Posted on 12/28/2002 10:16:36 AM PST by Woahhs
For the past thirty years abortion advocacy has made its legal stand on a single, popular, concept; women should have the right to choose whether or not to give birth. This concept can similarly be summed up with one wildly successful slogan: my body, my choice. It's a very powerful claim, and has withstood thirty years of strident opposition.
With two generations of women brought up having this doctrine woven into the very fabric of their psyches, there is as much chance of eliminating abortion in America as there is of repealing the Second Amendment, and with similar consequences. The vast majority of the American people have made peace with the idea that human life begins with the first breath, and not before. Many despise this doctrine in word, but accept it in practice.
The pro-choice dogma is a tremendous windfall for unprincipled women. They gain the new privilege of deciding whether or not to accept maternal responsibility while retaining the old prerogative of compelling paternal responsibility, with both options codified into law and supported by the coercive power of the state.
At present there is no mechanism in place to cause women to modify their sexual behavior; which is the ultimate determiner of an unwanted pregnancy in a civilized society. To argue that abortions should be curtailed without accepting some abbreviation of women's current range of choices is to betray the preference of "choice" over "life."
It should be clear to any fair-minded observer, if abortions are to be curtailed through policy, it will be on the basis of a politically popular competing claim rather than a reversal of the existing policy. Furthermore, this competing claim should rest on the very same ideological underpinnings as pro-choice politics, thereby taking advantage of philosophical formulations the pro-choice advocates already approve.
"Choice for Men" is that competing claim. It is nothing less than the full repudiation of paternal responsibilities without willful, legal, acceptance of those responsibilities by the potential father. Of course such a notion will elicit horror and outrage from most women and not a few men, but recognize it is the exact mirror image of what women embraced thirty years ago, and have lived with quite peaceably since.
In very real terms, women have collectively repudiated any responsibility for bearing children unless they choose to, so denying the privilege to men is simple bigotry.
Many pro-life women will oppose "Choice for Men" arguing that it would encourage even more abortions as women who "thought" they would receive aid from the sperm donor learn they must shoulder the responsibility alone.
This is a specious argument. It assumes women should be under no obligation to modify their sexual behavior. Furthermore, it presumes the moral superiority of the woman, completely ignoring instances where the man convinces the woman to reject abortion as an answer.
Finally, putting forth such an argument is the worst sort of philosophical terrorism, because it gives respectability to one who would hold the child's life hostage unless certain demands for security are met.
Sure they do. They just don't have the any measure of control over reproduction that women unilaterally exercise.
Used to be women were at the mercy of men should they became pregnant. Now it is men who have some worrying to do and you don't seem to like it much. In fact, according to your own words, you'd like to see, "women...again be much more discriminating about who and when they have sex.
I'm sure you fail to see the irony in that statement.
howlin banche signed up 2002-12-28.
My grandson-in law was so entranced with his unborn kid, he showed the baby's sonogram picture to everyone. I found that really touching. The baby boy arrived and you couldn't ask for a more involved dad or prouder mom and delighted grandparents.
Is there some reason you can't seem to distinguish between pregnancy and birth?
Men get no say about birth. That they are required for the conception has nothing to do with what happens after that conception.
Women hold the answer. You may not like it, but that doesn't change the facts.
With women who have obtained abortions...
I'm sure you fail to see the irony in that statement.
You can call it irony if you want. I think infanticide for the service of "payback" is closer to monstrosity, but I learned long ago the only real difference between pro-life women and pro-choice women is their view on abortion.
I'd be glad to hear any alternatives you know of...provided they aren't more of the same that has a unbroken thirty year record of failure.
You find something virtuous in obtaining an abortion? Paragons of virtue do not kill their children.
The only compelling claim against abortion in that abortion is the murder of a human being. That is why they call it Pro-life.
To approach this holocaust from your perspective is to further deny the truth that this is all about life support ... life support from a woman's body, life support from a society (that has chosen killing of the innocent as less expensive than paying for life support), and life support from the males who've opted to have sex with the potential of bringing a new individual life into existence.
I mention it because he/she has chosen a moniker that is a variation of your own.
Just thought I'd brighten your day :)
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.