Right to Choice vs. Choice for Men

Woahhs

[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.

[Woahhs]

The only compelling claim against abortion in that abortion is the murder of a human being. That is why they call it Pro-life.

Then obviously you are content with the status quo.

I am not.

[Woahhs]

A lot of our current laws have "slut protection act" clauses and subparts. We'll have a better country when sluttish behavior is abjured and societally punished as it should be. ------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think it's safe to say neither the abjuration, nor the societal punishment will be forthcoming until women re-institute it in their own self-interest.

[Woahhs]

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.

Yes it is.

Unfortunately, the "living being" paradigm (to which I subscribe whole-heartedly) has been rejected catagorically by popular culture. In our country, popular culture equals popular support, and popular support equals political power.

We need to find a back-door that will enlist the support of the morally neutered if we are to prevail through policy initiatives. Recognize the easy way will always be the most popular, so we need a policy that will be easy on the surface, but carry within non-obvious implications to effect the changes we want.

No one ever dreamed RICO laws would be used against the free speech of pro-life protesters when those laws were written. Pro-choice dogma carries within itself the seeds of its own destruction if we will only nurture them shrewdly.

[Jeff Gordon]

..obviously you are content with the status quo.

No. I am not satisfied with the status quo; however, Hijacking the Pro-life movement for misogynic purposes will do nothing to improve the status quo.

[Woahhs]

No. I am not satisfied with the status quo

Then where and what is your distinction to prove your difference?

Are you sure your not a woman? That calling it "hi-jacking the Pro-life movement" when it's obviously hi-jacking the Pro-choice movement is a very "woman" thing.

And as for "doing nothing to improve the status quo"; like vouchers won't improve education?

[crystalk]

This whole thread is fundamentally dishonest.

In just how many relationships or whatever you call them today, do men have ANY say or any real role at all. The women grab onto them, tell them what they are to do, and call the police if they try to object.

Men should claim to have AIDS, have a vasectomy, be sterile, be gay, be impotent, surgically castrated or missing their penis due to a war injury or a botched circumcision.

Anything to get them to pick on somebody else.

[crystalk]

There will always be far more babies conceived in the world than there are any resources to bring them up, anybody to care for them-- even if MONEY were available, there is just nobody with the time to put into them.

Under such conditions, abortion may HAVE to be quite common, despite its being immoral and wrong.

Last year again, about 28% of all conceptions in the USA ended in an abortion.

[Woahhs]

one side invests a monthly support payment vs. the other side's 24X7 care giving, I'd say one side has more invested that the other. The greater the investment, the greater the say.

Now that all depends on the burden of the monthly support payment vs. the quality of the supposed 24x7 care doesn't it? In practice, the support payment is absolutely nothing but a supplemental income for the mother to do with as she sees fit.

[Woahhs]

If you can't afford to pay for a child for 18 years, you have no right to force the unwitting "father" to do so.

It took awhile for this statement to sink in with me, but on reflection it's a very astute observation.

What keeps the abortion trade in business is the "bait and switch" tactics promoted by women in general. It's all about who gives birth if they want to justify abortion; it's all about who causes pregnancy if they want to justify paternal extortion.

[Woahhs]

Would you mind contributing some of your insights in opposition to the prevailing gyno-centric presumptions about "fatherhood."

[robertpaulsen]

24/7? If only that were true, these women wouldn't have the time (or the inclination) to go back out partying and having a second, third, and fourth child.

I say give the monthly support payment directly to the grandmother. She's the one raising the child.

[babyface00]

Lets get rid of some of the peripheral issues.

1) We're only talking about consensual sex, not rape or incest

2) We're only talking about sex outside of marriage.

3) We're not considering birth control that is used, but failed.

4) We're not talking about two minors (if one party is a minor, then, again it is rape and a separate issue)

Let's also consider the current realities:

1) Birth control for women is widely and near freely available

2) Birth control for men is also available

3) Abortion is currently legal

So we have a situation where consensual sex between adults no longer has to result in pregnancy, and pregnancy no longer has to result in childbirth (lets set aside the morality of abortion for a moment)

I'd argue also, that the woman has near total control over this situation, both legally and actually:

- Women have the ultimate say over whether sex will or will not occur (rape laws codify this), they also have near total control over whether birth control is thus used.
- While it is obvious when a man is using a condom, men only have the woman's word if she says she is on the pill.
- Women currently have total control over having an abortion

I guess we have two distinct situations:

1) Two adults have consensual sex, both are aware that no birth control is being used.

2) Two adults have consenual sex, the man thinks the woman's on the pill, but she isn't.

Pregnancy results.

The current situation, in both cases, is that the woman has total control over the pregnancy - she can legally kill the baby before birth, or she can carry to term. The man has no say here and, if she decides to carry to term, she can legally compel him to financially raise the child.

The question is:

In case 1, where both adults were aware of the risk, shouldn't both adults have some say in the outcome?

In case 2, where the man was not aware of the risk, should he also have the same responsibility? Should he not have a say in the outcome, even moreso than in case 1?

There are four separate pieces here:

a) The morality of terminating the pregnancy, regardless of its legal status (one or both may feel it is immoral)
b) The "pain and suffering" the woman will experience in carrying to term for nine months
c) 18 years of financial support by the father
d) 18 years of child raising by the mother

The original post is arguing that the father should have some say in the result of the pregnancy and in supporting the child.

How about the following:

Both parents have a say in the result of the pregnancy. Because the mother has to carry the child to term, her say is weighted more in case 1 (both parties consented) and equal in case 2 (the man was duped).

So, if both parties agree to terminate the pregnancy, there's no legal problem.

Also, if both parties agree to carry to term, they both agree to support the child.

In case 1, if the man wants the child, and the woman doesn't then, the woman's decision wins, unless they can reach some arrangement to reimburse her for the pain and suffering of carrying to term.

In case 1, if the woman wants the child, and the man doesn't, he's out of the picture.

In case 2, their decisions have equal weight, but if either wants the child, the child is born.

However, in both cases, if there is no agreement, whichever party wanted the child gets sole custody and sole support responsibility. The other is out of the picture.

This seems fair to me. Neither party is compelled to do anything against their wishes, at least not without compensation. Codify this, and I'll bet pregnancies will drop dramatically, and so will abortions.

[Jeff Gordon]

The "Pro-choice" label is a Strawman created to divert people's attention from the fact that abortion is murder. The whole purpose of a Strawman is to get people to debate the Strawman rather than the real issue. You are falling for the ploy in a very big way with "Choice for men."

Abortion is murder.

Pro-choice simply means that women have the choice to murder the human life that they have been intrusted with. Focus man. Focus.

[Woahhs]

You are falling for the ploy in a very big way with "Choice for men." Abortion is murder. Pro-choice simply means that women have the choice to murder the human life that they have been intrusted with. Focus man. Focus.

And you're missing the forrest for the trees friend. Life is full of injustices. One of those injustices is the same moral indifference exhibited by WW II Germans. As long as you can't rub their noses in it, they'll act like it doesn't exist. It's time for Jeremiah to give way to Joshua.

[MHGinTN]

BTTT for later reading

[MHGinTN]

There will always be far more babies conceived in the world than there are any resources to bring them up ... I am working to contradict your assertion. Perhaps by the end of my granddaughter's generation, your assertion will be obsolete and proven wrong.

[SCalGal]

And don't forget - single mothers are the most evil of all.

[Howlin]

I mention it because he/she has chosen a moniker that is a variation of your own.

Let me try to guess why........LOL.

Thanks for the heads up.

[MHGinTN]

Single mothers are the most heroic for they have opted to continue life support through nine months and beyond. When a newly conceived individual human life implants in a uterus, the owner of that uterus is giving life support to a unique and individual human life ... we've all been there nad some woman was heroic to grant us that continued life support. Try looking at these issues from a perspective of life support granted or withdrawn ... an individual human being in one of the typical stages of a human lifetime is already in existence following conception and implantation; the real question is whether the vital life support is to be withdrawn or not, and that is the same question our courts now deal with regarding crib-bound infants. I would like to see that same reasoning focused on the individual human being while still in the womb receiving life support, rather than making withdrawal of life support a choice so easily made prior to birth ... it isn't so casually allowed for a crib-bound infant, for the vital life support needed by a crib-bound infant.

[Z in Oregon]

What a stupid post! Most men I know are loving fathers and providers for their families. None hate women and none worship fetuses. Most do love little babies from the time they are conceived, however.

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.

Right on!!!!