What about the man's choice?
I am unapologetic pro-choice.
When debating this, some people will make the argument that you are taking away the man's choice. This can be put in two ways:
-
The man is the father to the potential child that the fetus represents, and since he is against abortions, he gets to decide that the woman can't get one (usually made by anti-choice people).
- The man is the potential father, but doesn't want to be one, and therefore the woman should get an abortion (usually made by men, often from the Men's Right movement).
I am not very sympathetic to these arguments, since I have a very simple stance
Your right to choice ends when your contribution to the process ends
This is why the woman get to have a choice for longer than the man – the man have the choice up to the actual point where the woman get pregnant, but then has to accept that the woman get to make the decisions, as she is the one who are still involved in the process, and has to suffer the consequences of the choice.
Labels: abortion, progressive issues
posted by Kristjan Wager at 8:52 AM
View blog reactions
8 Comments:
Amen! That's a good way of laying it out that hadn't occurred to me before.
---"The man is the potential father, but doesn't want to be one, and therefore the woman should get an abortion (usually made by men, often from the Men's Right movement)."
This is an oversimplification of the argument.
The actual argument is that the father should not be forced to be financially responsible for the mother's choice to have the child. In other words he shouldn't be forced to pay child support for a child that he doesn't want but the mother does.
Since she does have choice, she should also have responsibility for that choice. With choice comes responsibility.
---"Your right to choice ends when your contribution to the process ends."
In the case of paying child support that's 18 years after birth.
"Since she does have choice, she should also have responsibility for that choice. With choice comes responsibility."
The guy has a choice as well. He just have to take it at an earlier stage than the woman.
"---"Your right to choice ends when your contribution to the process ends."
In the case of paying child support that's 18 years after birth."
No, the child support is the not a contribution to the process. It's the fathers responsibility to the result of the process, i.e. the child.
The guy has a choice as well. He just have to take it at an earlier stage than the woman.
By that earlier stage I take it you mean sex. Actually they both (male and female) have to have made that choice for an egg to be fertilized.
However it takes more than a fertilized egg to make a baby. The woman has to choose to carry the fetus to term and allow it to gestate in order for a baby to result. Without a woman's independent choice to carry a fetus to term, there still is no child. So there are two choice involved, first the decision to have sex which is a mutual decision, then the choice whether to carry the fetus to term which is solely the woman's choice.
So you simply talk about what your hypocritical stance is but refuse to back it up.
You're assertion that BOTH partners MALE and FEMALE had the choice of abstaining from sex and therefore preventing the pregnancy is not relevent.
When discussing Abortion or abandonment laws we are looking at options that are available AFTER the pregnancy has already occurred.
Ultimately, the practical intent and effect of Roe vs. Wade was to permit women to make the following choice: To engage in intimate sexual activity, while, at the same time, choosing not to be a parent, even in the event of a contraceptive failure. No matter what legal analysis is applied, that is the fundamental right created by "Roe." The Supreme Court specifically rejected the argument, as put forth by Wade, that women could make procreative choice by abstaining from sex. Clearly, the Court intended for a woman to have a private, intimate life, without sacrificing the right to make procreative choice. The same applies to abandoment laws that have been passed in most states that allow a woman to leave her child at the hospital after birth.
Most men with in the MRA movement are simply fighting to end the legalized discrimination currently enforced. It is no less wrong to discriminate against someone based on their race (such as segregation) then it is to do so on the basis of sex.
All abortion and abandonment laws on the books must be reworked to apply to both sexes equally be or repealed. Although it is physically impossible for a man to abort a fetus or abandon a baby a legal document removing all parental rights and responsibilities would serve the same purpose.
Of course a lot of women don't want to hear this because it would endanger the special privilages they currently recieve at the expense of men; Which is no different then the abolition of segration which took away the special treatment that Caucasians recieved at the expense of African Americans.
If we as a nation can't bring ourselves to admit that discrimination is wrong then we should be honest about it and repeal the 14th amendment which guarantees ALL people regardless of gender, equal protection under the law.
Until we men can get pregnant, there is nothing about this that discriminates men. If men could get pregnant, and were denied the right to abortion (or forced to have abortion) then you might have a point, but you don't.
And I don't care what the US court argued - this is a bigger issue than the US, so basing your arguments on what the US court said, is of little relevance to me.
"Until we men can get pregnant, there is nothing about this that discriminates men."
Yes there is. Women are able to choose whether or not to take on huge legal and financial burden that a child brings AFTER an unwanted pregnancy has already occurred. Men are not. Allowing women to have legal rights that are denied to men is sexual discrimination by any standard.
I find it amusing that many progressives that advocate giving women a right to choose motherhood but advocate the denial of the same right to a man are many of the same people who agree that gay marrage should be recognized.
Ironically Christian conservatives who want to discriminate against people on the basis of sexual orientation use the same argument as women who want institutitionalized discrimination on the basis of sex. They (the conservatives) claim that outlawing gay marrage doesn't violate the rights of homosexual couples because gays have the same rights as straights do. Which is to say a gay man is entitled to marry the woman of his choice.
The both arguments are complete and utter nonsense of course because both divorce and abortion are simply a means to an end.
In the case of marrage the end is to have a legally binding union recognized by the state to the person you love and to be able to enjoy all of the rights and responsibilities that that union confers. In the case of abortion the end is being able to choose or reject parenthood AFTER an accidental pregnancy has already occured along with choosing or rejecting all of the rights and responsibilities that having a child confers.
And lastly although you may not care about the law in the United States, because you are not a United States resident. The law in ones country of residence does matter.
If men were able to walk away from the their responsibilities in the event of an unplanned pregnancy instead of being forced into fatherhood just as women can do now by having an abortion; other peoples' opionion on unplanned pregnancies and the remidies for them really wouldn't matter.
But the current laws are unjust and forces men into fatherhood while allowing mothers to choose motherhood therefore in the current situation might [what ever the law says]makes right [is the only thing that matters].
Contraceptive pills for men (soon available I hear) should take care of the issue of men having to become fathers against their will.
Both sexes will then have more choice over whether they want to become parents or not.
Post a Comment
<< Home