offensive to my sensibilities - all of them, as a woman, as a Christian, as an American, as a modern (or even postmodern) - than that? I'm not an incubator of the state, no way.

It took a little while to snap out of the haze she had cast over the crowd. Pro-lifers are certainly not advocating incubation for the state; the phrase misses our point entirely. In the meanwhile, though, I had missed hers too. It took some reflection to get it. She really feared, like Catherine, that some nameless faceless bureaucrats out there (probably men) had it in for her, wanted to punish her for being a woman, being fertile, being (worst of all) sexually active outside of chaste Christian marriage.

She thought that that is what the pro-life side is all about, and she saw her life and future and career and hopes and dreams all threatened.

For her, it's not about life, or babies, or responsibility, or sacrifice. It's all about control. Who's going to control my body, me or the nameless faceless state?

The question is, who's got the better grasp on reality? What is this really all about? Is it about saving the lives of innocent babies, or is it about keeping adult women under control?

By sheer coincidence (God's way of remaining anonymous, as the old French proverb goes), the very next day I stumbled across a novel in the library called The Handmaid's Tale, by Margaret Atwood, copyright 1986. It's a movie now too, I guess, and I must have heard the name tossed about on the breeze, so I thought I should read it, ignoring the three 20-page papers I have due in less than a month.

It's a story of a theocracy in not-so-far-distant America, renamed the Republic of Gilead, run by nasty men who take some stuff in Genesis as prescriptive rather than descriptive. Women are divided into their three (and only) functions: Wives, who look pretty and with some luck bear sons, Handmaids who bear sons (for Wives who can't) but do nothing else, and Marthas who cook and clean. They lead regimented lives, every step and bite and word under scrutiny, but men come and go as they please.

Women who perform all three functions, for poorer men, are disdainfully called Econowives. All marriages are arranged and pleasurable sex is permitted only with prostitutes (called Jezebels, of course). Procreating is the only goal in life for women. Love is not a factor. Women who fail in their appointed duties are sent to clean up toxic waste in the Colonies; they only last a couple years, at most.

The moral of the story is not too hard to figure. Men must not control female sexuality, but they obviously want to. Abortion must stay legal. Love must stay free, marriage breakable.

If not, we will have social totalitarianism upon us, and all the progress of the past 40 years will be swallowed up by another interminable reign of the uterus. It's a well-told story, and properly terrifying. Imagine having my books, my school, my tank tops taken away! Imagine having my Bible turned into an instrument of torture! No, I don't want that either.

It clicked, finally. When I as a pro-life woman am talking to another woman who is pro-choice, we are not talking about the same thing. I am talking about my horror that the most vulnerable humans in our country are being slaughtered at the rate of 4,400 a day because they can't be paid for, because the boyfriend doesn't want that, because social disapproval has overcome the mother, because fear is the number one motivating factor. But she is talking about her horror that her education might be ended, her rights revoked, her career squelched, all because she has chosen to have sex with a man and nature has taken its course, or worse yet she has been raped by a man and nature has taken its course, and someone out there had decided to punish her for violating their morality.

We're not talking about the same thing. No wonder we can't understand each other. No wonder we can't persuade each other.

As a matter of fact, though, she raises some good questions. Is the pro-life side always motivated purely out of love for the unborn child? You don't need to go to the extreme of abortion clinic bombers to find exceptions to what should be the rule.

Pro-lifers often have strong feelings about chastity and sexual responsibility. Is there a certain amount of satisfaction in the thought that these women are being disproved in their casual sexuality? Or that single irresponsible men are being brought to account for their own wanton behavior?

Or that sex is manifestly not just about having a good time? Is there even a hint of that in there?

I'll tell you right now: that has to go. Not one of us is one hundred percent chaste in word and deed and it is not our business to judge. Life judges harshly enough as it is. Single mothers are the heroes of our time for not taking the easy way out, and we ought to be telling them that. We ought not to be moralistically informing the world that sex has its consequences and they should've seen it coming. They're smart enough to figure that out for themselves. And it shows very little love for people in situations of genuine personal distress.

But I have some questions for my pro-choice friend too. Who does she think is out to get her? Does she really imagine a conspiracy of control-freak middle-aged white upper-middle-class corporate men who want to turn her body into another profit-churning manufacturing plant?

In this prosperous job market, are they really out for her career and her job power? Do they really see her as a machine whose main purpose is to produce babies? I think it's fair to say that her enemies, in this society and at this time, are far more interested in her not producing babies - inconvenient, demanding, messy things that they are. The man most interested in her sexuality is the one who can profit from it without any cost to himself, and he's the one who'll keep her pigeonholed, as non-wife non-mother non-commitment, by his true commitment to abortion availability.

The sad irony for my pro-choice friend is that the abortion regime is far more likely to produce men indifferent or hostile to women than one in which love, marriage and children - the package deal - is given the highest priority.

An honest assessment of sexual dynamics in this country is in order. It is bizarre that possibly 50 percent of marriages fail. It is bizarre that so many abortions are deemed necessary. It is bizarre that pregnancy has been logically disconnected from sex. It is bizarre that broken relationships are the standard experience of modern people. It is bizarre that commitment seems irrational. It is bizarre that is so hard for young folks to fall in love, promise themselves to each other, get married and stick it out.

You've got to wonder about a society when the most natural thing in the world has been turned into the most unnaturally difficult thing in the world.

Enmity has been there between men and women since the beginning of time and shows no signs of abating. There is only one place where a man and a woman can really come to terms with each other, without the games, without the hostility, without the pretense and without the clothes. That is in marriage, operated on trust, and formed in love. Falling in love is the only thing that softens otherwise calculating and manipulative creatures; staying in love, loving willfully and deliberately and permanently against all the odds, is the only way to keep the enmity at bay. This is how men stop seeing women as meat, objects, possessions, trinkets, subplots; this is how women stop distrusting, deceiving and wheedling for power that they physically don't have.

A woman is in the hospital for complications with her pregnancy. The doctor tells her that if she gives birth to this baby, she will die. So the woman has two choices. She can kill her baby and live or she can give birth and die.
What does she do?

The doctor delivers the baby by Ceasarean section and tries his best to keep BOTH mother and baby alive. There are very few instances in this day of advanced medicine where both cannot be saved.

This has been the red herring for the partial birth abortion crowd; what if there is an emergency? The answer to that is, you don't do a partial birth abortion unless you want a dead baby. Partial birth abortion takes time because a laminaria has to be inserted in order to expand the cervix; this takes several hours. In the event of a REAL emergency, no doctor is going wait that long. The mother would be in the operating room in a New York minute and the baby would be delivered. Of course, this would be a LIVE baby!

The Caring Foundation did a survey a few years ago and found just the sentiment that this article mentions. When presented with the three choices of abortion, adoption and childbirth, many young women chose abortion. They did not want to lose control of their bodies. Adoption didn't fare well because they didn't like the thought of a child of theirs floating around somewhere and not know how it was. They would rather kill it than wonder about it. That is just a SICK sentiment, but one that has been fed by popular culture since even before 1973. After all, the people had to be 'softened up' to support abortion before it became legal. Sitcoms such as 'Maude' presented it as a 'hard' but necessary 'choice' for some. So when abortion laws were struck down by Roe v. Wade, it was just a short jump from muted accepteance to full throated support. Most people don't think about it until confronted with the situation, and are willing to take the easiest and less socially messy way out.

Until society does get back to connecting sex with procreation, and young women TRULY take control of their bodies, we'll continue to have this attitude of 'my body, my choice'.

I thought that this was a very well-reasoned, well-explained article on the differences between pro-life women and pro-choice women. You hit the nail on the head: it is about fear. And the part about men is right on the money as well -- more men are pro-abortion than women. The fear they have of being tied down "forever" just because they had a little recreational sex is a very real fear.

I also agree about the perceptions that we in the pro-life movement are too judgemental, too accusatory, "see, I told you so!" when a woman has sex and gets pregnant. We need to support these women so they have the structure to keep or give their baby up for adoption. The "easy" solution of abortion will end in pain and heartache for the would-be mother, but it might take years to realize the empty spot in her heart is a black mark on her soul, and it is harder to forgive yourself for your sins than it is to ask God for forgiveness.

Well, my next statement is going to keep me in trouble with the sisters. Pregnancy, when it all boils down, is on the woman. A man can not, under any circumstance, get pregnant. True but men ARE fathers. And there is another 18 years after pregnancy to consider. In short, you put too much emphasis on pregnancy and fail to account for the TWO people who create that state. YOUR attitude is why we have abortion.

Therefore, the ultimate answer lies (no pun intended) with the woman.

No it does not. But if you insist on making it so, we will continue to have abortion. YOUR attitude is why we have abortion.

I'm not excusing irresponsible men,

Yes, you are. That is exactly what you are doing. And that is exactly what you are intentionally doing. But you knew that. If a woman truly does not seek to get pregnant, she can either decline to have sex, or, take every means possible to thwart it.

And if a man doesn't want to be a father to a child he co-created, he can do exactly the same. We're not talking about pregnancy, pregnancy lasts only 9 months, (thats 4% of a childs life from conception to age 18). What you are doing is putting the onus on the woman to be Un-pregnant as a prevention for a child existing. That attitude leads directly to... you guessed it... abortion. She can demand that the man wear a condom or say, "Nope. No nookie for you!"

Typical. Where is the man's responsibility? Oh I know, it is Mommy telling him what to do. Do men not have free will? Can he not think for himself and take responsibilty for his actions. Apparently not. Your attitude is that men are little children who must always have a "mommy" to blame for not restricting him. You need your mommy don't you?

When o when will some men act like men and not whiney little boys?

She can take birth control pills. If her body's hormones won't tolerate birth control pills, she can get an IUD. She can also use spermicidal products. The man can do this as well (prophylactics), but he's not the one who will get the pot belly. The woman will!

The man can get a vasectomy and he can wear a condom (without being asked). And believe me, I see plenty of men with pot bellies! (That was a cheep shot showing just how much regard you have for women).

YOUR attitude is why we have abortion.

Okay, now the gloves have come off, and all chivalry is thrown out the window.

IT'S MY FAULT? I'm a 30 year old, married man. I've been married for five years. My wife and I have not had children yet. Now, before I got married, and I'll admit it for what it's worth, I had more women than I care to remember. Yet, I NEVER impregnated one woman in my life. Not one.

It's my fault? It's MY attitude?

Coming out of the inner-city, I knew that outside of drug dealing, the only other sure way for me not to make it out of the 'hood was to get a woman pregnant. Therefore, I didn't.

It's my fault?

It's my attitude?

Who carries the baby? The woman. Who can get pregnant? The woman. The ultimate solution for a woman not getting pregnant is on who? The woman. Did I mention it is the woman who is the only one who gets pregnant? Yeah, I thought I did.

Now, for those men out there who are nothing more than sperm donors, I blame them for their practices. But let's be totally honest here. How many men are going to refuse a woman who spreads her legs, huh? How many? Therefore, the woman must not be STUPID enough to lie down with just any man! Yeah, I said it, and I'll say it again. I've come across tons and tons of STUPID WOMEN. Them there is the facts, like them or not.

Another thing, donating the sperm that fertilizes an egg does NOT make a man a father. It makes him a "baby's daddy," but it for damn sure doesn't make him a father. There's a huge difference. Though I am a stepfather, I am the definition of a FATHER. I may as well have sired him myself. His biological father dropped the ball big time, and I made up the difference. If I'm that dedicated to a seed that is not mine, how much more will I be to the seed that comes from my loins?

It's my fault? It's my attitude?

You better take that poppycock nonsense somewhere else. It doesn't fly here.

YOUR attitude is why we have abortion. You have the exact same attitude as pro-Choice, it's the woman's body the woman's choice. You get what you ask for.

Regardless of how you conduct your personal life you are supporting an attidue which ultimately places the responsiblity on women to prevent conception. Conception is the issue, not pregnancy. It takes TWO to initiate conception, it only taks one to sustain it. Therefore, by making pregnancy the issue, you are promoting abortion as the solution.

Your focus is twisted. When there is a pregnancy, IT IS TOO LATE to talk about blame. By focussing solely on the biological state of being pregnant, you have virtually ensured that the solutions will always be "after the fact" and exclude men ... which is what you want.

The correct focus is on preventing conception. And that involves TWO people, one male, one female. The reason you don't like that is because you're male and you wish to ensure your gender, at the end of the day, ultimately, has ZERO accountability in pro-creation and its consequences. you are valiantly defending the status quo "male exemption" option ... which is how we got to where we are today with abortion.

Pregnancy does not just happen by magic. It is a natural oucome of sex, then conception. The ony way to prevent "pregnancy" which YOU identify as "the problem" is to prevent conception. And since it takes TWO to concieve, the onus is on both to prevent. Any after-the-fact solutions are just that, after-the-fact. None of them are good. Prevention is the only way.

Yes, women sustain a conception and the result is a child. But we are ALL responsible for that child in the event of default of one or both parents. If not then what? Infanticide? Is that the preferable option to requiring BOTH parents be responsible to their offspring?

Apparently your only interest is to demonize (who knows maybe even criminilize) pregnancy. Anything to avoid the discussion of equal participation in conception. We must avoid that discussion at all costs right? You know what, demonizing women and pregnancy doesn't work. That's how we got abortion in the numbers we have today.

What YOUR attitude does is attempt to ultimately wash men's hands of ALL responsibilty in sex and its consequences by demoninzing pregnancy ... this is why we have abortion. You asked for it, you got it. There is no better reason to render oneselef un-pregnant, except to avoid being demonized by people like you. Ergo, abortion becomes the law of the land. Problem solved. You should be happy.

Now, for those men out there who are nothing more than sperm donors, I blame them for their practices. But let's be totally honest here. How many men are going to refuse a woman who spreads her legs, huh? How many?

Yadda yadda yadda. This is the classic "boys will be boys" attitude. You know what? Fine. Let's allow it. Men don't have to do a g@ddam thing, OK? And to be equal we'll also allow the "girls will be girls" attitude. Women don't have to be responsible either. Nobody has to be responsible for anything they do. There, happy now? Hope you like paying taxes for welfare and prisons, hope you like high crime rates.

What I'd like to know is when did the Conservative mantra of "personal responsibility" exempt men? I've come across tons and tons of STUPID WOMEN.

So what? There are an equal number of stupid men. You better take that poppycock nonsense somewhere else.

Oh really? Make me.

It boils down to... at the end of the day... you don't think men should be held accountable for their actions. Oh you think it would be nice if they were responsible, if they feel like it, but in the end you don't really think they have to be and you don't support making them accountable do you?

Since it takes two to make a child, it is unfair to make only one party accountable. That attitude is unfair and inequitable and it leads precisely to the situation we are facing now ... abortion.

Gee, thanks for trying to patch things up. :-)

I don't think he is blaming women per se, I think he is stating that it is foolish to trust someone who can escape the responsibility of raising a child easier than you can.

Well, I don't accept that men can "escape" the responsibility easier than women can. This is a primary reason why we have abortion. People have just "accepted" that women will be penalized for having kids and men will not be penalized. We don't have to accept this. I reject this premis in its entirety.

Many women have abortions NOT to escape pregnancy but rather to escape the completely arbitrary inequity in our system AFTER the child is born. In short, we punish women who choose not to abort, we punish children for being born. Which creates an incentive TO abort.

We need to create disincentives to abortion. Demonizing pregnancy doesn't do this. It does the opposite. Maintaining inequity in child responsibility after birth doesn't do this either. It does the opposite.

At the same time we need to create disincentives to irresponsibly pro-create. This implies PREVENTION not after the fact accusations, which get us nowhere.

As far as the sentiments proposed here, I think there are many men, even many pro-Life men, who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo inequity between women who procreate and men who pro-create. As long as this is the case, abortion will prevail.

I think this is what the thread starter article was trying to say.

Relax guys. Arguing about "Who flung poo" is what the feminist enablers of abortion and single-motherhood want us to do. When a Marxist inspired movement, aided and abetted by the legal profession and a federal government juggernaut set out to "help" women to raise their children without the benefit of husbands or fathers, the natural result is that husbands and fathers become the detritus of society. The majority of women now behave as if men don't matter, men are responding as if the women are right. Fatherlessness is the norm now, the "nuclear families" are now the exception. Fox News reported the other night that 60% of all American children now live without a father in the home.
God help us all.
Here's what happened.

I'm guessing that the author is a twenty-something fresh out of a university, her brain freshly washed. Making heroes of people for simply doing the right thing says that good morals have become optional. I would argue that single mothers - not married women - are the true "incubators for the state." What other assumption can we make when they and their babies - via massive income and childcare subsidies - become virtual wards of the state? Married working mothers fit into the same boat, for it would be unprofitable for them to abandon their babies if the government didn't credit their tax bill for the cost of child care and exempt them from the marriage tax penalty (with which families with stay-at-home moms are still saddled). The government is actively and consciously working to replace the family as the anchor in people's lives. This can only be accomplished by ensuring that the institution of fatherhood is abolished.
The author is desperate to fit into the world of her liberal "pro-choice" friends without compromising her belief that abortion is murder. She wants to make abortion about bad relationships and the whims of selfish men freed from the bonds of fatherhood. In other words, she wants to be a feminist without getting the blood of murdered babies on her hands. I ain't buying it. She seems to have bought the lie that abortion would become anathema if not for men behaving badly.
I'm not in a kind mood, so I won't praise a pro-life article when its aim is to assuage the guilt of women who kill their babies in the womb. I won't comment favorably on a an article that laments the demise of fatherhood while praising single mothers.
The author needs to grow up and come down from the fence. She's either pro-life and pro-family, or she's not. The middle ground is the most fertile for the pro-choice crowd. The screaming radical feminists who praise abortion as a sacrament aren't running around the ones getting themselves knocked up, it's the one's in the middle, the one's looking for guidance, the one's who were never told that the other half of their choice is to love their baby and love their baby's father.
Love is the true choice.

I would argue that single mothers - not married women - are the true "incubators for the state." What other assumption can we make when they and their babies - via massive income and childcare subsidies - become virtual wards of the state?

This attitude is one-sided demonizing unmarried "single mothers" without mentioning the other component, unmarried "single fathers". Why are we so busy one-sided demonizing single mothers. These are the women who DID NOT abort! We need to be clear about the options here. The options to abortion are:

1. Men and women should prevent co-creating children they cannot both support and sustain.
2. Failing that men and women should step up to the plate and be accountable for the child they co-created and do the best they can. When people make mistakes we should help them to not compound that mistake with abortion. One-sided demonizing of women, especially those who do make the better choice and don't abort, doesn't do this.

If we demonize "single mothers" we are aiding and abetting abortion. We are actually PROMOTING abortion!

Married working mothers fit into the same boat, for it would be unprofitable for them to abandon their babies if the government didn't credit their tax bill for the cost of child care and exempt them from the marriage tax penalty (with which families with stay-at-home moms are still saddled).

I agree tax policies should be revised so as not to penalize one-income families. However, I don't agree with demonizing working mothers in two income families. This attitude actually works to PROMOTE abortion.

Let's keep our eye on the ball. The goal is to reduce/eliminate abortion. Demononizing the women who DON'T ABORT is counterproductive to this goal.

She wants to make abortion about bad relationships and the whims of selfish men freed from the bonds of fatherhood. In other words, she wants to be a feminist without getting the blood of murdered babies on her hands.

I didn't get that from her article. However, I do believe many pro-Life men wish to wash the blood of abortion completely off men's hands. This is completely wrong. Men ARE involved in abortion and ARE complicit in abortion. Studies have shown that 85% of men are actively involved in the decision to abort. In addition it is reasonable to conclude that men influence the decision to abort or not abort by making their intentions toward the child known. Men are an intergral part of the decision making process in abortion and in the state of families. Making it out to be one-sided doesn't cut it.

In addition, Roe v. Wade could never have become law and could not remain the law of the land without the active participation of men.

In addition we have set up our social/political/economic systems so that when two people co-conceive, only one of them will be "punished" by society after the child is born (in addition to punishing the child). This inequity between men and women who pro-create must be adressed for abortion to be reduced. The practical effect of inequity in pro-creation is increased abortion.

Love is the true choice.

I agree. But love is not one sided. We must love women enough to say to them: "If you co-conceive you will not be treated unequally and unfairly relative to the other co-conceivor." On the other hand, if we tell women who pro-create they are worth less than men who pro-create, the result will be abortion.

Nowhere in your arguments did you explain where the government subsidies and social support structures exist for single fathers or divorced men. Men of low to middle incomes simply can't compete with the regular monthly paychecks and free daycare guaranteed to women who bear their children. Men of middle to high income can't compete with a Family Court system that guarantees a woman custody of the kids and monthly support checks if she becomes the least bit disgruntled in her marriage. Women know this. The feminist social agencies who flat out tell women that they "don't need a man" to survive know this. To point out that these subsidies exist solely to prop up a feminist industry and buttress political support of big "Daddy State" government is not to demonize single mothers. It's to demonize the Marxist feminist social welfare system and the scum liberals who use it to gain political power.
And I simply don't buy the argument that liberal social welfare policies encouraging single motherhood abate the proliferation of abortions. If that were true, we would have seen abortions decrease in number throughout the late 20th century rather than skyrocket.
The answer isn't to wag our fingers at men for whom there is no place in the family, or even at the selfish women who get abortions or take government handouts rather than make a home with a man. The answer is to shut down the thriving government social engineering juggernaut that has fed the abortion holocaust and the elimination of the husband and father from the family equation.

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.