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.
True. And I don't support C4M being actually instituted into law. I do support putting a gigantic spotlight on the issue of C4M as often as possible...because the debate about the issue is critical to shocking pro-abortion women out of their "I can have my cake and eat it too!" gyncentric, lesb-oedipal, male-bashing dreamland.
Second, it is awfully sexist of you to presume that the mother will be the primary caregiver of the baby post-birth.
True. Do you dispute that, OPH?
You should read a book called The Myth of Male Power.
In page after page, chapter after chapter, Farrell reveals mind-boggling facts that show that, contrary to the claims of the 'victim-feminists', women get preferential treatment in many areas of society, and that, as the title of the book indicates, men's power is a myth. Example: statistically, men make up far larger numbers of prison inmates. Is this because men are innately more criminal? Or is it because (1) women are considered less as suspects in crimes? or (2) women suspects do not usually receive the same degree of interrogation as male suspects? or (3) courts are far less likely to convict a defendant found guilty if that person's gender is female? or (4) a woman's prison sentence is likely to be significantly shorter than a male's for a comparable crime? or (5) when women have a male 'partner in crime', the male invariably takes the rap?
If men are the powerful sex, why do they make up 6 out of 7 suicides? Why do we accept that men, and men only, being sent in vast numbers to die in war? Why are 9 in 10 workplace deaths males? Why does breast cancer research receive over six times the funding that prostate cancer research does? Why do women live longer?
That sums up why abortions happen: to hurt men. Aborting babies is the feminist version of the Oedipal Complex, lesbian undertones implicit thereto.
Good call.
Then what?
Still kill?
First of all, I agree with your post in its entirety. No killing....ever.
About your comment above...My life was in danger while later in my pregnancy. I was in the hospital for 2 weeks, on a fetal monitor, an amnio and bio-physical ultrasound to determine my baby's maturity and health...all the while *my* vitals were being monitored quite invasively..when seizures became a great threat and organs were threatening to shut down, they performed an emergency c-section. Thankfully our baby was healthy and born alive 5-1/2 weeks early. I was in ICU for 3 days but my life was saved. I'd do it all over again for the life of my child.
With the current PP and liberal wheel mandate, I guess I could have ended my pregnancy by a late term abortion. How very sick, evil, vile and inhumane.
There is no mechanism in place to cause men to modify their sexual behaviour. Furthermore, biology, not society, determines the rules of procreation. Biology dictates that it take exactly one man and one woman to procreate.
This is a specious argument. It assumes women should be under no obligation to modify their sexual behavior.
At present, men have no obligation to modify their sexual behavior either. Until both parties to conception have equal incentive to modify their sexual/procreative behavior, we will continue to have social problems arising from unwanted/unintended conception. Abortion is only one manifestation of social problems arising from procreative issues. There are many others.
The focus should be two-fold: conception prevention and obligations toward the child, for both parents, after conception.
Here we go again. Women make "poor choices" but the man making the same choice (to have sex) is off the hook. Typical neo-Conservative version of "personal responsibility" a.k.a. passing the buck.
I'll help you out since you are scientifically challenged. Men and women equally "cause" pregnancy.
Well said.
First off, conception is the default consequence of sex. There is no contraception that is 100% effective. Even sterilization is not 100% effective.
Secondly, about 75% of women either do not morally/ ethically believe in abortion, or cannot go through with an abortion in the final analysis. We know this because of the documented ratio of births to abortions. Therefore, you are presenting inaccurate information that implies that MORE women have abortions than acutally do.
Your view of women's "options" is deliberately inaccurate. Just because abortion is available does not mean women are compelled to choose it. And they don't in large part. The vast majority of pregnancies are brought to term which means women don't abort as often as you would mislead us to believe. Your propaganda is showing.
In addtion, your choice of words belies your true agenda. Your phrase "no longer has to result in childbirth" is prescriptive. It advocates more abortions than actually occur presently.
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.