Pro-Choicer’s Support Choice for Women, but NOT for Men
This blog is concerning the following link from a CNN blog. http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/anderson.cooper.360/blog/
If you know me then you know I am staunchly against a woman’s right to murder her unborn child for the sake of convenience. I have, in previous blogs, demonstrated that no matter how you add all the drama around an abortion, in the end, it is all about convenience. The only exception to that is when a woman’s life is endangered.
Similarly I do not support a man being able to walk away from his responsibility to his child. This case that has started this debate and may change the existing law brings to light an issue I am surprised did not come about sooner. This dispute is very plainly stated a double standard of law that I am all too happy to comment on.
As law is interpreted now, how many choices is a man legally entitled to in cases of conception in a consensual relationship? I can think of only two, the act of sex itself and whether or not he practices birth control. After conception his legal rights do not exist, however the woman has at least three options. She can choose to abort the child, she can choose to place the child up for adoption, or she can choose to keep the child. All three of those options allow the woman to negate her responsibility as the mother and they're all legal options.
So, finally, a man has raised the question that if it is legal for a woman to avoid her responsibility for reasons of convenience then why shouldn’t a man be able to opt out without penalty as well? If women are not forced to become mothers than why are men forced to become fathers? I propose adding another approach to it and ask why a woman can legally abort her child even though the father is willing to accept responsibility for it? Why can’t the man force her to carry and deliver his child? How can it be legal for the woman to choose to abort the child, but if the man wants it aborted he cannot force her to have one?
The law is overwhelmingly slanted in favor of the woman and the father’s rights do not exist. It’s equivalent to a legal double standard and is decidedly discriminatory towards the man’s right to choose. Pro-Choicer’s would argue that the woman has the right to choose because it is her biology that is incubating the fetus and that is really their only plausible argument. However, I say that ideology is complete rubbish.
“She is the one who will have to, in the end, raise the child and be tied to it for life.” This does not tread water, because the same statement can be made by the father. Especially if he is required by law to provide support or if he is the one who would choose to take responsibility for the child.
This entire case is only about the father’s equal rights for choice. If the legal precedence is choice then that choice should be afforded to the man equally as much as the woman. After all, this child wasn’t only conceived by only the mother. His biology was necessary for this pregnancy. Pro-Choicer’s everywhere are very concerned about this case, especially in light of the South Dakota law banning abortions. South Dakota has changed the laws governing abortion in their state in defiance of Roe vs. Wade for one reason and one reason only. This defiance of the existing law is eventually going to force the U.S. Supreme court to review the existing law and rule on it again either upholding it as is, amending it or changing it completely. By the time it makes it to the highest court in the land it is likely that a couple of the justices will be retired or deceased and S.D. is banking on the hope that they will be replaced by more conservative justices. The successful litigation of both the existing law and this specific case would remove the wind from the Pro-Choice sail.
In the end, my moral judgment on this, because after all this is my blog and it is my duty to educate you people on the standard of morality, is as follows. Specifically related to this case, it doesn’t matter if the woman lied to him about her inability to become pregnant. It doesn’t matter if he explained to her that he wasn’t ready to become a father prior to the conception. Those equate to smoke and mirrors in the over all larger issue which is: if you are willing to engage in sex then you should be prepared to accept your responsibility. That goes for the man and the woman.
“Father’s rights” is a phrase that you’re going to hear more and more of and this legal double standard is completely unfair and inappropriate. Science has proven that life begins at conception and the ending of that innocent life is unquestionably murder no matter the reason. We don’t accept child abuse, child neglect, or child endangerment as a society. Why then is abortion acceptable when it is in fact the very definition of all three of those? Fear, irresponsibility, immaturity, timing, nor finances should ever be used as a motivation to allow the morally unconscionable act of killing a child
Tragically, the person who will suffer from this the most is little Elisabeth. She will grow up knowing she was conceived out of a relationship of lust and immorality and that she had a father who fought legally to abandon her. Though I agree with the man’s argument about the unfairness in the legal precedent, all of this pain and suffering could have been avoided if two people would have excercised a great deal of moral responsibility. A single act of moral irresponsibility has undesirably impacted three lives for life.
My final judgment is that the law should reflect fairly for both men and women the same rights. As hard as I try, the only way I can think to insure impartiality takes place is to make the very act of abortion illegal in all instances, except where the woman's life is in question. By outlawing the act you force both parties to face their responsibility by either owning up to it or by placing the child with someone who can and will care for it. In this way the woman and men could be afforded equal rights of acceptance or denial of the responsibility.
If you know me then you know I am staunchly against a woman’s right to murder her unborn child for the sake of convenience. I have, in previous blogs, demonstrated that no matter how you add all the drama around an abortion, in the end, it is all about convenience. The only exception to that is when a woman’s life is endangered.
Similarly I do not support a man being able to walk away from his responsibility to his child. This case that has started this debate and may change the existing law brings to light an issue I am surprised did not come about sooner. This dispute is very plainly stated a double standard of law that I am all too happy to comment on.
As law is interpreted now, how many choices is a man legally entitled to in cases of conception in a consensual relationship? I can think of only two, the act of sex itself and whether or not he practices birth control. After conception his legal rights do not exist, however the woman has at least three options. She can choose to abort the child, she can choose to place the child up for adoption, or she can choose to keep the child. All three of those options allow the woman to negate her responsibility as the mother and they're all legal options.
So, finally, a man has raised the question that if it is legal for a woman to avoid her responsibility for reasons of convenience then why shouldn’t a man be able to opt out without penalty as well? If women are not forced to become mothers than why are men forced to become fathers? I propose adding another approach to it and ask why a woman can legally abort her child even though the father is willing to accept responsibility for it? Why can’t the man force her to carry and deliver his child? How can it be legal for the woman to choose to abort the child, but if the man wants it aborted he cannot force her to have one?
The law is overwhelmingly slanted in favor of the woman and the father’s rights do not exist. It’s equivalent to a legal double standard and is decidedly discriminatory towards the man’s right to choose. Pro-Choicer’s would argue that the woman has the right to choose because it is her biology that is incubating the fetus and that is really their only plausible argument. However, I say that ideology is complete rubbish.
“She is the one who will have to, in the end, raise the child and be tied to it for life.” This does not tread water, because the same statement can be made by the father. Especially if he is required by law to provide support or if he is the one who would choose to take responsibility for the child.
This entire case is only about the father’s equal rights for choice. If the legal precedence is choice then that choice should be afforded to the man equally as much as the woman. After all, this child wasn’t only conceived by only the mother. His biology was necessary for this pregnancy. Pro-Choicer’s everywhere are very concerned about this case, especially in light of the South Dakota law banning abortions. South Dakota has changed the laws governing abortion in their state in defiance of Roe vs. Wade for one reason and one reason only. This defiance of the existing law is eventually going to force the U.S. Supreme court to review the existing law and rule on it again either upholding it as is, amending it or changing it completely. By the time it makes it to the highest court in the land it is likely that a couple of the justices will be retired or deceased and S.D. is banking on the hope that they will be replaced by more conservative justices. The successful litigation of both the existing law and this specific case would remove the wind from the Pro-Choice sail.
In the end, my moral judgment on this, because after all this is my blog and it is my duty to educate you people on the standard of morality, is as follows. Specifically related to this case, it doesn’t matter if the woman lied to him about her inability to become pregnant. It doesn’t matter if he explained to her that he wasn’t ready to become a father prior to the conception. Those equate to smoke and mirrors in the over all larger issue which is: if you are willing to engage in sex then you should be prepared to accept your responsibility. That goes for the man and the woman.
“Father’s rights” is a phrase that you’re going to hear more and more of and this legal double standard is completely unfair and inappropriate. Science has proven that life begins at conception and the ending of that innocent life is unquestionably murder no matter the reason. We don’t accept child abuse, child neglect, or child endangerment as a society. Why then is abortion acceptable when it is in fact the very definition of all three of those? Fear, irresponsibility, immaturity, timing, nor finances should ever be used as a motivation to allow the morally unconscionable act of killing a child
Tragically, the person who will suffer from this the most is little Elisabeth. She will grow up knowing she was conceived out of a relationship of lust and immorality and that she had a father who fought legally to abandon her. Though I agree with the man’s argument about the unfairness in the legal precedent, all of this pain and suffering could have been avoided if two people would have excercised a great deal of moral responsibility. A single act of moral irresponsibility has undesirably impacted three lives for life.
My final judgment is that the law should reflect fairly for both men and women the same rights. As hard as I try, the only way I can think to insure impartiality takes place is to make the very act of abortion illegal in all instances, except where the woman's life is in question. By outlawing the act you force both parties to face their responsibility by either owning up to it or by placing the child with someone who can and will care for it. In this way the woman and men could be afforded equal rights of acceptance or denial of the responsibility.
posted by Troy at 1:50 PM
8 Comments:
So, which is it? The father gets equal rights no matter what or the father gets equal rights only if the woman is going to have an abortion?
For being a moral compass, your article is extremely unclear other than two points: "sex has consequences" and "abortion is bad".
Thanks
I agree that both adults must be prepared for the responsibilities and consequences of sex. Both the man and the woman must take responsibility.
However, the one issue I have is that you say you are completely opposed to abortion, that it is murder, no matter what, unless it endangers the mothers life. As a prolifer myself, isn't that still wavering on the issue?
Interesting from someone who supports capital punishment, which seems as equally "convenient" as abortion.
Capital punishment is a completely different issue. An unborn child has committed no crime against anyone. If you willfully and consciously murder someone then you forfeit your right to life. I personally that is even Biblical, but as I said that is a whole different thread for another time.
To the person who left the very inappropriate link to an explicit photo: I am not in the habit of censoring an individuals right to comment, but since this is MY blog I will not allow anyone to be blatantly disrespectful solely for the purpose of being an ass. So keep it respectful, intelligent, and appropriate.
Men have gotten the short end of the stick, if you will, in regards to their own children long enough. There are a lot of men willing to take care of and raise their kids even when the mother could care less and is less fit to care for them.
My personal thought is this: if you are absolutely positive you don't want kids or at least don't want them right now - be prepared. If you don't want to have to pay - don't play. No child should have to forfeit his/her life because you weren't ready.
I do think a man should have some say in whether his child lives or dies - the same as a woman. The tougher issue is how to deal with a baby that he wants and she doesn't. The truth of is is that if a woman is being forced to carry a child she doesn't want to carry - she will find a way to end the pregnancy, unless someone is monitoring 24/7. Until science comes up with a way to transfer a baby from an unwilling woman to another who is willing to carry it, men will never have even close to the same rights that women do. And if a man wants to relinqish his rights as a father to his child, he should be willing to sign a legally binding document to the effect that he gives up his rights forever - no "take-backs" when the child is older and has another life that the biological father is not a part of.
Daddy -
You're free to disagree with me and even to voice that in my blog. What you're not free to do is be blatantly disrespectful and insulting. So when you are...I'll just delete your comments. When you are not, then they can stay.
Call that right-wing or anything else you'd like, but I do not have to subject myself or my readers to disgusting images, their descriptions, or people whose comments are intended only to be insulting.
in reading your blog and your comments on how you dont like what people are saying or sending you and that you have the right to remove their comments/pics cuz it is YOUR BLOG then you also or anyone else who thinks like you doesnt have the right to tell others what is right or wrong...if you dont like what you see/hear/touch/feel/smell turn it off, dont listen, dont touch or plug your nose...thats your right! just because i believe in something doesnt mean you have to!
It's my blog and I am therefore responsible for the content of it. The whole idea of it is to be able to express MY views, beliefs, and morality. If you don't like what I am saying then you can disagree with it, but you must be respectful in your tone and not place vile and/or explicit language, images, or directly confrontational overtones here or it will be deleted.
I have the right to say anything that I would like to in MY blog, just as you would in YOUR blog. No one is forcing you to read my thoughts. Most importantly, I am open-minded and some of the discussion here is good and causes me to sometimes rethink my positions, just as I hope it might help others rething theirs.
Post a Comment
<< Home